{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_444","title":"Evaluation Report: Timeline","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":["2006-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Evaluation Report: Timeline"],"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/444"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nPage 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Dejarnette, Karen Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:50 PM Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nHELLER@fec.net Subject: timeline for evaluation reports As you know three of the draft evaluation reports were submitted yesterday to the court. Final drafts are to be submitted by November 17. I need your assistance to define a timeline for Board members to review the draft and provide feedback to evaluators so they can produce final drafts for submission to the court on Nov. 17. Based on feedback from board members attending last weeks board meeting they seem to want hard copies of lengthy reports. Therefore, I am printing copies of the reports this afternoon and tomorrow and will bring enough copies to Beverly tomorrow for Board members. I will also send copies of each report to Cabinet members via interdistrict mail as soon as they are printed. I need your assistance to complete the timeline below, see number 4: 1. Copies of draft reports delivered to evaluation team members, Cabinet and Board members as soon as possible, or by Friday. 2. Evaluation teams will meet at the IRC (with evaluators on conference call) to give feedback on October 25 (Read 180 and 21 Century) and October 30 (A+). 3. Cabinet members to provide feedback by or during October 30*^ Cabinet meeting. 4. Board members to provide feedback on ??? Questions-Will a special board meeting be called so board members can provide feedback before November O? Or, will board members provide feedback on November 9 (NOTE this would only leave 1 week for evaluators to edit and finalize the reports before they are due to the Court and I am not sure this is enough time.) Also,do you want the evaluators to be invited to present their reports to board members or answer questions? Thanks for assisting. 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 10/17/2006Notes of discussion about the second annual survey for the monitoring report October 2, 2006 Attending: Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Dr. Olivine Roberts, Mr. Joe Mittiga, Dr. Karen DeJamette, Ms. Maurecia Robinson, Dr. Ed Williams, and Mr. Jim Wohlleb Olivine summoned Jim and Karen to the administration building for a conference, and Karen invited Ed and Maurecia. PRE Department members thought it would be about the authority of PRE to determine what it assesses. Instead, Dr. Roberts led discussion about this years survey of teachers, parents, and students for the monitoring report. Mention of on-line surveys by Education for the Future (EFF), ready for administration now, was met by Mr. Hattabaughs declaration that any services by outside organizations require RFPs. Dr. DeJarnette noted that EFF is so busy it does not consider RFPs. In her opinion, LRSD is turning away from the best methods and services and instead using its own unvalidated measures. Given this, she prefers that Mr. Mittigas office rather than PRE conduct the survey for the monitoring report. All agreed on a more attractive survey instrument than last years and distribution by some means other than USPS. Showing high priority to the survey is a way to increase participation. For ES parents, teachers can ask them to answer questionnaires at the start of conferences with teachers. This might not work so well with parents of middle \u0026amp; high school students. There was agreement by both Dr. Roberts and Mr. Mittiga that last years questions were ambiguous. They also endorsed stakeholder participation in the design. Martha Hill was mentioned as a good participant. Afterwards, Mr. Wohlleb sent copies of the four EFF questionnaires to Mr. Mittiga, and he sent around a copy of the survey he designed with UALR but did not administer due to lack of funds. Comments sent with the EFF documents noted the intended application of them in PREs assessment of the teacher performance challenge as step 2 evidence.Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine ()(h'i.ne 'Rolnrts, TiCl). ..Associate Super mt eiutent, Tducat tonal Services fittie Rock ScHool 'Dblriti 300\n.s'. 'Puluslii St. Little Rock, S\\R 72206 Jfione: soi.447.ss^o fa.v: 501.4473321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 10/17/2006Page 1 of 2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Wohlleb, Jim Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM Roberts, Olivine: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis. Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly, Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE\nMr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine Oliyine 'Roberts, 'i'lL'D. SAssociale Superinleyhleiit, TdiK ulloiiul Services Lit lie 'R/)ck School 'Jlistrict _so()i S. 'PuUisHi St. Little Ri)ck, .AR 72200 Phone: 501.447.3320 fax: 501-447.3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 10/17/2006Page 1 of2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:18 PM Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga. Joseph Dejarnette. Karen\nRobinson. Maurecia\nWilliams. Ed\nParadis. Darral Subject: RE: climate survey The group agreed to use a locally developed instrument. 06VIne Hofierly, Id.'l). .'Associate Supennlendent, Educational Services Eittle 'Jiock .School 'District 3001 S. '.Pulaski St. Tittle 'Hack, yX'H 7.. J^TOiie: 51)1.44/ .-5 2(i(i '20 Tax: 501.44^.5521 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly, Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb. I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine Olh'ine 'Roherts, 'EcL'D. .Associate Superhdeiulen.t, 'Educationa.l Services Eittte 'Rock School 'DistricI 3001 S. 'Eutaski St. Eittte 'Rock, .A'R. 7'2206 'Phone: 501.447- '33'2o 'Fax: 501.447.3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true, Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock. AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 10/17/2006Page 1 of2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Dejarnette, Karen Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:43 PM Wohlleb, Jim\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Robinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Jim, I understood there were two purposes for the meeting. See the following email I received from Dr. Roberts on Friday September 29*^ at 9:29a.m: Lets meet on Monday following Cabinet to discuss the Monitoring Report and the Climate Survey. Please ask Jim to attend. Thank you. Olivine 'Roberts, id.J). .'Associate Superintendent, Lducalionai Services Little Rocfi SeboolDistrict 30111 S. Puiasbi SI. Little 'Rock. LVR 72206 'Rhone: so 1.447.3320 Lax: 501.447.'3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly, I'll correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine OLivine Roberts, Rd/D. .'Associate Superintendent, 'Rdiicational Services Little .Scfiooi''District 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 S. 'Pulaski St. PitlCe 'Rocd, .:AR ^2206 Th m ic\u0026gt;: 501.447.33^ \u0026lt; \u0026gt; fax: 501.447.3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb. Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) ji m. wohl leb@ Irsd. org 10/17/2006Page 1 of2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:07 PM Dejarnette, Karen\nWohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Robinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Karen, you are right. That is why it was a part of the discussion. Olivine 'Rolwrls, I'cl.l). .'Associate Superinienclint. 'Lducat ional Service.^ fill Ie Jioik Scliool'Distcicl sooz S. J'ul'aski SI. fit tie 'Rock. fXR ~2^(\u0026gt;6 'Rhone: sc)i.447..s:-i2() lux: s(.it.447cfS'2i From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:43 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Robinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Jim. I understood there were two purposes for the meeting. See the following email I received from Dr. Roberts on Friday September 29*^ at 9:29a.m: Let's meet on Monday following Cabinet to discuss the Monitoring Report and the Climate Survey. Please ask Jim to attend. Thank you. Olivine RoRerLs, fd.'D. .'Associate Superintendent, 'f ducal ional Services fit tie 'Rock School District sooi S. 'Rulaski St. fit lie 'Rock, .'A'R -2206 Rli 01 le: 501.44/.3420 J'ax: 501.447.34'21 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly, Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 To: Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine Olivhie 'IWberl.'!, Td. J). .'/Xssoeiale Superinlendeiil, Tducaliorml Services U.t(e 'Ruck Sebool 'DLslrix I 30(11 S. 'Ililasl^i SI. RillLe 'Rock, .'A'R 72206 'Rhone: 301.447.3320 fax: 501.447.3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE won't go forward with the climate\" survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If that's true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD won't follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jimw0hlleb@lrsd.9rg 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh Monday, October 16, 2006 7:11 PM Wohlleb, Jim Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral\nRoberts, Olivine\nMittiga, Joseph Subject: I stated that a RFP needed to be processed through LRSD Procurement, if we proceed with EFF. It was stated that EFF is to busy to be subjected to the RFP process. If a RFP for the survey instrument and services is not processed, your conclusion is correct. Sincerely, Hugh E. Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72210 (W) 501-447-1009 (C) 501-580-6815 (FAX) 501-447-1159 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From\nSent: To: Cc: Dejarnette, Karen Tuesday, October 17. 2006 2:35 PM Hattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph\nRoberts, Olivine Wohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia Subject: superintendent's report PRE will attend the meeting about the Superintendents monitoring report on Thursday afternoon. However I will not be bringing a detailed budget to the meeting. I cannot create such until I have the details of the project. At this time, I am unclear on the number of questionnaires, cover letters, and how they will be administered. Will all questionnaires be administered by hard copy? Or, will any surveys be mailed? If questionnaires will be administered to all parents (26,000), most students (3'^^ -12*^ would be about 20,000), all teachers (2000) and all community partners (200) then the printing part of this project will likely be large enough to go through the bidding process. We are talking about almost 50,000 questionnaires. And, I am assuming you will want cover letters to go with each questionnaires so that means about 100,000 total pages printed. Last year only 12,000 pages (questionnaires and letters) were printed. If you are planning to include open response items on each questionnaire then there will be need to be discussion about who will transcribe the written comments, likely a group of consultants will need to do this. Last year Metros print shop printed the questionnaires and many parents, staff and students complained that the forms were too hard to read, bubbles printed so lightly they could not see which bubble to fill in. The questionnaires may need to be in two colors (not just black and white) so they are more easily readable. For example, bubbles can be printed in light blue for more easy reading and scanning. Also, last year Metro printed many unusable/unscannable questionnaires, their registration on printing was off. These are just some of the points to be discussed before a budget can be detailed. As you know PRE worked with Dr. Bernhardt last year to draft questionnaires. However, Dr. Bernhardts group does not recommend administering any hard copy questionnaires. They do however have an online system that will provide questionnaires to respondents, quantify the responses as they are collected, and provide a report at any time during or after administration. The cost for online administration of parent, student and staff questionnaires to all LRSD is 45,000 total (about 900 per school site). 10/17/2006Page 1 of 123 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach\nSubject\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Maicolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemaii.com\u0026gt; Monday. October 16, 2006 10:17 PM image002.jpg\nimage004.png\nimage006.png\nimageOOS.png\nimageOIO.png\nimage012.png\nimage014.png\nimageOIO.png\nimageOlS.png\nimage020.png\nimage022.png\nimage024.png\nimage026.png\nimage028.png\nimageOSO.png\nimage032.png\nimage034.png\nimage036.png\nimage038.png\nimage040.png\nimage042.emz\nimage043.pcz\nimage045.wmz\nimage046.pcz\nimage047.wmz\nimage048.pcz\noiedata.mso RI 80_Draft_Final_Report_ Hi margie, Let me know if this works. Maurecia CREP Little Rock School District (.'enter for Research in Edneational Policy Read 180 Evaluation rhe IJnivcTsity of Memphis 525 Browning Hall Memphis, rennes.sce .58152 Foil f ret: l-8h6-670-6147 DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT 10/17/2006 Page 2 of 123 CREP CenttT for Rescartb in Educational Policy Hie University ofMempliis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, I cnnessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Little Rock School District Read 180 Evaluation DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT October 2006 Clif Mims, Ph. D. Deborah L. Lowther, Ph.D. J. Daniel Strahl, M.S. Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University 10/17/2006Page 3 of 123 READ 180 Little Rock School District (LRSD) Draft Executive Summary This report summarizes the evaluation study results of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) 2005-2006 READ 180 program. The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold: 1) to assess the effects of READ 180 on improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students, 2) to examine READ 180 implementation processes and practices, and 3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers, principals, and district and school personnel involved with READ 180 regarding strengths, weaknesses, and needed improvements of the program. Research Questions Primary Evaluation Question  Has the READ 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions  What are the quality and level of implementation of READ 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-2006?  What is the level of participation in READ 180 by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What are the perceptions of READ 180 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of students participating in READ 180 regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Evaluation Design and Measures Participants. LRSD identified 5 middle schools and 5 high schools to participate in the evaluation. Collectively, the evaluation participants included approximately 1000 Read 180 students and 23 Read 180 teachers. Design. The evaluation utilized a mixed-method design. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the participating schools by trained external researchers. The researchers observed classrooms, administered surveys for teachers, students and parents, conducted teacher and student focus groups, and interviewed school principals. Instrumentation. Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: direct classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, interviews, and assessment of student academic achievement. Following are descriptions of the assessment instruments.  Direct Classroom Observations. Three instruments were used to collect observation data\n1) School Observation Measure - used to record the use or nonuse of 24 target strategies\n2) READ 180 Quality Assessment - used to document READ 180 implementation practices\n3) READ 180 Survey of Computer Use - used to record 10/17/2006Page 4 of 123 student use of READ 180 software.  Surveys. Four surveys were administered to the following groups to collect perceptions of the READ 180 program: 1) Read 180 Teachers\n2) Non-RAD 180 Teachers\n3) READ 180 Students\nand 4) READ 180 Parents  Focus Groups. READ 180 teacher and student focus groups were conducted to solicit impressions about READ 180.  Principal Interview. The interview focused on principal impressions of Read 180 implementation, how it meets the learning needs of African-American students, and how READ 180 could be improved.  Student Achievement. ITBS Total Reading NCE from 2005 was used as a student matching variable and pretest covariate in all analyses. ITBS Vocabulary, Comprehension, Total Reading, and Revised Writing NCE scores from 2006 were employed as outcome variables, as were 2006 Literacy Scale Scores and Proficiency Levels from the Arkansas Benchmark examinations. Procedure and Data Sources All data were collected during the spring of 2006 by external researchers. Direct observations were conducted in 17 randomly selected READ 180 classrooms across all 10 schools participating in this evaluation study. These observations each covered a full (90- minute) class period. Seventeen teachers participated in focus groups at seven randomly selected schools, 38 students participated in focus groups at eight randomly selected schools, and all 10 principals were interviewed. Surveys were administered to all Read 180 students, teachers, and parents and yielded the following: students n = 579\nteachers n = 269\nparents n = 164. Results Direct Observation School Observation Measure. Observation results from 17 Read 180 classrooms, revealed that teachers most frequently used direct instruction, higher level questioning, and acted as a coach, or facilitator. Students were most frequently engaged in reading, writing, or student discussion. Students were observed using computers to complete Read 180 activities in 94.1% of the observations. Overall, the observers reported that the Read 180 classes were always highly focused on learning and that the students were highly engaged all or nearly all of the time (76.5% extensively\n23.5% frequently). Read 180 Quality Assessment. There was a low occurrence of teachers utilizing fluency, vocabulary, text comprehension, or writing strategies recommended by Read 180. However, the learning environments were observed to be conducive to cooperative interactions, effective classroom management, and active teacher monitoring, while slightly less were found to be conducive for Read 180 rotation. Only 62% substantially adhered to the recommended 90-minute cycle. Read 180 Survey of Computer Use. The observed classes were comprised of 212 African American and 19 non-African American students. Most classrooms had 8-10 up-to- date computers. Students used Read 180 software in 15 of the 17 classes and primarily worked on reading comprehension, vocabulary, and spelling activities. All African-American students demonstrated a high level of attention, interest and engagement when using the READ 180 software. The non-African American students, present in slightly over half of the classes, demonstrated slightly lower overall levels of attention, interest and engagement. 10/17/2006Page 5 of 123 Surveys READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire. Eighteen of the 23 READ 180 teachers (Caucasian = 61.1%\nAfrican-American = 33.3%) completed the questionnaire. Approximately 80% of the teachers indicated they adhered to the 90-minute Read 180 schedule, while all agreed that they routinely used Read 180 data to customize activities to meet student needs. However, almost half indicated that class by ethnicity reports were only used on a monthly basis. All teachers indicated that their computer skills were adequate and most felt they had received enough training to effectively utilize READ 180 resources. Less than half (44.4%) of the teachers indicated their school had formal guidelines for placing students in READ 180. All but one teacher indicated that the program should be continued. Non-Read 180 Teacher Questionnaire. A total of 269 non-Read 180, grades 6-9 teachers (Caucasian = 62.5%\nAfrican American = 28.3%) completed the survey. Most agreed that they understood the Read 180 program goals and how the classes are structured. However, 66.9% were not able to identify students who were taking or who had taken READ 180 classes. Of those who were able to identify Read 180 students, about 60% indicated that the students demonstrated improved vocabulary, literacy and comprehension skills. There was less agreement that Read 180 students showed more interest in learning, changed their classroom behavior or submitted work that reflected better writing. Only about half felt the program should be continued. Read 180 Student Questionnaire. A total of 579 READ 180 grade 6-9 students completed the Questionnaire (62.8% of 921 total Read 180 students). Of these, most (88.3%) were African American, nearly half were in the 9**^ grade and 75% were in their first year of READ 180. Nearly three-fourths of the students agreed that their reading skills and slightly more than one-half agreed that their writing skills had improved due to READ 180. Approximately 60% indicated that they learned a lot from computers\nteacher directed small groups, reading by themselves, and teacher instruction at the beginning of the class. Nearly a third reported they did not learn from reading with other students. Read 180 Parent Survey. Over three-fourths of 164 parents completing the survey had African-American children. Most parents were aware that their children were participating in the Read 180 program, with 44.9% indicating it had helped them a lot, or some (43.5%). Specifically parents indicated that the program improved their childrens reading grades (68.7%)\ninterest in learning (67.3%). interest in reading (58.5%), and time spent reading (51.0%). Almost all parents indicated that they felt Read 180 was an important part of their childrens education. Focus Groups Read 180 Teachers. A total of 17 Read 180 teachers from seven randomly selected schools participated in the focus groups. The teachers reported the following as overall strengths of READ 180: students like and are motivated by the program, it supports progress and success, student reading has increased, repetition provides practice and increases comprehension, and rotation of activities. Suggested improvements included\nreduce technical difficulties, increase class time, create more user-friendly reports, and reduce class size. All teachers wanted the READ 180 program to be continued. Read 180 Students. A total of 38 students from eight randomly selected schools participated in the focus groups. The students reported the following as overall strengths of READ 180: increased time spent reading and improving reading skills, using the computer 10/17/2006Page 6 of 123 (16%), and working in small groups. In contrast, the students reported that the following were areas in need of improvement: increase READ 180 time, reduce computer and CD problems, and improve book collections. All of the student wanted the program to be continued because it improved their reading and spelling skills, increased their desire to read, and was fun. Principal Interviews The ten principals from the schools participating in this READ 180 program evaluation were interviewed to examine their impressions of the program. The majority of these principals (60%) were administrators of schools that were using READ 180 for the second year. Nearly all of the principals indicated a positive overall impression of the READ 180 program while one reported that the benefits were dependent on the classroom teacher. Three of the principals indicated that their faculty liked READ 180 and two reported that they personally believe it is beneficial. One principal described that the program is wonderful because it restores confidence in the students. Student Achievement Sixth grade. ITBS 2006 subtests. MANCOVA indicated no statistically significant multivariate main effects for program or for school X program interaction. Benchmark Literacy. ANCOVA revealed no statistically significant main effects for program or program X school interaction. The percentages of students obtaining proficiency on the Benchmark Literacy exam were nearly equal between Read 180 and Control groups. Seventh grade. ITBS 2006 subtests. MANCOVA indicated a statistically significant multivariate main effect for program (p = .03), with no school X program interaction effect. Follow-up univariate tests showed that Read 180 students performed significantly lower than the Control groups for Reading Comprehension (p = .001) and Total Reading (p = .006). Benchmark Literacy. ANCOVA revealed no statistically significant main effects for program or program X school interaction. A lower percentage of Read 180 vs. Control students achieved proficiency at Southwest, Henderson, and Cloverdale, whereas a higher percentage achieved proficiency at Mabelvale. Eighth grade. ITBS 2006 subtests. MANCOVA indicated a statistically significant multivariate main effect for program (p = .04), with no school X program interaction effect. Follow-up univariate tests showed that Read 180 students performed significantly lower than the Control groups for Revised Writing (p = .001). Benchmark Literacy. ANCOVA revealed no statistically significant main effects for program, but a significant program X school interaction effect (p = .04) was observed. Follow-up tests revealed a statistically significant positive effect at Mabelvale (ES = +0.38) and a statistically significant negative effect at Henderson (ES = - 0.29). Nearly equal percentages of Read 180 vs. Control students achieved proficiency at Henderson, Cloverdale, and Mabelvale, but lower percentage at Southwest. Ninth grade. ITBS 2006 subtests. MANCOVA indicated a statistically significant multivariate main effect for program (p = .02), with no school X program interaction effect. Follow-up univariate tests showed that Read 180 students performed significantly lower than Control groups on Vocabulary (p = .01), Reading Comprehension (p = .004) and Total Reading (p=.002). Student Achievement Summary. ITBS 2006 subtests. The mean effect size estimates for all four ITBS subtests were statistically significantly less than zero, indicating overall negative effects of Read180. Benchmark Literacy. Overall, Read180 students were less likely to obtain proficiency on the Arkansas Benchmark Literacy examination. Conclusions 10/17/2006Page 7 of 123 Primary Evaluation Question  Has the READ 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? The preponderance of evidence suggests that the Read 180 program has not been effective in improving or remediating the academic achievement of African American students. Relative to Control students who were individually matched on the basis of prior achievement, sex, race, special education status, and free or reduced-price lunch status. Read 180 students consistently performed lower on both ITBS Reading subtests and the Benchmark Literacy exam. The only exception to the general pattern of Read180 students performing at equal or lower levels to Comparison students was that eighth grade Read180 students at Mabelvale performed significantly higher than their matched Control counterparts, with an effect size of +0.38. The design employed to assess Read 180 effects, while quite rigorous, cannot rule out the possibility of selection effects because students were not randomly assigned to treatment conditions. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions  What are the quality and level of implementation of READ 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-2006? Overall, the observers reported that the Read 180 classes were always highly focused on learning and that the students were highly engaged all or nearly all of the time. Although 60% of the teachers reported use of the READ 180 professional modules, teacher infrequent use of targeted literacy strategies indicates that additional teacher professional development focused on implementing these strategies is needed. Also needed is a modified class schedule and increased technical support to ensure students spend the recommended time completing Read 180 computer activities.  What is the level of participation in READ 180 by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? The 2005-2006 Read 180 program was implemented in 13 LRSD schools with student populations comprised of approximately 90% African American students. Of the 231 students observed during direct observation of Read 180 classes, all of the 212 African American students were rated as having a high level of attention, interest, and engagement, while the ratings of the 19 non-African American students were distributed across High, Moderate, and Low. Approximately 90% of the Read 180 teachers agreed that Read 180 was valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students in reading and literacy. In addition, many of the Read 180 students, agreed that the program had increased their reading (70%) and writing (56%) skills. Approximately 75% of the 164 parents who responded to the survey were parents of African American students in Read 180, and nearly all parents felt the program was an important part of their childs education. School principals were also in agreement that Read 180 met the needs of African American students by providing individualized literacy instruction that was highly motivating and used hands-on, practical approaches to assist students with low reading abilities to achieve greater learning.  What are the perceptions of READ 180 teachers regarding program 10/17/2006Page 8 of 123 implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? There was an general consensus among the Read 180 teachers that the program had a positive impact on students by improving students' literacy skills, overall quality of work, achievement and engagement in learning. Key strengths reported were that the program motivated students to learn and the repetition increased comprehension and reading skills. In contrast, the teachers reported that Read 180 needed to increase technical support for computer problems\nincrease and/or better distribute time\ncreate more user-friendly reports, decrease class size\nand establish formal guidelines for student placement into Read 180. Some teachers reported a need for more Read 180 professional development (PD), yet concern was raised as to the quality of the Read 180 PD modules. Teachers agreed that Read 180 was supported and liked by school principals, other teachers, parents, and the students and all but one teacher agreed that the READ 180 program should be continued.  What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Of the 269 non-READ 180 teachers that completed a survey, most were aware of Read 180 and understood the program goals and class rotation structure. However, two-thirds indicated that they were not able to identify students who were taking or who had taken READ 180 classes. Therefore, data reflecting non-Read 180 teacher perceptions of the program are limited to 81 teachers. Of these, about 60% indicated that Read 180 students demonstrated improved written, oral vocabulary, and literacy skills, increased reading comprehension, and were more willing to read in class. While, only about half of the non-Read 180 teachers thought that Read 180 students showed more interest in learning, changed their classroom behavior, or submitted work that reflected better writing. Similarly, only half of the r\\on-READ 180 teachers felt the program should be continued.  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of students participating in READ 180 regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Over 75% of the 164 parents responding to the survey represented African American students enrolled in Read 180 classes. Nearly all of the parents responded that they were aware of and supportive of their childs participation in the Read 180 program and believed that the program was an important part of their child or childrens education. Most of the parents thought Read 180 had helped or somewhat helped improve their childs reading grades\ninterest in learning and in reading. Slightly fewer parents agreed that the program increased the amount of time that their son or daughter spent reading. Overall, the parents agreed that it is beneficial fortheir children to participate in the Read 180 program because of its positive impact on their reading and overall learning. 10/17/2006Page 9 of 123 READ 180 Little Rock School District (LRSD) DRAFT FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the evaluation study results of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) 2005-2006 READ 180 program. The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold\n1) to assess the effects of READ 180 on improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students, 2) to examine READ 180 implementation processes and practices, and 3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers, principals. and parents involved with READ 180 regarding strengths, weaknesses, and needed improvements of the program. READ 180 \\sa reading intervention program that is aimed at assisting low performing adolescent readers. The program provides adaptive instructional software, high-interest literature, and direct instruction in reading, writing, and vocabulary skills. Each READ 180 class is designed for a 90 minute time block that is divided into three primary components. The class begins with 20-minutes of Whole Group Direct Instruction during which the teacher generally lectures and provides instructions for the remaining activities. Next is the 60-minute Small Group Rotations, in which small groups of students rotate through each of three 20- minute modules. The three modules include small group direct instruction from the teacher. modeled and independent reading and computer time using the READ 180 software. The class concludes with the final component, known as the Whole Group Wrap-up. During this final 10 minutes the teacher leads the students in the lessons conclusion. Currently, five middle schools and eight high schools in LRSD use this program. Students are targeted to participate in the program based on results from the Arkansas Benchmark Exam. EVALUATION QUESTIONS This evaluation was structured around one over-arching, primary question concerning 10/17/2006Page 10 of 123 the impact of READ 180 on student achievement, and five supplemental questions that addressed contextual factors related to implementation of the READ 180 program. Primary Evaluation Question 1. Has the READ 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of READ 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-2006? 2. What is the level of participation in READ 180 by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 3. What are the perceptions of READ f 80 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of students participating in READ 180 regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES The following section describes the participants, the student achievement sample. design, instrumentation and procedures utilized for this evaluation. Participants The Little Rock School District has 7 middle schools, 8 high schools and 1 alternative high school. Of these, 5 middle and 8 high schools use the READ 180 program. LRSD identified 5 middle schools and 5 high schools as participants in the 2005-2006 READ 180 evaluation. The ten schools implementing Read 180 collectively served grades 6*^ through 12**^. However the Read 180 program was only implemented in 6**^ through 9**^ grades. Collectively these schools had an enrollment of 9884 students and employed approximately 750 classroom teachers. There were approximately 1000 total Read 180 students in the 10/17/2006Page 11 of 123 program and 23 Read 180 teachers. All Read 180 schools schedule classes in blocks, so they all scheduled Read 180 classes in approximate 90-minute blocks. Student Achievement Sample According to district records, 921 students in ten schools participated in the Read 180 program. Participation by school ranged from a low of n = 18 at Parkview Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet School, to a high of n = 149 at Cloverdale Magnet Middle School. Read 180 students performed significantly and substantially lower than other students in the same schools on 2005 ITBS Reading normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores, with a mean NCE of 30.48 for program participants versus a mean NCE of 48.71 for non-participants (f = 23.32, df= 4918, p \u0026lt; .001). Given that NCE scores have a standard deviation of 21.06, participants scored 0.87 standard deviation units lower than all non-participants attending the same schools. District enrollment records with basic demographic information were available for 910 of the 921 participants, yielding a match rate of 98.8%. Compared to students attending the same schools. Read 180 participants were more likely to be male (53.6% vs. 47.6%), African American (91.1% vs. 70.3%), free lunch recipients (69.7% vs. 47.5%), and special education students (17.5% vs. 9.0%). Participants were about equally as likely as non-participants to have limited English proficiency (1.6% vs. 1.2%). Design The evaluation, which utilized a mixed-method design, was conducted during the 2005- 2006 academic year. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the participating schools by trained external researchers (e.g., university faculty and staff). The researchers observed classrooms, administered surveys for teachers, students and parents. conducted teacher and student focus groups, and interviewed school principals. Table 1 provides a description of the evaluation instruments and a summary of the participants and data sources, presented with associated research questions. 10/17/2006Page 12 of 123 Table 1. Summary of Instruments, Participants, and Data Sources by Evaluation Question Evaluation Questions Primary Question: Has the READ 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Participants Data Sources All READ 180 students ITBS and Benchmark Exam Supplemental Questions: What are the quality and level of  implementation of READ 180 at the . schools implementing it in 2005- , 06? READ 780 teachers READ 180 students Principals at READ 180 schools READ 780 Observations (17 90- minute observations): SOMIREAD 180 Quality Assessment/RHAD 780 SOU School level READ 180 reports READ 780 Teacher Questionnaire READ 180 Student Questionnaire (all READ 180 students) READ 780 Teacher Focus Groups READ 180 Student Focus Groups (random sample) Principal Interviews What is the level of participation in READ 180 by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? All READ 180 schools School level READ 180 reports READ 180 Observations (17 90- minute observations): SOM/READ 780 Quality Assessment/READ 780 SOU What are the perceptions of READ 780 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? READ 180 teachers READ 780 Teacher Questionnaire READ 780 Teacher Focus Groups What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Non-READ 780 Teachers at schools using the program tion-READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire (random selection of teachers) What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of READ 180 students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents of READ 180 students READ 180 Parent Survey 10/17/2006Page 13 of 123 Instrumentation Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: assessment of student academic achievement, direct classroom observations, surveys/questionnaires, focus groups, and interviews. Following are descriptions of the evaluation instruments. Student Academic Achievement ITBS Total Reading NCE from 2005 was used as a student matching variable and pretest covariate in all analyses. ITBS Vocabulary, Comprehension, Total Reading, and Revised Writing NCE scores from 2006 were employed as outcome variables, as were 2006 Literacy Scale Scores and Proficiency Levels from the Arkansas Benchmark examinations. Observations Observation data were collected with three measures: Read 180 School Observation Measure, Read 180 Quality Assessment, and the Read 180 Survey of Computer Use. READ 180 School Observation Measure. The School Observation Measure (SOM) was developed to determine the extent to which different common and alternative teaching practices are used throughout an entire school (Ross, Smith, \u0026amp; Alberg, 1999). The target strategies include traditional practices (e.g., direct instruction and independent seatwork) and alternative, predominately student-centered methods associated with educational reforms (e.g., cooperative learning, project-based learning, inquiry, discussion, using technology as a learning tool). The strategies were identified through surveys and discussions involving policy makers, researchers, administrators, and teachers, as those most useful in providing indicators of schools instructional philosophies and implementations of commonly used reform designs (Ross, Smith, Alberg, \u0026amp; Lowther, 2001). Using the SOM, the observer examined classroom events and activities descriptively, not judgmentally. Notes were taken relative to the use or nonuse of 24 target strategies. The observer completed a SOM every 10 minutes throughout the class time. At the conclusion of the 90-minute visit, the observer summarized the frequency with which each of the strategies was observed across all 9 of the completed SOMs on a data summary form. The frequency is 10/17/2006Page 14 of 123 recorded via a 5-point rubric that ranges from (0) Not Observed to (4) Extensively. To ensure the reliability of data, observers receive a manual providing definitions of terms, examples and explanations of the target strategies, and a description of procedures for completing the instrument. After receiving the manual and instruction in a group session, each observer participates in sufficient practice exercises to ensure that his/her data are comparable with those of experienced observers. In a 2004 reliability study reported by Sterbinsky, Ross \u0026amp; Burke, pairs of trained observers were within one category for 96% of the whole-school observations and for 91% of the targeted observations. READ 180 Quality Assessment. The READ 180 Quality Assessment (QA) was designed to document the processes and practices used to implement READ 180 in classrooms during the approximately ninety minute observation period. The instrument was used to record the meaningfulness of the following instructional components: fluency. vocabulary, text comprehension, writing and the learning environment. The data were recorded every 10 minutes for the duration of the observation. READ 180 Survey of Computer Use. The READ 180 Survey of Computer Use (SCU) was designed to document the processes and practices used to implement the READ 180 computer program in classrooms. The instrument was used to record the number of students in each READ 180 class by ethnicity (African-American and Non-African-American) and computer configuration data (e.g., number, type, and working condition of the computers). Data were also recorded regarding student use of READ 180 software including: subject area of the activities, teacher/student interactions during READ 180 use, and level of African- American and non-African-American student engagement/interest. The data were recorded during two 10 minute time slots of the Small Group Rotations component of the class. The SCU data was summarized on a data summary form at the end of the entire observation period. Surveys READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire. The READ 780 Teacher Questionnaire is a three- part instrument used to collect teachers perceptions of the READ 180 program. In the first 10/17/2006Page 15 of 123 section, teachers rate their level of agreement with 21 statements regarding six program-related areas: compliance with READ 180 guidelines, impact on instruction, impact on students, readiness to teach READ 180, overall support for READ 180 and technology support. Items are rated with a five-point Likert-type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Two primary questions are asked in the second section. The first asks teachers to rate the frequency of their use of different READ 180 reports as daily. weekly or monthly. Next, teachers indicate the number of minutes they spend on the following READ 180 activities: whole class direct instruction, small group direct instruction, READ 180 software, modeled/independent work and whole group wrap-up. The third section asks teachers to comment on the strengths and weakness of the program. The final question asks teachers about changes they would recommend for the READ 180 program. The Non-READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire. The Non-RAD 180 Teacher Questionnaire is a two-part instrument designed to ascertain perceptions of the READ 180 program held by teachers at schools that offer the program but are not involved in teaching READ 180 classes. In the first section, teachers rate their level of agreement with 10 statements regarding their own understanding of the program and their perceptions about READ 18Os influence on their students literacy, vocabulary, writing and behavior. In the second section, teachers are asked to comment on the strengths and weakness of the program. Teachers are also asked about changes they would recommend for the READ 180 program. The final question asks teachers if they think the program should be continued. The READ 180 Student Questionnaire. The READ 180 Student Questionnaire is a three-part instrument used to collect students perceptions of the READ 180 program. In the first section, students rate their level of agreement with 10 statements regarding their progress related to reading and writing skills, their interest in learning, and their value and enjoyment of READ 180. Items are rated with a five-point Likert-type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Two primary questions are asked in the second section. The first asks students to rate the frequency that they work on reading, writing and vocabulary activities in their READ 180 class. Students also rate how much they learn from the following 10/17/2006Page 16 of 123 class activities: teacher instruction at the beginning of class, computer activities, teacher directed small group work, reading by yourself and reading with another student. In the third section students are asked to comment on the strengths and weakness of the program. The final question asks students about changes they would recommend for the READ 180 program. The READ 180 Parent Survey. The READ 180 Parent Survey was designed to ascertain parent awareness and perceptions regarding their childs participation in the program. They were asked to complete one survey per household, but indicate the number and ethnicity of their school-aged child/children. If the parent or guardian was aware of the READ 180 program, they were asked five general questions regarding student attitudes about READ 180 and the value of the program. The final section of the survey consisted of three open-ended items to record parents perceptions of the best and worst aspects of their childs/childrens use of READ 180 and what changes they recommended. Focus Groups Teacher Focus Groups. The Teacher Focus Group Protocol solicited teachers impressions about the following components of the READ 180 program: whole-group direct instruction, computer activities, small-group direct instruction, and independent reading/reading with another student. Focus group participants were asked what was the best part of each of these components and how could each be improved. In closing, the teachers were asked what they believed to be the strongest and weakest aspects of the overall READ 180 program and whether they advised continuing the program. Student Focus Groups. The Student Focus Group Protocol solicited students impressions about the following components of the READ 180 program: whole-group direct instruction, computer activities, small-group direct instruction, and independent reading/reading with another student. Focus group participants were asked what was the best part of each of these components and how could each be improved. In closing, the students were asked what they believed to be the strongest and weakest aspects of the overall READ 180 program and whether they advised continuing the program. 10/17/2006Page 17 of 123 Interviews Principal Interviews. The principal interview was designed for principals of schools that were using READ 180. Interviewees were asked how many years the school been using READ 180. Interview questions examined each principals impressions about the following: how the program is implemented, degree to which the READ 180 program meets the learning needs of African-American students, overall impressions of the program and how his/her schools use of READ 180 could be improved. PROCEDURE The ten data collection measures are summarized in Table 2 by type of measure. instrument, number completed and the data collection procedure. 10/17/2006Page 18 of 123 Table 2. Data Collection Summary Timeline: 2005-2006 Number of Schools = 10 Read 180 schools selected to participate in the study Type of Measure Observations Instrument SOM Number Collected 17 QA 147 SCU 17 Surveys Teacher 18 Focus Groups Interviews Non-Read 180 Teacher Student Read 180 Parent Read 180 Teacher Read 180 Student Principal 269 579 164 7 groups, total number of teachers = 17 8 Focus groups with a total number of students = 38 10 REPORT OF THE FINDINGS Description  Prearranged 90 minute sessions in which teachers were observed following the Read 180 rotation protocol. Note forms were completed every 10 minutes of the lesson and summarized on a Data Summary Form.  Prearranged 90 minute sessions in which teachers were observed following the Read 180 rotation protocol. Instruments were completed every 10 minutes of the lesson  Prearranged 90 minute sessions in which teachers were observed following the Read 180 rotation protocol. Note forms completed every 10 minutes during the 60 minutes of student computer rotation only. The six notes forms from each visit were summarized on a data summary form.  Teacher surveys distributed to each of the 23 Read 180 teachers. Eighteen completed surveys were returned to the evaluators.  Non-Read 180 Teacher surveys distributed to all non-Read 180 teachers.  Distributed to all Read 180 students during class by teacher for completion. Completed surveys were forwarded to the evaluators.  Distributed by Read 180 teachers to all students for delivery home. All parents were requested to complete the survey. Completed surveys were returned to the school and forwarded to the evaluators  Researchers conducted teacher focus groups with all Read 180 teachers at 7 randomly selected schools. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 30-45 minutes  Researchers conducted student focus groups at 8 randomly selected schools. The focus groups at each school consisted of 4 to 5 students randomly selected from students with signed parent consent forms. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 30-45 minutes  Researchers individually interviewed each principal. Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes. 10/17/2006Page 19 of 123 The results of the study are presented below by measurement strategy: observations, surveys, focus groups, interviews, and student achievement. In the Discussion and Conclusions section, the findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. Observation Results All the observation results {READ 180 SOM, READ 180 Qualitative Assessment and READ 180 SCU) reflect data collected during observations conducted in 17 randomly selected READ 180 classrooms across all 10 schools participating in this evaluation study. READ 180 School Observation Measure. In observations of 17 Read 180 classrooms, observers found that the main instructional orientation was towards direct instruction, or lecture. Nearly two-thirds of the observations found this kind of teaching to be occurring (41.2% frequently: 23.5% extensively). The most common type of instructional strategy being used, among those considered. was the use of higher level questioning. This was used occasionally in 47.1% of the cases, and frequently in 23.5% of the cases. Another often-used strategy was for the teacher to act as a coach, or facilitator, which happened occasionally 41.2% of the time and frequently 11.8% of the time. One strategy that was used by some, and not by others, was to give higher-level instructional feedback to enhance learning. Over 40% (41.2%) were found to never use this strategy and 29.4% to rarely use it\nbut 29.5% were found to use it at least occasionally. The observers also recorded the frequency that students engaged in particular activities. Of those reported, the most frequent student activity was sustained reading, which was observed to happen frequently or extensively in 53% of the cases and occasionally in 41.2% of the cases. Two other popular strategies were to engage the students in sustained writing (17.7% frequently and 35.3% occasionally) or student discussion (23.5% frequently and 17.7% occasionally). Rarely was independent seatwork, such as self-paced worksheets or individual assignments, used (35.3% rarely, 41.2% never). In areas of technology use, computers were used for instructional delivery of the Read 10/17/2006Page 20 of 123 180 software in 94.1% of the observations. Nearly 30% (29.4%) were found to use technology in this way frequently or extensively, while 64.7% used the Read 180 software occasionally. The observers did not observe any of the classes using technology as a learning tool (e.g., use of word processing, spreadsheets, or conducting Internet searches). In areas of assessment, the observers rarely found examples of student selfassessment (5.9%) and no cases of performance assessment strategies. Overall, the observers reported that the Read 180 classes were always highly focused on learning and that the students were highly engaged all or nearly all of the time (76.5% extensively\n23.5% frequently). The results from these observations are reported in Table 3. 10/17/2006Page 21 of 123 Table 3. READ 180 School Observation Measure (SOM) Results N = 17 READ 180 Classrooms The extent to which each of the following was observed in the classroom. None JOE _______Percent Observed__________________ Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively Hi (2) Hi Mean SD Instructional Orientation Direct instruction (lecture) Team teaching Cooperative/collaborative learning Individual tutoring 0.0 82.4 100.0 76.5 17.7 5.9 0.0 17.7 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.2 5.9 0.0 5.9 23.5 5.9 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.5 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.8 Classroom Organization Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers (for individuals or groups) 100.0 100.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 0.0 0.0 70.6 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 Instructional Strategies Higher level instructional feedback (written or verbal) to enhance student learning Integration of subject areas Project-based learning Use of higher-level questioning strategies Teacher acting as a coach/facilitator Parent/community involvement in learning activities 41.2 29.4 11.8 17.7 0.0 1.1 1.1 94.1 94.1 11.8 17.7 100.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 29.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.1 41.2 0.0 0.0 5.9 23.5 11.8 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.4 0.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.0 Student Activities Independent seatwork (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments) Experiential, hands-on learning Systematic individual instruction Sustained writing/composition (self-selected or teachergenerated topics) Sustained reading Independent inquiry/research on the part of students Student discussion 41.2 94.1 100.0 35.3 5.9 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 Technology Use Computer for instructional delivery Technology as a learning tool or resource Assessment Performance assessment strategies Student self-assessment (portfolios, individual record books) Summary Items High academically focused class time High level of student attention, interest, engagement 29.4 5.9 88.2 29.4 17.7 0.0 5.9 29.4 35.3 41.2 0.0 17.7 17.7 41.2 5.9 23.5 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.5 0.2 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.2 5.9 100 0.0 0.0 64.7 0.0 23.5 0.0 5.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 100.0 94.1 0.0 0.0 Note. Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing data 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 100.0 76.5 4.0 3.8 0.0 0.4 10/17/2006Page 22 of 123 READ 180 Quality Assessment. The Quality Assessment instrument was used to record the occurrence of processes and practices used to implement Read 180. The observations were recorded every 10 minutes, typically resulting in nine observations in a 90-minute class period. The observations were made in five different categories: fluency, vocabulary, text comprehension, writing, and learning environment. Overall, as seen in Table 4, there was a low occurrence of teachers utilizing fluency. vocabulary, text comprehension, or writing strategies recommended by Read 180. Specifically, observers reported about 20% frequent or extensive evidence of student work on reading fluency (18.4% for modeling fluent oral reading\n19.1% for students reading orally). In vocabulary, observers reported frequent or extensive evidence of introducing or reviewing key vocabulary words only 13.6% of the time and explicit vocabulary instruction only 4.8% of the time. In text comprehension, there were only two strategies that were observed frequently or extensively in approximately 20% of the observations: higher order questioning (20.4%) and interactive discussion (18.4%). Techniques for writing were the least observed strategy when compared to techniques for fluency, vocabulary, or for text comprehension. On a positive note, the learning environments observed in the Read 180 classrooms were frequently to extensively observed to be conducive to cooperative interactions (98.6%), have students actively engaged (98.0%), have effective classroom management (93.2%), and to have teachers actively monitoring (98.6%). Slightly less classes were found to be set up in a manner conducive for Read 180 rotation (78.2%) and only 62% substantially adhered to the recommended 90-minute cycle. 10/17/2006Page 23 of 123 Table 4. READ 180 Quality Assessment Results N= 156 The extent to which each of the following was observed in the classroom. None ((0) Rarely or Frequently or Occasionally Extensively 112). (3,4) Mean Standard Deviation Fluency Models fluent oral reading Has students read/re-read orally 80.3 78.2 1.4 2.7 18.4 19.1 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 Vocabulary Introduces or reviews key vocabulary words Explicit vocabulary instruction 83.7 94.6 2.7 0.7 13.6 4.8 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.4 Text Comprehension Explicit comprehension strategy instruction Makes connection to prior knowledge Ask students for predictions Uses higher order questioning Guides visual imaging Guides interactive discussion 89.1 86.4 92.5 72.8 91.8 81.6 7.5 2.0 4.1 6.8 1.4 0.0 3.4 11.6 3.4 20.4 6.8 18.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.8 Writing Instructs letter formation, handw/riting Explains the writing process Conducts language mechanics lesson 100.0 90.5 91.8 0.0 3.4 4.1 0.0 6.1 4.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.4 Learning Environment Conducive to cooperative interactions Students are actively engaged Effective classroom management Teacher actively monitors The room is set up conducive to the Read 180 rotation The teacher substantially adheres to the 90 min. cycle Read 180 supporting material are available for student use 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.7 2.0 6.8 1.4 21.8 31.3 100.0 98.6 98.0 93.2 98.6 78.2 62.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.0 READ 180 Survey of Computer Use. A total of 17 6**^-9** grade READ 180 classes were observed. These classes were comprised of 212 African American students and 19 non-African American students. The majority (88.2%) of these classrooms had 8-10 computers and all the computers in the classes observed were up-to-date. Students were observed using the Read 180 software in 15 (88.2%) of the 17 classes. The students were observed rarely asking questions related to the use of READ 180 software or the computer equipment (Table 5). There was a high level of academic focus during the Small Group Rotations component of the READ 180 classes, when the students were working on the computer modules. The 10/17/2006Page 24 of 123 students were observed predominately spending computer time working on Read 180 reading comprehension (82.4% of time), vocabulary (76.5%) and spelling (70.6%) activities. They were not observed asking any content related questions while using the software. All African-American students demonstrated a high overall level of attention, interest and engagement when observed using the READ 180 computer program. The Non-African American students, present in slightly over half (52.9%) of the classes, demonstrated lower overall levels of attention, interest and engagement. While data were colleted about the types of instruction teachers provided specific to students use of READ 180 computer program, analysis indicates that in over half (52.9%) of the classes, students received no instructions from the teacher. When instruction was provided, the most frequently observed type was related to using the computer, which was observed rarely to occasionally in nearly 30 percent of the classes (29.4%). Other types of instruction seen were related to classroom rules (17.7%), Read 180 software (11.8%), and only 5.9% related to the Read 180 subject-area content. 10/17/2006Page 25 of 123 Table 5. READ 180 Survey of Computer Use Results N= 17 READ 780 Classrooms School Cloverdale Middle Cloverdale Middle Central High Central High Hall High Hall High Henderson Middle Henderson Middle J.A. Fair High Mabelvale Middle McClellan High McClellan High Parkview High Pulaski Middle Pulaski Middle Southwest Middle Southwest Middle TOTAL Grade Observed 6 7 9 9 9 9 7 8 9 8 9 9 9 6 6 6 8 NA Number of students by ethnicity African American 14 14 11 12 15 19 5 13 13 13 13 13 12 14 14 10 7 212 Non-African American Number of classes observed Computer Configuration and Use How many computers were available for Read 180? Only one 2-4 5-7 8-10 11 or more % Observed 0.0 0.0 11.8 88.2 0.0 Never How frequently did malfunctions occur on computers used for Read 180? 76.5 Computers used for Read 180 most frequently had: No Headphones 5.9 Mostly Non-functional Headphones and Microphones used for Read 180 were\n11.8 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 3 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 Most computers used for Read 180 were: Up to date Aging but adequate Outdated/Limited Capacity % Observed 100.0 0.0 0.0 Rarely 11.8 Occasionally Frequently Extensively 5.9 0.0 0.0 Headphones with no microphones 5.9 Headphones and Microphones 88.2 Displayed signs of disrepair 0.0 All in good working order 82.4 Read 180 Computer Activities In which subject areas did students complete Read 180 computer work? Reading comprehension Vocabulary Spelling % of time 82.4 76.5 70.6 10/17/2006Page 26 of 123 Table 5. Continued Items________________________________________________ What was the level of academically focused time while students were using the computer for Read 180? What was the overall level of African-American student attention, interest, and engagement while using the Read 180 computer program? Not Applicable 17.6* 11.8* Low 0.0 0.0 Moderate 5.9 0.0 High 76.5 88.2 What was the overall level of NON African-American students attention, interest, and engagement while using the Read 180 computer program? 52.9 11.8 5.9 29.4  Students did not use computers\n \"Class did not have any NON-African American students Types of Questions Students Asked While Using the computer Read 180 %Not Observed % Rarely % Occasionally % Frequently % Extensively Content area (e.g. how to solve a problem, the meaning of a word). Software use (e.g. how to log in\nhow to move to the next section\nhow to take a test) Computer use (e.g. how to get the mouse or keyboard to work properly) Non-Read 180 questions (e.g. Do I have to sit next to John? Can I go to the restroom?) The teacher provided the following types of instruction specifically for student use of Read 180 computer activities: Content area (e.g. reading, vocabulary) Software use (e.g. how to log in\nfind correct lesson) Computer use (e.g. locate software, use mouse) Classroom behavior njies No instructions were given 100.0 88.2 70.6 94.1 % Not Observed 94.1 88.2 70.6 82.4 52.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 29.4 5.9 % Rarely 0.0 11.8 23.5 11.8 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Occasionally 5.9 % Frequently % Extensively 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.3 Read 180 Time-on-Task. As seen in Table 6, the Read 180 teachers whose classes were observed spent close to the recommended amount of time for each of the five Read 180 activities. However, when examining a district provided sample of Read 180 computer program time-on-task reports from six of the 10 schools, the results revealed that an average Read 180 computer session lasted from 9.3 to 13.6 minutes per student (Table 7). Students completed an average of 0.2 to 2.0 sessions per week for up to 31 weeks. Thus, the mean overall time that students spent 10/17/2006Page 27 of 123 working on Read 180 computer activities during the 2005-2006 academic year ranged from 2.2 hours to 16.1 hours, with the average being 10.2 hours per student. Read 180 as the name implies, recommends that students spend 20 minutes per day throughout the academic year. When computing this number with the required 180 days of school attendance, the total time equals 60 hours. The LRSD Read 180 students worked less than 20% of the recommended time completing the instructional activities presented by Read 180 software. Table 6. Observed vs. Recommended time per Read 180 Activity Whole Class Instruction Computer Small Group Independent Reading Whole Total Group Wrap Time Average Time Observed* Read 180 Recommended Time 19.4 19.4 19.4 18.2 8.2 84.7 20 20 20 20 10 90 W = 17 observations at 10 Read 180 schools Table 7. Read 180 Computer Program Report of Student Time-on-Task N = 6of the 10 Read 180 schools participating in the study Schools HaifH^ McClellan HS Parkview HS Pulaski Heights MS Fair HS Southwest Alt. Center Average Weeks of Time 31.0 24.6 30.3 21.9 28.0 20.3 26.0 Mean Sessions Per Week 2.0 1.6 1.4 Mean Session Time 12.3 10.1 12.5 Mean Total Sessions 78.7 71.9 57.2 Mean Total Time (Min) 968 728 717 Mean Total Time (Hrs) 16.1 12.1 12.0 1.4 1.2 0.2 1.3 12.6 9.3 13.6 11.8 54.4 46.9 9.7 53.1 688 437 132 612 11.5 7.3 2.2 10.2 Survey Results READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire. The READ 780 Teacher Questionnaire was completed by 18 of the 23 READ 180 teachers, representing a 78.2% return rate. The respondents were primarily Caucasian (61.1%), and secondarily African-American (33.3%), with most being female (94.4%). Nearly two-fifths (38.9%) of the respondents were first year READ 180 teachers while 22.2% were 10/17/2006Page 28 of 123 teaching their second year with the program and 38.9% were in their third. The respondents represented ail READ 180 grade levels, with sixth and ninth grade teachers (33.3% each) more heavily represented than seventh and eight grade teachers (22.2% each). As shown in Table 8, the first 21 items assessing teachers perceptions of the READ 180 program were indicative of a relatively high level of teacher approval for the program (as measured by a combination of the categories Strongly Agree and Agree. Almost 90% (88.9%) of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the program had a positive impact on students, improving their overall quality of work, achievement and engagement in learning. All teachers were in agreement that they routinely customized READ 180 activities to meet the instructional needs of students, while over four fifths (83.3%) reported that they modified READ 180 on the basis of report feedback. Only whole class and individual reports were used on a daily basis, but the majority of teachers indicated they used these reports at least weekly. Almost half (44.4%) of respondents indicated they used the class by ethnicity and class by gender reports on a monthly basis and never on a daily basis. Over four-fifths (83.3%) of teachers indicated that they adhered to the full 90 minute implementation schedule. This time was fairly evenly split among the required learning activities. Most teachers (94.4%) used 20 minutes for small group discussion and 20 minutes for READ 180 software. Additionally, 83.4% of teachers spent between 15-20 minutes on whole class or group discussion. Whole group wrap up was the activity teachers reported spending the least amount of time on, although 27.8% of teachers did report spending 15-20 minutes on wrap up. All teachers indicated that their computer skills were adequate to effectively utilize READ 180 resources. While nearly four-fifths of teachers felt they had received enough training, 16.7% indicated that they could use more training in order to address students learning needs. Interestingly only 61.1% used the READ 180 professional modules to enhance their own effectiveness as READ 180 teachers. This may be related to the 66.7% agreement that the READ 180 resources enabled teachers to effectively implement the program according to 10/17/2006Page 29 of 123 recommended guidelines. In addition less than half the respondents strongly agreed that their school has a well-developed plan to guide the READ 180 program. Nearly two-fifths (38.9%) of respondents were neutral as to the schools well-developed plans and 16.7% disagreed that there were well-developed plans at all. In addition, less than half (44.4%) of the respondents indicated their school had formal guidelines in place for determining which students should participate in the READ 180 program. The same percentage (44.4%) actually disagreed or strongly disagreed that their school used the Scholastic Reading Inventory to place READ 180 students. In fact, two thirds (66.6%) reported that the schools administration did not routinely use READ 180 reports to monitor and adjust implementation practices. However, these shortcomings in formal guidelines do not indicate lack of support. In fact. 83.3% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the school administration fully supports READ 180, with no disagreements. Similarly, two-thirds (66.7%) reported that their colleagues were generally supportive of the READ 180 program, with almost the same number (61.1%) reporting support from parents. All but one teacher indicated that the program should be continued. When asked to describe Read 180 program strengths, teachers listed individualized and small group instruction, the teaching materials, and that the program was motivating, assisted students in achieving rapid progress, and that they received positive feedback about the program (Appendix B). The primary weaknesses noted were technology problems, not enough time, limited selection of books, inflexible structure, and lack of organization in the Read 180 materials. The teachers offered the following recommendations for improving the program: better student screening, correct technical problems, train new teachers, include higher-level questions on the handouts, and provide materials that are more engaging and books that are more interesting for the students. 10/17/2006Page 30 of 123 Table 8. READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire Results N= 18 Read 180 Teacher Questionnaire items % Strongly Agree and Agree (4,5) % Neutral (3) % Strongly Disagree and Disagree ____tL21____ Mean Standard Deviation mpact on Students 'he use of the Read 180 has increased the level of student attention, interest and engagement in learning. tead 180 has had a positive impact on student sarning and achievement. Overall, the Read 180 program seems valuable for Tiproving the achievement of African-American tudents in reading and literacy. 'he use of Read 180 has improved the quality of itudent work. mpact on Instruction frequently use the Read 180 professional levelopment modules to enhance my effectiveness as I Read 180 teacher. routinely customize Read 180 activities to meet the nstructional needs of students. routinely modify my Read 180 instructional practices lased on Read 180 report feedback. he design of the Read 180 resources enables me to jffectively implement the Read 180 program according 0 recommended guidelines. Compliance with READ 180 Guidelines adhere to the Read 180 recommended 90 minute Tiplementation schedule. Jy school has formal guidelines for placing students in he Read 180 program. 4y school has formal guidelines for determining when I student no longer needs the Read 180 program. school uses the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) 0 place students in the Read 180 program. teadiness to Teach READ 180 have received enough training to address student sarning needs through the use of Read 180 resources. computer skills are adequate to effectively utilize tead 180 resources. 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 61.1 100.0 83.3 66.7 83.3 44.4 22.2 38.9 77.8 100.0 11.1 5.6 5.6 0.0 22.2 0.0 11.1 16.7 5.6 22.2 27.8 16.7 5.6 0.0 0.0 5.6 5.6 5.6 16.7 0.0 5.6 16.7 5.6 33.3 50.0 44.4 16.7 0.0 4.2 0.6 4.3 4.2 4.2 3.7 4.6 4.1 3.8 4.2 3.1 2.6 2.9 3.9 4.7 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.5 0.8 1.4 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.5 10/17/2006Table 8. Continued iead 180 Teacher Questionnaire Items % Strongly Agree and Agree (4,5) % Neutral (3) % Strongly Disagree and Disagree ____(12)____ Mean Page 31 of Standard Deviation 123 echnology Support can readily obtain answers to questions about Read 80. ?1ost of our school computers that are used for Read 80 are kept in good working condition. }verall Support for READ 180 Ay school's administration fully supports the Read 180 irogram. 3ur school has a well developed plan that guides the tead 180 program. Ay school's administration routinely uses the Read 180 eports to monitor and adjust program implementation iractices. \"eachers in this school are generally supportive of the lead 180 program. arents and community members support our school's ise of Read 180. 83.3 83.3 83.3 44.4 27.8 66.7 61.1 16.7 16.7 11.1 38.9 33.3 33.3 38.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.7 4.1 0.7 4.4 0.7 3.5 2.9 3.9 3.8 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.7 How routinely do you use the following Read 180 performance report formats? Whole class Class by ethnicity Class by gender Individual student % Daily 16.7 0.0 0.0 11.1 % Weekly 61.1 11.1 5.6 72.2 % Monthly 22.2 44.4 44.4 16.7 Ini fol wt Sit Re Me Wt Teachers who feel the Read 180 program should be continued. Yes No % 88.9 5.6 Respondents teaching at each grade level 6*^ Grade 7*^ Grade 8*^ Grade 9*^ Grade % 33.3 22.2 22.2 33.3 Ethnicity Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic % 61.1 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gender Male Female % 0.0 94.4 low long have you taught a Read 180 class? I year i years ! years 38.9% 22.2% 38.9% Non-READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire. The Non-/?AD 180 Teacher Questionnaire is a two-part instrument designed to ascertain perceptions of the READ 180 program held by teachers at schools that offer the program but are not involved in teaching READ 180 classes. As seen in Table 9, of the 269 10/17/2006Page 32 of 123 respondents, 62.5% were Caucasian, 28.3% were African American, with less than 3% representing other races. Most respondents (44.4%) were 9*^ grade teachers, with the remaining grades being represented fairly evenly at around 20%. Nearly three-fourths (73.6%) were female. Reports from colleagues of READ 180 teachers revealed that most (86.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that they understood the Read 180 program goals, and nearly as many (79%) indicated they understood how READ 180 classes are structured. However, two-thirds (66.9%) of the teachers indicated that they were not able to identify students who were taking or who had taken READ 180 classes. The non-Read 180 teachers (30.1%) who were able to identify Read 180 students were generally positive with regard to the impact of READ 180 on students. Specifically, 63.0% indicated that Read 180 students demonstrated improved written and oral vocabulary skills. continuous improvement in literacy skills (61.7%), increased comprehension of assigned reading (60.5%), and were more willing to read in class (59.3%). However, there was less agreement among the non-Read 180 teachers that Read 180 students showed more interest in learning (55.6%), changed their classroom behavior (51.9%) or submitted work that reflected better writing (50.6%). Only about half (49.8%) of these r\\on-READ 180 teachers felt the program should be continued. Responses of teachers who could identify the Read 180 students responded to open- ended comments are located in Appendix C. When asked to describe strengths of Read 180, the most common responses were that the program improved student reading skills, grades. and tests. Also mentioned was the individualized approach to instruction and use of a variety of instructional delivery methods. The most frequent response to program weakness and areas of needed improvement was that access to the program was limited - that it is not reaching all the students with low reading ability. The teachers also indicated that there were not enough books or computers to adequately support implementation of Read 180. There were 99 of the 269 non-Read 780 teachers who supported continuation of the program because it improved student reading skills and performance and provided good teacher and 10/17/2006student feedback. Page 33 of 123 10/17/2006Page 34 of 123 Table 9. Non-/?AD 180 Teacher Questionnaire Results A/=269 ^on-Read 180 Teacher Questionnaire Items have an understanding of the Read 180 program goals. % Strongly Agree and Agree (4,5) 86.4 % % Strongly Disagree and Neutral Disagree 13L 7.4 1121 4.9 Mean 4.2 Standard Deviation 0.8 have an understanding of the Read 180 program classroom Tiplementation (how the classes are structured). 79.0 12.3 7.4 4.0 0.9 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes lemonstrate improved written and oral vocabulary skills. 63.0 30.9 3.7 3.8 0.9 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes lemonstrate continuous improvement in literacy skills. 61.7 30.9 4.9 3.8 0.9 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes ihow increased comprehension of assigned reading. 60.5 34.6 2.5 3.8 0.8 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes\nhow more willingness to read aloud in class. 59.3 30.9 6.2 3.7 0.9 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes :how increased attention and interest in learning. 55.6 35.8 6.2 3.7 0.9 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes lave improved classroom behavior. 51.9 37.0 8.6 3.6 0.9 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes iubmit work that reflects improved writing. 50.6 40.7 3.7 3.7 0.9 Teachers able to identify students who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes. Yes No % 30.1 66.9 Teachers who feel the Read 180 program should be continued. Yes No % 49.8 0.7 Respondents teaching at each grade level 6*^ Grade 7*** Grade % 19.3 18.6 8*^ Grade 9*^ Grade 16.4 44.6 Ethnicity Caucasian African- American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic % 62.5 28.3 0.7 0.4 1.9 Note: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. Gender Male Female % 24.5 73.6 10/17/2006Page 35 of 123 READ 180 Student Questionnaire. There was a total of 579 students involved in READ 180 classes that completed the READ 180 Student Questionnaire (Table 10). This number represents 62.8% of the total 921 Read 180 students. Of these, most (88.3%) were African American and nearly half (45.9%) were in the 9*^ grade, all other grades being represented fairly equally. This sample is representative of the whole population as 45.2% of READ 180 participants were in the 9*^ grade and all other grades are also represented fairly equally. Additionally, nearly half of the respondents were female (44.6%) and slightly over half (52.5%) were male. Three-fourths of the students were in their first year of READ 180, while most of the remaining students (23.7%) were in their second year of the program. READ 180 was implemented in 6**^ through 9^*^ grades. While the overall means of responses on this 5-point Likert-type survey were generally lower than scores reported by teachers, overall student response to the READ 180 program tended to be positive. Nearly three-fourths (74.1%) of the students agreed that their reading skills and slightly more than one-half (55.4%) agreed that their writing skills had improved due to the READ 180 program. Additionally, 48.4% of the students also felt as if their overall schoolwork had improved due to READ 180. Student attitudes were generally more positive than perceptions of increased ability. Approximately 70% (69.6%) of students agreed that their READ 180 classes were well- organized, while 58.9% looked forward to their READ 180 classes and 57.7% agreed that they were more interested in learning in general due to READ 180. Interestingly this is slightly higher than the same perception of increased interest by non-READ 180 teachers. Only about half (52.0%) of the students agreed that READ 180 was the best reading class that they had ever taken or that they learned more than in their other classes (47.2%). Even less, or nearly a third of students (31.8%) reported not wanting to repeat the program. READ 180 activities were broken down into reading, writing and vocabulary and students were asked to indicate how much they engaged in each of these (not at all, a little, or a lot) during their 90-minute Read 180 classes. Nearly 70% of the students indicated that they 10/17/2006Page 36 of 123 worked on reading (69.8%) and writing (69.6%) a lot, while one fourth (25.6%) reported that they only worked on these areas a little (reading = 25.6%\nwriting = 24.4%). The Read 180 students reported working on vocabulary to a lesser degree, as a lot was reported by 57.0% and a little by 32.5%. Students were asked to respond to closed- and open-ended items to indicate how much they learned from Read 180 activities (see Appendix D). The closed-ended items revealed that over 60% (63.7%) learned a lot from computers. Nearly as many indicated that they learned a lot from teacher directed small groups (59.4%), reading by themselves (58.7%), and teacher instruction at the beginning of the class (57.7%). Nearly a third (30.6%) reported they did not learn from reading with another student. The open-ended responses revealed spelling, pronunciation, reading and Reading Zone as most frequently cited activities that helped students to learn the most. Whereas, Reading was also cited along with Vocabulary Zones as activities that do not help students learn. When asked what would make the Read 180 better, most students wanted the program to last longer, more activities, videos, and centers, and more time on the computer. 10/17/2006Page 37 of 123 Table 10. READ 180 Student Questionnaire Results N = 57Q tead 180 Student Questionnaire Items______ /y reading skills have improved because of Read 180. ^y Read 180 class is well organized. lead 180 has made me want to get better grades. look forward to my Read 180 class. lead 180 has made me more interested in learning. 4y writing has improved because of Read 180. lead 180 is the best reading class I have ever taken, would like to be in the Read 180 class again next year, ity schoolwork is better because of what I have learned 1 Read 180. learn more in the Read 180 class than in my other lasses. % Strongly Agree and Agree (4,5) 74.1 69.6 62.5 58.9 57.7 55.4 52.0 50.4 48.4 47.2 In your Read 180 class, how often do you work on the following activities: Reading? Writing? Vocabulary? In your Read 180 class, how much do you learn from the following activities: Computer activities? Teacher directed small group work? Reading by yourself? Teacher instruction at the beginning of class? Reading with another student? % A lot (3) 69.8 69.6 57.0 % A lot (3) 63.7 59.4 58.7 57.7 28.3 Respondents at each grade level 6*'^ Grade 7** Grade 8*^ Grade 9* Grade % 20.0 19.5 14.5 45.9 % Neutral (3) 16.4 16.4 23.0 23.8 25.2 20.4 24.4 16.9 28.5 24.2 % A little (2) 25.6 24.4 32.5 % A little (2) 24.7 30.2 31.1 32.1 36.8 Ethnicity Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic % Strongly Disagree and Disagree (1,2) 9.2 13.1 13.5 16.8 16.2 23.5 23.0 31.8 22.1 Mean 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.4 St Dev 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.2 27.8 3.3 1.3 % Not at all (1) 2.8 3.5 7.1 % Not at all (1) 9.0 6.9 6.2 7.3 30.6 Mean 1.7 1.7 1.5 St Dev 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 % 2.9 88.3 2.8 0.2 4.3 Gender Male Female % 52.5 44.6 How long have you been in a Read 180 class? 1 year 2 years 3 years 74.3 23.7 0.7 READ 180 Parent Survey. The Read 180 Parent Survey was completed by 164 parents (Table 11). Over three- fourths of these parents had African-American children (75.6%), while 7.3% had Caucasian children, and the remainder represented Hispanic, Asian, or multi-ethnic backgrounds. Nearly 40% of the children (39.6%) whose parents completed this survey were in ninth grade while 26.8% were in sixth grade, 20.7% were in eighth grade, and 11% were in seventh grade. The vast majority of the parents (89.6%) were aware that their children were 10/17/2006Page 38 of 123 participating in the Read 180 program, with over half (53.7%) having learned this from their children. Other parents learned about the Read 180 program from teachers (28.6%) or from the schools (16.3%). Nearly all of the parents felt that the Read 180 program had improved their sons/daughters reading skills, with 44.9% indicating it had helped them a lot, and 43.5% indicating it has helped them some. None of the parents felt the program had not helped their children at all, but 8.8% were still not sure. To understand how these parents felt the Read 180 program helped their children, the parents were asked to what level they agreed with statements regarding the programs impact on their childrens reading ability. The most positive response was that the program improved their childrens achievement or reading grades (68.7% indicated yes\n23.1% indicated somewhat). Parents also felt that the Read 180 program improved their childrens interest in learning (67.3% indicated yes\n25.2% indicated somewhat) and their interest in reading (58.5% indicated yes\n26.5 indicated somewhat). Fifty-one percent of parents agreed that the program improved the time their children spent reading, while 34.7% somewhat felt that it did. Similar results are seen in the parents responses to the open-ended item asking them to describe the best thing about their son/daughter being in a Read 180 class (Appendix E). The most frequent comments were that the program improved their childs reading skills and interest in reading. The parents indicated that the worst aspects of the program were that it did not encourage students to read at home, computer time was too limited, the activities were too challenging, there were too many computer problems, and it did not seem that students were learning anything new and did not have Read 180 homework. To summarize their support for the program, 89.1% of parents indicated that they felt Read 180 was an important part of their childrens education while 4.8% somewhat felt this way and less than one percent (0.7%) did not. Table 11. READ 180 Parent Survey Results N= 164 Do you think Read 180 has increased your sons/daughters: Interest in reading. Yes 58.5 Somewhat 26.5 No 6.1 Not sure 6.1 Mean 1.6 Std. Dev. 0.9 10/17/2006Page 39 of 123 Interest in learning Achievement or grades in reading. Time spent reading. 67.3 68.7 51.7 25.2 23.1 34.7 1.4 2.0 8.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.4 1.4 1.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 Do you think Read 180 is an Important part of your son/daughters education? Yes 89.1 Somewhat 4.8 No 0.7 Not sure 3.4 Mean 1.2 Std. Dev. 0.6 To what degree has the Read 180 improved your son's/daughter's reading skills? A lot 44.9 Some 43.5 Not at all 0.0 Not Sure 8.8 Parents who are aware of the Read 180 program son/daughter Is taking. Yes No 89.6 10.4 How did you learn about the reading (Read 180) class? School Teacher My kids Other parents/friends % 16.3 28.6 53.7 0.0 Grade level(s) of your son/daughter. 6* Grade 7* Grade 8** Grade 9** Grade 26.8 11.0 20.7 39.6 Ethnicity Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic 7.3 75.6 2.4 0.6 3.7 % % % Focus Group Results Teacher Focus Groups. A total of 17 Read 180 teachers from seven randomly selected schools participated in the focus groups. The teachers were asked to respond to questions related to implementing the Read 180 curriculum. Full results of the Teacher Focus Group are in Appendix F. Whole group direct instruction. The teachers reported that the best part about the teacher whole-group instruction at the beginning of class was that it provided an opportunity too explain the lesson, address the students all at once, and set the focus and tone for the day (82% of responses). When asked to describe strategies for improving this component of the READ 180 classroom, approximately one-fourth (24%) did not feel any changes were needed. while the same percent of teachers responded the time format should be revised (24%), that smaller classes would be beneficial (24%). Computer module. When describing the strengths of the READ 180 computer activities the teachers explained that it provides new subject matter in a format (computer, video, etc.) that keeps students interested (48%) while also addressing students individual needs and 10/17/2006Page 40 of 123 abilities (24%). The teachers also reported that the computer activities provide repetition and fluency practice (16%) and gave students and teachers immediate feedback (8%). The teachers suggested that overcoming technical issues should be the primary means of improving this READ 180 module. The teachers reported technical failures sometimes resulting in the loss of students work (43%) and equipment issues with headphones, software CDs, etc. (21%) as the major areas for improvement. Small group direct Instruction module. The majority of the responses (55%) indicated that the teachers valued this one-on-one time with students allowing them to interact with and focus on individual students. The teachers explained that during this time individual needs can be met (23%) and that the small groups allowed ease in monitoring (9%). When asked to describe changes that should be recommended the teachers explained that more time (23%) and more space and smaller groups (23%) would be beneficial. The teachers also reported difficulties in being available to students in the other modules (15%) and classroom distractions (8%) as areas for improvement. Independent reading. The teachers reported that independent reading time provides students with an opportunity for quiet reading and practice (21%) and that this activity can be individualized for students reading levels (16%). The teachers also noted that the ability to retake quizzes and get immediate feedback (11%), listen to audio books (10%), allow students to choose their own books to read (11%) as strengths of the independent reading time. While describing strategies for improving this module the teachers reported that the reading collection needed to be updated and increased to include more variety (38%) and that strategies for keeping students engaged for the duration of this module were needed (25%). The teachers explained that an aide/assistant would be helpful (13%) as would smaller group sizes (13%) as this was a time during the READ 180vjhen trouble-makers act up (6%). Modeled reading. Nearly two-fourths (38%) of the teachers described that the best part of students reading in pairs was the opportunity for modeling. The teachers reported that students enjoy reading, sharing, and discussing books using this strategy (23%). However, 15% of the teachers explained that modeling is rarely or never done in their READ 180 10/17/2006Page 41 of 123 classrooms. One-third (33.3%) of the responses suggest that no changes are needed for this module. Other suggestions included more time for peer reading (17%), smaller class size (17%), and smallergroup size (17%). Overall. The teachers reported the following as overall strengths of the READ 180 program: students like and are motivated by the program (16%), the program supports progress and success (16%), students are better able to focus and stay on-task (11%), student reading has increased (11%), repetition provides practice and increases comprehension (11 %), and rotation of activities (11 %). In contrast, the teachers stated that the following were areas in need of improvement: too many technical difficulties (16%), the need for more and better distributed time (16%), more user-friendly reports, and the need for smaller groups of students (10%). All of the teacher responses suggest that the READ 180 program should be continued. They explain that student improvement and success are notable (23%), that students enjoy the program (17%), and an increase in student reading comprehension and skills (17%), and an increase students self-worth from their own accomplishments (10%). Student Focus Groups. A total of 38 students from eight randomly selected schools participated in the focus groups. Full results of the Student Focus Group are in Appendix G. Whole group direct instruction. The students reported that the best part about the teacher instruction at the beginning of class was that they are provided with an overview of what is to be expected (40% of responses). The students also liked that it provided an opportunity forthem to receive study questions, practice sheets and a review of previous work (13%). When asked to describe strategies for improving this component of the READ 180 classroom the majority of the student responses (78%) stated that nothing needed to be changed. The only suggestions given were allowing students more time to complete their work during this component before moving on to the small group rotations (11%) and providing students with a better explanation of expectations for the rest of class (11 %). Computer module. When describing the strengths of the READ 180 computer activities 10/17/2006Page 42 of 123 the students explained that they enjoyed the Spelling Zone (23%), learning new vocabulary in the Word Zone (20%), reading (20%) and videos (11%). Half of the student responses (50%) indicate that no changes to this module are needed. Suggestions that were made included increasing the time allowed for the computer module (17%) and overcoming computer malfunctions (17%). Small group direct instruction module. The student responses indicate that they valued the following as strengths of small group interactions with the teacher: discussion and helping each other (30%). writing (18%), one-on-one attention (12%), and reading and writing essays (12%). The majority of the student responses (67%) indicate that no changes to this module of the READ 180 program are needed. Those suggestions that were given are linked. It was suggested that more time is needed during this module (22%) and that group sizes should be smaller (11). It was explained that if five students working at varying skill/ability levels each need individualized help/instruction, then 20 minutes goes by too quickly for the teacher to assist each student and teach a lesson. Independent reading. The students reported that their favorite aspects of the independent reading time included reading (27%), exploring new books and progressing to more advanced books (27%) and working on vocabulary words and questions (12%). While describing strategies for improving this module the students reported that the reading collection needed to be increased and include more variety, better books, longer books, and more audio books (39%). The students also suggested that this module needed to be more fun (6%) and incorporate opportunities for discussion (6%). Modeled reading. While describing the strengths of reading in pairs the students reported that they enjoyed partner work by modeling reading (25%), that it was more interesting and fun (19%) and helped them focus on emphasis and comprehension (19%). It was also reported that this module was not used in some classes (19%). When asked to suggest improvements for this module 67% reported that no changes were needed and 33% reported a desire to read in pairs more often. Overall. The students reported the following as overall strengths of the READ 180 10/17/2006Page 43 of 123 program: increased time spent reading and improving reading skills (26%), the computer component (16%), working in small groups (14%), and the whole experience (14%). In contrast, the students reported that the following were areas in need of improvement: increase allotment of time (11%), too many computer difficulties (11%) and CD/disk problems (11%), as well as improvements to the book collections (11%). All of the student responses suggest that the READ 180 program should be continued. They reported that improves reading and increases the desire to read (17%), learn more (13%), improves spelling skills (7%) and it is fun (7%). It was also explained that the READ 180 program helped in other classes (7%) which all can result in students feeling more successful (4%). Interview Results Principal Interviews. The ten principals from the schools participating in this READ 180 program evaluation were interviewed to examine their impressions of the program. The majority of these principals (60%) were administrators of schools that were using READ 180 for the second year, 30% were at schools using it for the third year and one school was using the program for the fourth year. Full results of the Student Focus Group are in Appendix H. Overall Impressions. Nearly ail of the principals indicated a positive overall impression of the READ 180 program while one reported that the benefits were dependent on the classroom teacher. Three of the principals indicated that their faculty liked READ 180 and two reported that they personally believe it is beneficial. One principal described that the program is wonderful because it restores confidence in the students. Meeting needs. When asked to evaluate how READ 180 meets the learning needs of African-American students 50% of the responses described that it improves reading abilities and comprehension. One principal indicated that it helps individualize instruction while others mentioned that it provided a practical instructional model for teachers to use. One principal explained that READ 180 is helpful for African-American students with deficient reading, comprehension and analytical skills. While, another indicated that the quality of the teacher 10/17/2006Page 44 of 123 impacted student ability to achieve success. Implementation. The principals were asked to describe how their Read 180 programs were implemented with regard to student selection, role of the Read 180 course (replace or supplement Standard English course), student graduation from Read 180, and use of tracking elements. Responses revealed that students were primarily from 9^*^ grade (25%), but also included grades 6-8 students. Students were primarily selected on the basis of Benchmark scores (77%), while one indicated automatic enrollment for all resource students. one used transcript data, and one staff recommendations. The Read 180 program was equally used to replace or to supplement Standard English courses. Principals indicated that students typically (60%) graduate at the end of the school year. Reporting and tracking elements. Four of the ten principals reported that the tracking forms included in the READ 180 software were used for program assessment. Three interviewees indicated that READ 180 in their schools used the software for pre- and postassessment of student performance. One principal further described that students were assessed at the beginning of the year, quarterly and at the end of the year using these tools. Strengths. The principals interviewed were asked what they considered to be the best aspects or strengths of the READ 180 program. The ability to work in small groups and individualize instruction was reported in 21% of the responses while 16% of the responses focused on the technological aspects of the program. One principal explained that the faculty believes that the READ 180 program meets the students at their reading level and helps them progress from there. It was also reported that the program encourages the use of a variety of teaching strategies (11%), that students, as well as teachers, can track student progress (11%) and that READ 180 classes holds students attention (11%). One principal commented that the faculty loves the program because of the hands-on approach. Another stated that READ 180 improved students vocabulary, reading and comprehension abilities. Improvements. The following were suggested as areas of improvement in the READ 180 program by the interviewees\novercoming technical issues (30%), bad marketing/image of the READ 180 program (20%) and costs of the program (20%). One principal reported that it 10/17/2006Page 45 of 123 was also difficult to ensure that everyone is maintaining data regarding students progress within the READ 180 program. Another indicated that as a result of the programs success the faculty at his/her school would like to offer the program to more students. However, the programs expense made this an unlikely possibility. Student Achievement Analyses and Results Student Achievement Analyses For all tests of program effects, a matched-samples design was employed. Where possible, each Read 180 student was individually matched to another student within the same school, at the same grade level, with the same 2005 ITBS Reading NCE score and demographic characteristics. In 13 of the 15 school/grade level combinations in which the program was implemented, this process resulted in nearly perfect matching based on a comparison of Read 180 and non-Read 180 students 2005 ITBS Reading NCE scores. Independent samples t-tests were performed on 2005 ITBS Reading NCE scores within each grade and school, and in 12 of 15 cases the resulting p-value was at or above 0.95, where 1.00 indicates a perfect match (i.e., exactly the same pretest mean\nsee Table 12). The least efficient matching occurred at Central High and J.A. Fair High, where the p-values were 0.481 and 0.494, respectively. In these two instances, a preponderance of students with low pretest scores participated in the program, so it was not possible to match each program student to a control student on a one-to-one basis. Nevertheless, the results of the pretest comparisons indicate that there were no statistically significant differences between program and control students within any grade level or school. 10/17/2006Page 46 of 123 Table 12 Mean 2005 ITBS Reading NCE Scores (Pretest) by School, Grade, and Treatment Condition: Matched Samples School Central High Grade 9 Hall High Parkview High Treatment Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 J.A. Fair High Pulaski Heights Middle Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Southwest Middle McClellan High Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Henderson Middle Cloverdale Middle Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Mabelvale Middle Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Mean 29.89 28.94 37.88 37.84 41.67 41.67 28.78 27.68 29.36 28.76 24.32 24.24 28.00 28.27 24.27 24.41 27.15 27.18 28.90 28.57 40.11 40.00 29.36 29.14 26.10 26.27 25.91 26.11 36.92 36.92 38.61 38.74 36.68 36.63 SD 10.169 12.172 11.244 11.261 12.228 12.228 11.741 13.643 13.003 13.989 13.431 13.627 14.386 14.109 13.854 13.727 9.144 14.011 14.734 15.148 11.985 11.995 15.237 15.207 13.757 12.642 12.094 11.979 14.866 14.855 20.043 20.409 12.679 12.691 n 64 64 51 51 15 15 51 103 25 25 25 25 22 22 22 22 39 68 21 21 35 35 28 28 30 44 44 44 25 25 31 31 38 38 t .481 .018 .000 .494 .157 .021 -.063 -.033 -.009 .072 .040 .053 .056 -.080 .000 -.025 .018 .632 .990 1.00 .620 .876 .983 .950 .974 .993 .943 .968 .958 .956 .937 1.00 .980 .986 9 9 9 6 6 7 8 9 7 8 6 7 8 6 7 8 A total of 661 Read 180 (72% of participants) had matching 2005 ITBS, district enrollment, program enrollment records, and 2006 ITBS scores. The matched comparison sample was comprised of a total of 566 students. The overall number in the comparison sample was smaller due to the lack of sufficient one-to-one matches at Central and J.A. Fair. In addition to the near exact matches on pretest scores, program students and comparison 10/17/2006 Page 47 of 123 students were quite similar on other demographics: 52.6% vs. 51.8% male, 93.5% vs. 92.4% African American, 71.4% vs. 71.2% eligible for free lunch, and 19.1% vs. 17.5% special education students for Read 180 and the control group, respectively. For each grade 6-9, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed with program (Read 180, Control) and school serving as independent variables\n2006 ITBS Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Total Reading, and Revised Writing NCE scores as outcomes\nand 2005 ITBS Reading NCE, student sex, special education status, and free or reduced-price lunch status as covariates. Wilks lambda was used as the criterion of multivariate significance and alpha was set at .05. When MANCOVA indicated a significant multivariate effect, univariate follow-up tests were conducted using a sequential Bonferroni approach\ni.e., employing an alpha of .0125 to adjust for the fact that four outcome measures were being analyzed. Effect size estimates were computed for each outcome by subtracting the covariate-adjusted Control mean from the Read180 adjusted mean, and dividing the difference by 21.06 (the national norm standard deviation for NCE scores). Arkansas Benchmark Literacy scale scores were available for grades six through eight. For these grades, analyses of covariance were performed with program (Read 180, Control) and school serving as independent variables\nLiteracy scale scores as outcomes\nand 2005 ITBS Reading NCE, student sex, special education status, and free or reduced-price lunch status as covariates. Effect size estimates were computed by subtracting the covariate- adjusted Control mean from the Read180 adjusted mean, then dividing the difference by the total standard deviation for each respective grade level. The percentages of students obtaining proficiency were computed for each combination of grade level, school, and treatment. Student Achievement Results Sixth grade ITBS 2006 subtests. MANCOVA indicated no statistically significant multivariate main effects for program (X, = 0.98, = 1.11, p = .36) or for the school X program interaction effect (X. = 0.92, F.,2 493 = 1.31, p = .21). Directionally, results tended to favor Control students 10/17/2006Page 48 of 123 (see Table 13 and Figures 1-4), particularly at Cloverdale and Mabelvale. At Pulaski Heights and Southwest, effect size estimates across subtests ranged from -0.11 to +0.05, showing essentially no differences between ReadlSO and Control students. At Mabelvale, moderately large negative effects were observed on Vocabulary (-0.39), Reading Comprehension (-0.21), and Total Reading (-0.33\nsee Table 12). Mean NCE scores for all groups across all subtests were quite low, ranging from 17.96 on Total Reading for the Read 180 group at Southwest Middle, to a high of 32.28 on Vocabulary for the Control group at Mabelvale Middle. 10/17/2006Table 13 Page 49 of 123 Sixth Grade 2006 ITBS Means, Adjusted Means, and Effect Size Estimates^ by Treatment Condition and School Vocabulary: NCE Treatment Control School Pulaski Heights Middle Mean 27.65 Adjusted Mean 27.47 Effect Size N 23 1 Read180 Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle 20.60 27.50 32.28 27.63 19.80 24.46 24.56 22.38 27.82 29.81 28.31 22.31 24.80 21.51 0.04 0.00 -0.14 -0.39 25 28 25 24 25 28 25 Reading Comprehension: NCE Reading Total: NCE Revised Writing: NCE Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Effect size estimates are all based on the NCE standard deviation of 21.06. 29.43 26.00 28.61 31.04 27.58 22.96 24.61 27.00 26.74 21.52 26.43 30.64 25.79 17.96 22.79 24.24 31.87 25.20 28.96 29.44 28.58 22.04 23.61 30.92 29.29 28.17 28.73 27.53 28.99 26.65 24.86 23.01 26.55 23.84 26.69 27.12 27.03 21.60 23.13 20.11 32.07 26.19 28.90 26.03 30.55 27.19 23.62 26.16 23 25 28 25 -0.01 -0.07 -0.18 -0.21 0.02 -0.11 -0.17 -0.33 -0.07 0.05 -0.25 0.01 24 25 28 25 23 25 28 25 24 25 28 25 23 25 28 25 24 25 28 25 10/17/2006Page 50 of 123 Means by School and Treatment. Control Readl80 10/17/2006 Page 51 of 123 30- 29- in c S 28- s re E 27- ra s o 01 t# 26- E 25- 111 24- T T T Pulaski Heiglits Southwest Cloverdale Middle -------- Control -------- Readl80 23- Middle Middle Mabelvale Middle E n T Figure 2. Sixth Grade 2006 ITBS Reading Comprehension NCE Adjusted Means by School and Treatment. 10/17/2006 28- Coiitiol Page 52 of 123 (A 26- 01 5 ra c '5 n 24- Z o 01 I# E  22- lU 20- T T T T Pulaski Heiglits Southwest Mabelvale Middle Cloverdale Middle - Read180 Middle Middle Figure 3. Sixth Grade 2006 ITBS Total Reading NCE Adjusted Means by School and Treatment. 10/17/2006 32- lA n soot Sw c 528- k. n s D 01 Io 26- E \u0026lt;0 LU 24- --------Control  Readl80 22 Pulaski Heiglits Southwest Middle Middle Cloverdale Middle I Mabelvale Middle Page 53 of 123 T T T Figure 4. Sixth Grade 2006 ITBS Revised Writing NCE Adjusted Means by School and T reatment. Benchmark Literacy. ANCOVA revealed no statistically significant main effects for program (F.^ = 3.23, p = .07), and no program X school interaction effect F3193 = -11. P = .96). Directionally, results consistently favored the Control group, with effect size estimates ranging from -0.27 at Pulaski Heights to -0.12 at Cloverdale (see Table 14 and Figure 18). The percentages of students obtaining proficiency on the Benchmark Literacy exam were nearly equal between Readl80 and Control groups at Southwest (0.0% vs. 4.0%), Cloverdale (14.3% vs. 14.3%), and Mabelvale (16.0% vs. 20.8%), but only half the percentage of Read 180 students achieved proficiency relative to Control students at Pulaski Heights (12.0% vs. 24.0%\nsee Table 15). Table 14 10/17/2006 Page 54 of 123 2006 Benchmark Literacy Scale Score Means, Adjusted Means, and Effect Size Estimates by Grade Level, School, and Treatment Grade School Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean Effect Size N 6 Pulaski Heights Middle Control 534.04 539.07 25 7 8 Read180 487.24 501.06 -0.27 25 Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Southwest Middle Henderson Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Southwest Middle Henderson Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Control 434.60 451.97 25 Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 373.00 518.54 505.61 537.71 518.84 465.18 450.91 550.67 541.62 565.17 522.50 600.97 629.57 620.57 581.59 733.66 707.26 594.95 595.40 649.82 704.84 431.13 523.56 506.76 490.71 462.69 498.85 479.84 550.10 576.35 584.53 533.80 555.98 570.30 651.44 647.78 690.90 652.18 629.81 629.24 629.56 680.53 -0.15 -0.12 -0.20 -0.12 0.16 -0.31 0.09 -0.03 -0.29 0.00 0.38 25 28 28 24 25 22 22 21 21 30 44 31 30 21 22 35 35 44 43 38 37 Note. Total standard deviations by grade were 142.00,163.52, and 135.24 for grades six, seven, and eight, respectively. 10/17/2006Page 55 of 123 Control Readl80 Figure 18. Sixth Grade Mean Adjusted 2006 Arkansas Benchmark Literacy Scale Scores by School and Treatment. 10/17/2006 Page 56 of 123 Table 15 2006 Arkansas Benchmark Literacy Proficiency Categories by School and Treatment Condition, Sixth Grade School Treatment Control Read180 Pulaski Heights Middle Proficiency Category Not Proficient 19 22 Southwest Middle Proficiency Category Proficient Not Proficient % within treatment condition % within treatment condition 76.0% 88.0% 24.0% 12.0% 24 25 n n n 6 3 Proficient % within treatment condition 96.0% 100.0% n 1 0 Cloverdale Middle Proficiency Category Not Proficient Proficient Mabelvale Middle Proficiency Category Not Proficient Proficient % within treatment condition % within treatment condition % within treatment condition % within treatment condition % within treatment condition 4.0% 24 85.7% 14.3% 19 79.2% 20.8% .0% 24 85.7% 14.3% 21 84.0% 16.0% 10/17/2006 n n 4 4 n n 5 4Page 57 of 123 Seventh grade ITBS 2006 subtests. MANCOVA indicated a statistically significant multivariate main effect for program (A = 0.95, F^ 205 = 2.81, p = .03), with no school X program interaction effect (A, - 0.92, F^2,543  .37, p = .18). Follow-up univariate tests showed a significant program effect for Reading Comprehension {F.^ 208 = 10-59, p = .001) and Total Reading {F.^ 208  ^-^0, p = .006). In both cases, the overall adjusted mean for Read 180 students was significantly lower than that of the Control group = 30.96 vs. Mq = 36.55 for Reading Comprehension\nM.^qq = 28.84 vs. Mq = 33.64 for Total Reading). As shown in Figures 5-8 and on Table 16, Reading Comprehension and Total Reading scores consistently favored Control students at all schools, with effect size estimates ranging from -0.44 at Cloverdale Middle on Total Reading to -0.13 at Mabelvale Middle on Total Reading. Mean NCE scores across subtests for all groups, while somewhat higher than sixth grade, were still quite low. ranging from M = 23.5 on Vocabulary for the Southwest Middle Control students, to M = 43.43 on Reading Comprehension for the Mabelvale Control group (see Table 16). 10/17/2006Page 58 of 123 Table 16 Seventh Grade 2006 ITBS Means, Adjusted Means, and Effect Size Estimates^ by Treatment Condition and School Vocabulary: NCE Treatment Control School Mean Adjusted Mean ES N 1 Read 180 Southwest Middle Henderson Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Southwest Middle Henderson Middle Cloverdale Middle 23.50 25.82 22 31.14 34.27 39.87 26.43 23.90 25.41 31.67 36.82\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_91","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2006-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/91"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilf n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org September 29, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza , 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones ill OCT 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of September 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sinvly, ,. D. fs~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for September 2006. Respectfully Submitted, A_.,~)~ Scoff Smith, Bar # 9225 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on September 29, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 2 2006 OFFICEOF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS DESEGREGATION MONITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Based on-the information av~ilable at August 31 2006 the AD ted the f)tate Fpunda_tion Funding for Y 0q/_07 _su.b,=-=-...---== =--=--==== B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation . 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 1tas1tatIJ6e\ninfQmffitiodo/amal2te:af!'.u..\"s\"'t.$!1!l'.20:0$!tne':DEca1cu1ated mtw oeY01!sotiiCToFoeriooic!a'oJtmeots1 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 D \"\"'K' \"\" )1, 20Q6, aTstributicfris '6(State Foundation Funding for F,Y 06/07,were rRSD f'J[RS __ .. .CSS :t 33,LOO LRSD NLR.S _ - 3 ,477,2?q ECSSD ~ $56,463,0id D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 }?ased.on the information availa_ble, the 6DE calculated at August 31 2006 for r:y\nQ..6/07 . subjectto. iriodic a_gjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 u I It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 j3as,e_d. QQ_tt}~ \"oformati6n\"9vaila'ble :..t'Ke ADE'calculated,at'Aug'usf3J,:2006 for: E)1 Q6/07 subect to.Qeriodic agjust~ G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 DistribuJions for-_ FY Q6/07 at _August 31 , 2006 tqtal_ecl $1,269,267:- Allotment ~alculated for FY 06l,071.Yas 13~62,94:1: ,subject to\" periodic adjustmenfsJ H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Calculated for FY 05/06, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Distributions for FY 05/06 at July 31, 2006, were: LRSD - $4,482,380 NLRSD - $4,691,996 PCSSD - $11,619,283 The allotments calculated for FY 05/06 at June 30, 2006, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4,482,380 NLRSD - $4,691,996 PCSSD - $11 ,619,283 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing , December of each year. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 In November 2005, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $4,143,106.00 NLRSD - $834,966.13 PCSSD - $2,884,201.56 In November 2005, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $1,415,633.33 NLRSD - $284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out ir, three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD - $1,948,253.16 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 e'- FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) O. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. Q. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed , and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monito'ring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actuai as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assista .t - Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the AD E's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No C_hild Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1~30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions tu the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegre gation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p. m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in redt.. ing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation , and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presen~ed the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section . Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General , and Scott Smith , ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the A.DE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some deseg reg at ion monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 27 JV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 30 V. . COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) Duringthe months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at fr,6 February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized . On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT 'and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March.  On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. QnSe fhe PM 41 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by  School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule foi Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature compensatory education programs. (Continued) search for research evaluating D. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. - - - In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled . On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing , Assessment and Accountability Program (ACT MP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTMP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT MP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT MP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT MP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT MP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled . 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for botn Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professio\n.a: development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding , \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training . Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided train ing on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming , 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend . On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling . On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum . This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading , writing , and mathematics skills. The following train ing has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, train ing was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program , entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child 's learning .\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian , and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Patholog ists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facil ity in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facil ity in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001 , Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided train ing on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning , and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and read ing . On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001 . A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001 , ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, includ ing all the materials that have been given out at the vidt::o conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step tra ining. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading , writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching . This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11 , 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering , an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended . On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and train ing materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31 , 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting . On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum , assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kall ick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_76","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2006-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/76"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth .James, Commissioner .Educatilf n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org August 31 , 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregatio One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 18 Pio 5,zoaa Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jone!lfiflR ll/i1/1l fONNI Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of August 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.  General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for August 2006. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smith, Bar# 9,251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on August 31, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,m Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 \u0026lt;kA Scott Smith RECEIVED THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT a SEP O EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS W 5 2006 WESTERN DIVISION LITTl.lJt-~~~OL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS Tnm'f,fl1NITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2006 Based on the information available at July 31, 2006, the ADE calculated the State Foundation Funding for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Based on the information available at Jul~ 31 06/07, sub'ect to eriodic adjustments C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 On July 31, 2006, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 05/06 were as follows: LRSD-$67,135,185 NLRSD - $34,528,908 PCSSD - $57,834,709 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 06/07 at Jul 31 2006, subject to eriodic adjustments, were as follows. LRSD- $68,967,608 NLRSD - $35,477,276 PCSSD - $56,463,070 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at July 31, 2006 for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 ~ase on e I onnation availal51e, the AD calculated at July 31, 2006 for F't1 06/07 sub\"ect to riodic adustments It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Based on the infonnation available, tlie ADE calculated at July 31, 2006 for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Distributions for FY 05/06 at July 31, 2006, totaled $13,862,944. Allotment calculated for FY 06/07 was $13,862,944 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2006 Calculated for FY 05/06, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Distributions for FY 05/06 at July 31, 2006, were: LRSD - $4,482,380 NLRSD - $4,691,996 PCSSD - $11,619,283 The allotments calculated for FY 05/06 at June 30, 2006, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4,482,380 NLRSD - $4,691,996 PCSSD - $11,619,283 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinatorof School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2006 In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 In November 2005, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $4,143,106.00 NLRSD - $834,966.13 PCSSD - $2,884,201.56 In November 2005, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $1,415,633.33 NLRSD - $284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD - $1,948,253.16 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2 . Actual as of August 31, 2006 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2006 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE. purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger a.nd 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 -47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for$56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) s. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amounf due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. istribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200 000. This was the total amount tJue to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation tu file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's praa~\"'\"'\"S toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued} In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. WilliA Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool {PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201- A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearance Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature., the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine iftbey may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that lm!1 .dA Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 27 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the~ Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies.. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2006 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) 0. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued} During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of wr~ response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's ProjectManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend 1he meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 100 They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress. a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On August f4, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Eaucation reviewed and aJ) PMT and its executive summa~ for the month of Jul 41 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCNCOE peer team visits. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 43 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content \u0026amp;-ea. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 46 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NGA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teacbio~ strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas {ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTMP lntermecilate. (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writin_g. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 53 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued} 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued} On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 56 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 1 0 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD O!' September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam t\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_652","title":"Program evaluation emails","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":["2006-08/2006-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation emails"],"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/652"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nPage 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Monday, August 07, 2006 4:14 PM meeting toorrow at 1:30 Chris called this afternoon and said PRE staff members are not to attend the meeting scheduled for tomorrow. 8/8/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday. August 09, 2006 4:59 PM updateSep06draft.doc Margie, This is a new draft of the Quarterly that is supposed to go to Board members this evening. There are just a couple of minor additions to the text you saw in the draft sent to you yesterday. Karen RECEIVED AUG 1 0 2006 office OF desegregation monitoring 8/10/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Maicolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks, Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:08 AM RE: quarterly update Thanks. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:00 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G\nMargie Subject: Re: quarterly update karen - we've got three weeks - i don't see any problem, ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 8/10/2006 10:58:24 AM \u0026gt; Chris, I posted PRE's quarterly update, due Sep 1 to the Court, and the topic is on the agenda for tonight's agenda meeting of the Board. However, late yesterday Beverly notified me that the Board will not get copies of the report itself. Instead, she posted only the cover or title page for the Board members to see. A couple of issues concern me about this: 1. Will the Board members have adequate opportunity to read and discuss the update before they approve it, so we can deliver it to the Court by Sep 1 ? 2. What if anything should the PRE department do to get the update to the Board members and answer any questions prior to their vote and assure compliance with the Court's remedy? We're able to work on this today and during the remainder of August, since it's a high priority for the department. Thanks for your counsel. Karen 8/10/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, August 16, 2006 7:15 AM training with pricipals PRE will be working with principals today -4 sessions- at the Tech Center beginning at 8:30, 10:00,12:30, and 2:00. The focus is on ACSIP plan development. Dr. Roberts assigned development of ACSIPs to PRE as part of the deeply embedded assessment process. You are invited to attend. Also tomorrow Janine Riggs will meet with PRE and principals at Bale Elementary at 9am to discuss ayp processes. Again, you are welcome to join us. About Chris, we have not met with him yet. He says he is busy with the case related to Central. 8/16/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:16 PM Data for Evaluation Before I loose my thoughts after attending the meeting re AYP being conducted by Janine Riggs from ADE, I am thoroughly confused regarding the data that is being provided to the experts for program evaluations. Based upon the responses from Ed Williams and several of the principals at the meeting, it appears that the data being provided to the evaluators is not valid, or is fraught with errors, especially as it related to student identity and attendance. Would you kindly explain the process being used by PRE for submitting the electronic data to the experts for their evaluations. Please advise what was done last year, what was done this year and how you plan to obtain the data for future assessments and evaluations. Your attention to this request is appreciated. 8/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:13 PM FW: assessment process fyi From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:28 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject\nassessment process karen - please do not discuss issues which will likely be litigated in December, including our implementation of the compliance remedy, with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in this case outside my presence, please ask the rest of the pre staff to do the same, thank you. ch 8/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:43 PM FW: AYP Appeals, Password for Ed. Stats and data you can pull for ACSIP Related to the questions posed today about incorrect data. From: Williams, Ed Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:15 PM To: Zeigler, Gwendolyn\nAnderson, Barbara\nBarksdale, Mary\nBrooks, Jill\nBrooks, Sharon\nCarson, Cheryl\nCarter, Karen\nCarter, Lillie\nCox, Eleanor\nDunbar, Ethel\nHall, Donna\nHarris, Tyrone\nHobbs, Felicia\nJones, Beverly\nKeown, Ada\nKetcher, Theresa\nMangan, Anne\nMannon, Roberta\nMenking, Mary\nMitchell, Deborah\nMorgan, Scott\nMosley, Betty\nRamsey, Becky\nRay, Katina\nRichardson, Shoutell\nScull, Lillie\nSmith, Darian\nSwaty, Nancy\nTaylor, Leslie\nTucker, Janis\nWhitehorn, Daniel\nBlaylock, Ann\nBoykin, Patricia\nBurton, Marvin\nFields, Frederick\nPrice, Deborah\nSmith, David M.\nThrasher, Eunice\nTodd-Hamilton,Gloria\nAllen, Brenda\nBacon, John\nBrown, Linda\nLaurent, Ronald\nRousseau, Nancy Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine\nWohlleb, Jim\nMitchell, Sadie\nBabbs, Junious Subject: AYP Appeals, Password for Ed. Stats and data you can pull for ACSIP Per your request: A clarification Their is a tremendous amount of information / data that can be pulled down from the NORMES web page, via the orange Ed.Stats icon on that page. All you need a user name and password. You user name is your lea #, (e.g., 6001000). However, the password is a random bunch of numbers and letters. The password is the same that you were assigned to access EnterprizeGuide. So, many of you should know what your password is. If you do not have a password, then go to the NORMES site as you will need to fax a signed request to NORMES, http://normes.uark.edu/. This site is also where the IRI data is accessed. Okay, I need your help. ADE has advised us that if you feel that the AYP report on percent tested is wrong on the combined population then an appeal is in order. The reason that the AYP report has you testing less than 95% is that the mainframe computer shows students registered at your school that did not take the Benchmark or EOC test. This list of students is accessed through the orange Ed.Stats icon on the NORMES website, thus the importance of the password. I am asking that you print off this apscan nonmatch report and determine why these students were not tested. I will also be sending you an excel file of these students, but would appreciate your help. Pleas call me if you have any questions. Dr. Ed, 7-3386 8/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks, Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:15 AM RE: Assessment Process Joy, The ACSIP plans are public documents and you may have access to them. As for the other questions posed, I will send a response from the PRE Department after further discussion with the statisticians. I certainly have my opinion but would rather respond as a department since we are a team and work from group consensus. And yes, we have had extensive discussions with Vicky Bernhardt. I will send a more detailed and specific response to both of your questions as soon as the department can meet. This may take a few days since we are facilitating training sessions for principals related to Annual Yearly Progress and the NORMES website today and tomorrow. Karen From: Joy Springer [mailto:jspringer@gabrielmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:10 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: mqpowell@odmemail.com\nJohn W. Walker Subject: Assessment Process Good morning.. I wanted to let you know that I have been reflecting on the meeting on yesterday and the one at the Embassey Suites. In doing so, several questions comes to mind: 1) Do you and members of your staff believe that the district can deeply embed a comprehensive assessment process as a permanent part of the curriculum and instruction program through the use of ACSIP? 2) Have you had any discussions with Dr. Bernhardt regarding this approach? and if so, what comments has she made regarding the use of this approach/process? Would you kindly share copies of the ACSIP plans? or allow us to view them as they are being develop? Thank you for your cooperation. 8/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:10 AM Assessment Process Good morning.. I wanted to let you know that I have been reflecting on the meeting on yesterday and the one at the Embassey Suites. In doing so. several questions comes to mind: 1) Do you and members of your staff believe that the district can deeply embed a comprehensive assessment process as a permanent part of the curriculum and instruction program through the use of ACSIP? 2) Have you had any discussions with Dr. Bernhardt regarding this approach? and if so, what comments has she made regarding the use of this approach/process? Would you kindly share copies of the ACSIP plans? or allow us to view them as they are being develop? Thank you for your cooperation. 8/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;wes.whitley@arkansas.gov\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;wwhitley@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:18 AM ACSIP - LRSD Good morning... I am reflecting on our meetings the last few weeks. I have several questions for you: 1) Are you familiar with the LRSD's obligation to embed a comprehensive assessment process into its curriculum and instruction program? 2) Do you have an opinion regarding the district's use of ACSIP for this process? Finally, correct me if I am in error, but I understand that your role (ADE) regarding school improvement (ACSIP) is to actually develop the ACSIP for schools who are in Year 5 improvement. How do you specifically plan to do this with respect to schools in LR who are in year 5? Thank you for your attention to this inquiry. 8/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:35 PM FW: An additional database if you choose to use Update: Ed has sent additional data to evaluators. From: Williams, Ed Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:03 PM To: JNunnerY@odu.edu\n(Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu) Cc: Steve Ross (smross@memphis.edu)\nDejarnette, Karen\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: An additional database if you choose to use James and John\nThe attached database is what the State uses for the NCLB Annual Yearly Progress reports. There is much less data on this file than the one I sent Tuesday. However, there are some points you may want to consider. In past years the outside evaluators (i.e., you guys) have deferred to the Districts mainframe data for demographic data (e.g., free and reduced lunch) rather than use the test data information. There is a slight change to that. Schools, this past year, had the option to change demographic test data where it was found to be incorrect and not use the pre-printed labels provided via the District's mainframe. In looking at what is on the mainframe v. test booklet for race, it was decided to defer to the test booklet thus there were some changes. The attached data file is a melding of the mainframe and school level data and my advice would be to use the attached data file for demographic data as in represents the most current information we have on student demographics. Since the attached data file only has the level of performance, you will need to link it to the data file I sent on Tuesday if you want more types of data. Call if you need info on the various codes. Talk to you soon Dr. Ed 501-447-3386 8/17/2006Margie -Oed. O Page From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Monday, August 21, 2006 4:48 PM updateSep06draftfinal.doc quarterly draft revised The Quarterly was revised to reflect our receipt of needed electronic data and that we passed the data on to external evaluators. I have sent this amended document on to Chris Heller and Dr. Roberts. 8/22/20066 Margie Page 1 of 2 From: To: Sent: Subject\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:34 PM FW: Cabinet Recap From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:31 PM To: Griffin, Beverly Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap As you know we met yesterday and afterwards I sent Chris (and cc: Roberts and Hattabaugh) a copy of the report with an edit requested by Dr. Roberts. I let Chris know we were fuzzy on the other edits mentioned but not specifically discussed. I have not heard back from anyone. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:24 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap Karen\nAny word on the quarterly report? From\nDejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:28 PM To: Griffin, Beverly\nAdams, Wayne\nBabbs, Junious\nCarter, Karen\nGlasgow, Dennis\nHartz, David\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMilhollen, Mark\nMitchell, Sadie\nMittiga, Joseph\nRoberts, Olivine\nVann, Suellen\nWatson, Linda Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap Also, the Magnet Evaluation Report is scheduled for the September meeting. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:13 AM To: Adams, Wayne\nBabbs, Junious\nCarter, Karen\nDejarnette, Karen\nGlasgow, Dennis\nHartz, David\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMilhollen, Mark\nMitchell, Sadie\nMittiga, Joseph\nRoberts, Olivine\nVann, Suellen\nWatson, Linda Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: Cabinet Recap Since some of you missed the meeting yesterday morning, thought I would provide a brief recap and a list of Snapshot assignments. Snapshots: Dennis Glasgow - - Southwest Learning Academy Junious Babbs - - Summer School Summary Wayne Adams - - Completed Summer Projects 8/23/2006Page 2 of 2 Olivine Roberts - - ACT Results Updates \u0026amp; Other Assignments: Dejarnette / Roberts - - report to the board at September agenda meeting / Measuring the Vision Watson - - enrollment status report to the board at September agenda meeting / Final October enrollment report at October agenda meeting Hattabaugh / Mittiga / Roberts - - report to Board in July 2007 / 2\"** annual Superintendents Monitoring Report Roberts - - status report! Evaluation of magnet programs Hattabaugh / Watson - - parent notification / school improvement status letters Mittiga - - writing and revising of policies / coordinate with Linda Young Babbs - - have Coach McGee present for introduction at board meeting Glasgow - - have Barbara Williams present for introduction at board meeting Milhollen - - establish date for budget worksession in early September FYI Vann - - Board Candidate Forum / Wednesday, September 6, 6:30 p.m. LRSD board room. Next meeting: Monday, August 28, 9:00 a.m. 8/23/2006August 24, 2006 The Update, which is due September 1 to ODM and Joshua, is the last of eight required of the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department in the remedy issued by the US District Court (June 30, 2004). After this, the Courts remedy calls for reports of the last four evaluations and a final compliance hearing in the coming months. This update may be the last opportunity for the Department to convey its observations about progress toward the first task assigned to PRE by the court-to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction .... The purpose of this \"'deeply embedded\" process, which was adopted by the Board of Directors in January 2005, is to gauge the Districts progress in improving the academic achievement of African- American students. The Court anticipated a decade or more for LRSD to improve their academic achievement and clearly did not desire to supervise the District that long. At the next compliance hearing, the court explicitly wrote, LRSD \"must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. The four professionals of the rejuvenated PRE Department undertook this challenge with enthusiasm and vigor in the autumn of 2004, and they continue to do so. PRE has reported its progress to the Board of Directors in its seven previous updates, all of which the Board has approved before their submission to ODM and Joshua. This one, however, was withheld from the board so legal counsel could edit it, a puzzling action. As a result of the remedy issued by the US District Court (June 30, 2004), the Little Rock School District has advanced its ability to assess its programs and activities. Several critical obstacles have been identified, and the District has embarked on removing them. They are appropriate for consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. After hiring qualified people to assess and evaluate programs, LRSD must allow them unrestricted access to the data they need for assessments and evaluations. This the District did, putting highest priority on PREs requests for data from Information Services Department, which has quickly responded to requests, and moving toward making the data more directly accessible to PRE. However, PRE did not participate in designing a data warehouse, which it recommended to the District\nand the District rejected the best known software product for this purpose, which probably could have been operating by now. Instead, software is being adapted from a commercial retail application, and no date for its completion has been set. The importance of an efficiently operated, comprehensive data warehouse is evident when one remembers that the PRE Department has only four people assessing LRSD activities, compared to the dozens employed by the external experts who carried out the eight evaluations required by the Court.A greater impediment to assessment which has become evident during the past two years is incorrect data. How many errors (or the error rate) are unknown, since apparently no one has studied the matter. However, PRE and the external evaluators have found much wrong information. PRE has found no individual or department responsible for correct data. So an obvious recommendation is to implement a universal data management system which checks new data, edits it during its lifetime, oversees its use, and deletes wrong and outdated information. Until the District accomplishes that, decisions based on its data will be less uncertain than they should. These are prominent findings by PRE, which the District can now address. PRE remains enthusiastic about the prospect of providing correct and useful evidence on which LRSD can act to become the highest achieving urban school district. The District will be quite unusual if not unique in this respect, which is an accomplishment LRSD can proudly present to the US District Court as well to its patrons.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:12 PM Ed Services Program Assessments.pdf FW\nassessments of programs From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:12 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Brooks, Roy G\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia Subject: FW: assessments of programs I have given all of the reflection and input I feel necessary related to the Quarterly Update. I defer to counsel to amend any portion of the report necessary. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:56 AM To: 'Chris Heller'\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Wohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia Subject: assessments of programs Chris, Mr. Hattabaugh, and Dr. Roberts, I have called each of you this morning to request further conversation related to program assessments requested by Dr. Roberts and reported in the eighth quarterly update. After further reflection, I am very uncomfortable taking the names of the programs we have been asked to assess out of the quarterly update. The enclosed document was written by Dr. Roberts and given to me as well as other directors attending the February 2006 Ed Services Directors' Meeting. Dr. Roberts and I discussed progress on these assessments many times since the initial February meeting. Now, 6 months later, after we have disclosed in the eighth quarterly report the names of the programs we are assessing we are being counseled and directed to take the names out of the report. Further, we are told to understand that we have not ever received direction to assess any of these programs. Again, I am uncomfortable with amending the report in this way. I hope we can discuss this further. Karen 8/24/2006Program Curriculum Mapping SOAR Voyager CRISS Educational Services Program Assessment 2005-2006 Measures Survey, Lesson Plans, Anchor Assess, SOAR Survey Pre/Post Data Attitudinal Survey Survey Target Group Curriculum-Council Math Coaches Literacy Coaches Subgroups: Parents, Teachers, Students, Principals Students Teachers Participating Teachers When April 30 June 1 June 1 February 18Educational Services Program Assessment 2005-2006 New K-12 Literacy Adoption Survey Focus Group Teachers May 30 Transition to Advanced Mathematics (TAM) Coaches (Instructional, CCSTs, Math, Literacy, Curriculum) Inclusion Attendance Grades Attitudinal Survey ACTAAP Survey Focus Group Focus Group (Middle/High) Students Teachers Coaches Teachers Principals Teachers Principals May 30 May 30 May 30Educational Services Program Assessment 2005-2006 SAPI Module Evaluations Exit Conference Participants May 30 IMargie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Donna Creer\" \u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;: \u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:41 PM Magnet Team Meeting The following email is sent to you by Karen Dejarnette because Maurecia Robinsons email is currently not working: Hello Team, An evaluation team meeting with Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, the external evaluator of our Magnet Schools and Programs, will be held on August 30^ at 11a.m. in Room 10 at the IRC. I hope you will attend and provide feedback on the draft report. The draft report will be hand delivered for your review. Please call if you have questions, 447-3382. Thank you, Maurecia 8/24/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Donna Greer\" \u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\"Jeanne Dreyfus\" \u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla,edu\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Monday, August 28, 2006 3:05 PM Reminder - Magnet Team Meeting Jeanne Dreyfus, the external consultant and technical writer for the Magnet Evaluation, will hold a conference call to get feedback on the draft of the Magnet report. The meeting will be held on August 30*^ at 11a.m. in Room 10 at the IRC. I hope you will attend and provide feedback on the draft report. Please call if you have questions, 447-3382. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 501/447-7609 8/28/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, August 28, 2006 10:51 AM Joshua Concerns regarding LRSD program evaluation Good morning.... After attending the LRSD Board meeting on Thursday evening, I have some additional concerns that I would like to bring to the attention of the district's administration: The Board voted to continue an incentive program for teachers regarding improving student achievement and it was expanded to additional schools. It is my understanding that PRE has evaluated this program??? It does not seem equitable in that all schools need help in improving student achievement. Additional questions are\n1) why is the district spending thousands of dollars to an external evaluators to do what the court and Joshua envisioned PRE would do\n2) would this money be better spent purchasing the educational program that was recommended by Dr. Bernhardt for embedding program assessments rather than the program used by retail businesses being developed by the district that has no tentative date for completion\nand 3) why was there no attached quarterly report to the Board Agenda package? 3) 8/28/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Friday, September 01, 2006 4:32 PM LRSD Evaluation Report Status.doc FW: Request for extension Margie and Gene, Looks like Chris will be asking for another extension for three of the evaluation reports. Just wanted to let you know. See enclosed document received from Steve Ross today. Karen From: smross@memphis.edu [mailto:smross@memphis.edu] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 4:09 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\ndslawson@memphis.edu Subject: Request for extension Hi Karen, Based on the current status of the available data, we need to request extensions to be sure that we can satisfy timelines. Please see the attached explanation. Thanks, and rest up this weekend! Steven M. Ross. Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Direct Line: 901-678-3413 Center Toll Free: 866-670-6147 Fax: 901-678-4257 http://crep.memphis.edu 9/5/2006LRSD Evaluation Report Status September 1, 2006 21- Century Community Learning Centers and READ 180  CREP received confirmation on September 1,2006 from PRE that the benchmark data we received is complete.  As we established in previous extension requests, CREP needs 6-8 weeks to analyze the achievement data and write the final reports using both achievement and Step 2/Qualtitative data sources.  The projected timeline for sending the 2P CCLC and READ 180 reports to PRE is October 23'^. PRE will need to conduct reviews of the reports before they send them to the court, so they should back up the court due date extension request accordingly. o Important Note - The above timeline presumes that we will analyze the data that we have on hand as of September 1. With regard to the recently discovered unprocessed McClellan High School Algebra 1 tests, CREP will see if there are any systematic concerns that can be teased out with the data that we have. After we get the data for those missing students, the analysis can be rerun if desired by PRE. Pre-K  The district and CREP are still awaiting the QELI data from Riverside Publishing. We will need 6-8 weeks from the date we receive the data before sending the draft reports to PRE.Page 1 of 1 Margie From\nTo: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Monday, September 11, 2006 7:55 PM FW: foia fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:53 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: foia Chris, I reviewed the four foi requests received today from Mr. Walker. I believe I gave you all of the documents requested in these four foi requests to you in early July. I delivered them to your office and we discussed the items briefly. Afterwards, Khayaam called to discuss some of the items and then he sent me a letter (hard copy) indicating he had passed them on to Mr. Walker. The emails and other items were in response to the June 28* foi received from Mr. Walker. Let me know if I need to provide another copy or if you kept a copy of the file I delivered to your office. It was quite large. Karen 9/12/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday. September 11, 2006 1:24 PM request from Mr. Walker sept 8.pdf\nsecond request from Mr. Walker sept 8.pdf from PRE Update\n-We received two requests from Mr. Walker last week (enclosed), have sent on to Roberts, Hattabaugh, and Heller -Chris has not yet responded about Ross request for an extension. I sent him Ross' email on September 1 and reminded him twice since then. -Another draft of the Magnet Report is ready for you. Want to pick it up or should I drop it off to your office? 9/11/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks, Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:07 PM discussion about extensions for CREP I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1 request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21* Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23''* and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/14/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:52 PM FW: discussion about extensions for CREP fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:49 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: discussion about extensions for CREP Dr. Ross is not available for a call until Tuesday at 1p.m. And, your secretary says you are not in today. Dr. Ross has discussed the status of his evaluations with me and I have relayed the information to you by email and voice mail on September 1' and thereafter. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:24 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP when is the call w/ dr ross and what happened to the meeting jim was going to schedule for us to meet today to discuss this same topic? dr ross is our expert and we have an obligation to determine the status of his evaluation and report to the court, odm and Joshua, i don't see any reason for an open conference call w/ dr ross before we have done that, ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/14/2006 12:07 PM \u0026gt; I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1* request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21' Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23'^'' and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/15/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:27 PM RE: discussion about extensions for CREP I understand the District is not interested to request an extension and feels Ross should get it done\". This is the reason for setting up the call. From: Margie [mailto:mqpowell@odmemail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:32 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP Karen, Do you know what length of time the district is expecting to ask for in the request for an extension? Do you have a date and time yet for the conference call? Gene plans to attend for ODM. MP  Original Message  From: Dejarnette, Karen To: Chris Heller\nMarqie\nJoy Sprinqer\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nJames Catterall\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia\nBrooks, Roy G Sent: Thursday. September 14, 2006 12:07 PM Subject: discussion about extensions for CREP I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1 request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21* Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23\"* and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/15/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed' \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks, Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Thursday. September 14, 2006 12:26 PM RE: discussion about extensions for CREP I meant to include the date and time of the call: Tuesday September 19*^ at 1p.m. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:07 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\n'Margie'\n'Joy Springer'\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\n'James Catterall'\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: discussion about extensions for CREP I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1* request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21 Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23'' and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/15/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, September 15, 2006 5:07 PM meet and confer John and margie - i spoke today with Steve ross and aaron mcdonald regarding the three evaluations which they are in the process of preparing, i've got some information which, given judge wilson's expectation that we continue to meet and confer, i would like to discuss with you as i prepare a report for the court, i am also prepared to respond to the Joshua concerns raised at our last meeting, my schedule is fairly open for the next week or so. please let me know when you would like to meet, thanks, ch Jones - i could not find his email address. ps- please forward this to gene 9/21/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Monday, September 18, 2006 12:27 PM Re: meet and confer i'll do it. ch \u0026gt; \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;Johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; 9/18/2006 6:48 AM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Chris, Please put your concerns in writing so there will be no misunderstanding about the issues. I am aware that the district remains out of compliance. You and I are both aware that you have not met the previous commitment made in the presence of Gene Jones and Margie Powell regarding program evaluation. That was more than a month ago in the ODM office (conference room). Further, if we \"meet and confer\" I prefer that it be in the presence of Jones and Powell. -----Original Message------ From: Chris Hellei To: iohnwalkeratty@aol.com\nmqpowell@odmemail.com Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 5:07 PM Subject: meet and confer John and margie - i spoke today with Steve ross and aaron mcdonald regarding the three evaluations which they are in the process of preparing, i've got some information which, given judge wilson's expectation that we continue to meet and confer, i would like to discuss with you as i prepare a report for the court, i am also prepared to respond to the Joshua concerns raised at our last meeting, my schedule is fairly open for the next week or so. please let me know when you would like to meet, thanks, ch ps- please forward this to gene Jones - i could not find his email address. 9/26/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Ed Williams\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hugh Hattabaugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Jim Wohlleb\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Karen Dejarnette\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Maurecia Robinson\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Olivine Roberts\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roy G Brooks\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:09 AM Re: discussion about extensions for CREP karen (and everyone) - i spoke last week w/ Steve ross and aaron mcdonald regarding the evaluations, i emailed joshua and odm to let them know that i had information to discuss with them and to suggest another meeting, mr walker requested that i put my concerns in writing, which i will do today, following any discussion with odm and joshua, i will prepare a report to the court, there is no reason for a conference call w/ dr ross today, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/14/2006 12:07 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1' request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21 Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23^ and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/26/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks, Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:55 AM RE: discussion about extensions for CREP I plan to call Dr. Ross at 1p.m. today to learn what is going on. This email does not have details about what was discussed, whether or not an extension will be requested. If so, when? What was written to ODM and JOSHUA, etc. Chris, please provide details. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:10 AM To: Joy Springer\nJames Catterall\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G\nMargie Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP karen (and everyone) - i spoke last week w/ Steve ross and aaron mcdonald regarding the evaluations, i emailed Joshua and odm to let them know that i had information to discuss with them and to suggest another meeting, mr walker requested that i put my concerns in writing, which i will do today, following any discussion with odm and Joshua, i will prepare a report to the court, there is no reason for a conference call w/ dr ross today, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.DeJarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/14/2006 12:07 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1* request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21 Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23''' and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/26/2006Margie Page 1 of 3 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:12 PM FW: evaluations From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:12 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Williams, Ed\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\n'Steve Ross (smross@memphis.edu)' Subject: RE: evaluations The best thing we could do is have a meeting with everyone together to answer your questions. I set up such a meeting for last Thursday. Then, you emailed and said you had talked to people and the meeting did not need to happen. Now, you have lots of questions. All of us have pieces of answers to your questions, together we could provide you with a more complete response. Many phone calls have taken place as well as emails. Not all of PRE staff or CREP staff were on each call or included in every email. The important outcome is that CREP needs an extension of time for each of their three studies. They realized and communicated that on September 1 yet the request had not been forwarded to the Court. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Williams, Ed Subject: RE: evaluations i have reviewed the emails you just sent, they do not answer most of the questions i sent on Tuesday, would you please review my questions and either answer them or direct me to the particular document which you believe provides the answer, also, after reviewing what ed sent to crep on August 15 and 17, i don't understand why dan at crep did not seem to know on August 21 that crep had received any data, finally, it looks like ed advised crep on August 17 that crep should use the data file he attatched because it \"represents the most current information we have on student demographics\", but that it could be linked with the August 15 file if the evaluators wanted \"more types of data\", i don't see where ed indicated that there was any problem with the data in either the August 15 or August 17 data files, was james confused by this? maybe i'm missing something, but i don't see much sense of urgency, if crep had a problem or a question, why didn't someone contact us when they got the data from ed? from the correspondence i've seen, it looks like they didn't know they had any data until maurecia checked with them, ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/21/2006 1:50 PM \u0026gt; 9/26/2006Page 2 of 3 Chris, We have met and I am forwarding a number of emails to you now that show the line of conversation. The forwarded emails include one sent from Ed on August 15'^, another from Ed on August 171^, one from Debbi Lawson on August 31*, and one from me to Ed today. I am also sending the NORMES posting printed on June 22'^'*. Let me know if you have additional questions after you review these documents. I would have scanned these and sent in one file but our copier is jammed today. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:38 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: evaluations karen - i've reviewed the documents you sent this summer and don't find clear answers to my questions, have you had a pre meeting yet to prepare a response? ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrscl.org\u0026gt; 9/20/2006 1:25 PM \u0026gt; I would like to meet with PRE staff before responding because I may not know of all of the communications that have happened between PRE and CREP. Two statisticians are moving among schools today providing test training. We can meet and provide answers tomorrow morning or you can meet with us tomorrow morning to hear the answers. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:19 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: RE: evaluations karen - did someone from pre tell crep that the mid-august data file was either incomplete or possibly inaccurate? if so, would you please send me a copy of that document, did someone from pre tell crep on September 1 that the data was complete? if so, i'd like that document, too. are you saying that the mid-august data was good data but crep did not begin its analysis because they were waiting for us to tell them that? was there any communication between pre and crep in the last two weeks of August? is the data we sent in mid- august the data that crep is now using? regarding the pre-k evaluation, when did we contract with riverside to produce the qeli data? can i get a copy of that contract (or is it already in a quarterly report)? who at normes declined to produce the qeli data? when? are you saying that the Irsd data had 15,000 errors (we can't have had that many students tested, i don't think)? what happened between the time we filed our motion to extend time in July, where we said that pre expected the qeli data in early August, and now? this may be a question better directed to Steve ross but, if you know, what are the prospects that crep can get their work done in six weeks, rather than eight weeks, so we can meet the current deadline, if it can't be done otherwise, could we authorize the use of more people or do anything else to expedite this work? these are a few of the questions i must be in a position to answer, thanks for your help, ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/19/2006 10:02 AM \u0026gt; 9/26/2006Page 3 of 3 Chris, Here are answers to your questions. Karen first, what happened between the time we sent benchmark data to crep in mid-august and the time \"crep received confirmation on September 1, 2006 from pre that the benchmark data we received from pre is complete\"? Ed sent two files in mid-August and did not verify which on to use until September l^ who said the data may not be complete? what was the problem? NORMES posted incorrect data for the month of August and PRE (Ed, Jim, and Maurecia) worked with schools to clean and correct misinformation for students who showed on the NORMES mismatch and nomatch databases, why didn't crep begin to analyze the data two weeks earlier? They were waiting on us to tell them which file to use and that the data had been verified. second, when was qeli data added to the pre - k evaluation design? In January I believe-at the eval team meeting. why was it added? Steve and Anna felt it necessary. why has it taken so long to get the qeli data from riverside publishing? Riverside did not offer it in an electronic format, NORMES said it would but then determined it had over 15,000 errors and decided not to offer it. PRE then contracted with Riverside to get it. finally, i understand that dr catterall will be on time with his evaluation, is that correct? Yes i understand that the algebra 1 tests recently found at mcclellan will not further delay the 21st century evasluation. is that correct? Yes, Ross proposes to use what he has. We are not sure the McClellan tests will be scored. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:39 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: evaluations karen - a couple of questions so that i can report to odm, joshua and judge wilson. first, what happened between the time we sent benchmark data to crep in mid-august and the time \"crep received confirmation on September 1, 2006 from pre that the benchmark data we received from pre is complete\"? who said the data may not be complete? what was the problem? why didn't crep begin to analyze the data two weeks earlier? second, when was qeli data added to the pre - k evaluation design? why was it added? why has it taken so long to get the qeli data from riverside publishing? finally, I understand that dr catterall will be on time with his evaluation, is that correct? thanks, ch ps - i understand that the algebra 1 tests recently found at mcclellan will not further delay the 21st century evasluation. is that correct? 9/26/2006Margie Page 1 of 2 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, September 22, 2006 1:32 PM FW: three evaluations From: smross@memphis.edu [mailto:smross@memphis.edu] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 1:04 PM To: HELLER@fec.net Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\najmcdnld@memphis.edu\nJNunnery@odu.edu\ndslawson@memphis.edu\nawgrehan@memphis.edu\ndlowther@memphis.edu\njstrahl@memphis.edu Subject: RE: three evaluations Chris, We just had a long meeting with the key researchers. I can tell you, and would certainly be willing to convey this to judge Wilson if deemed appropriate, that extraordinary efforts are already being made to analyze the data and complete the reports. These efforts include weekends and late nights, and concern about stakeholder understanding (assuming quick turnaround is desired or being encouraged) about the complexity of the data bases, the anomalies that are discovered AS WE WORK WITH THE DATA, and the critical importance of informing the district, the court, and the research community of how the targeted programs impact students, especially African Americans. Even for 21* Century, we have recently uncovered anomalies (uninterpretable) data for one of the schools regarding attendance and enrollment. Now is not the time for details, but wed be happy to participate in a conference call with anyone from the district, Joshua, or ODM to describe how challenging it is to work through these problems, and produce a credible report. Six weeks is a very constrained, but potentially achievable deadline, if it assumed that the data sets contain no anomalies or unusual complexities. That is NOT the case here for 21 Century and Pre-K Literacy, respectively. So, its essential that you request an extension, as we requested for Read 180 and 21 Century, until October 15. However, if you want 21 Century by the 15*, there will not be sufficient time to work with PRE and the school in question to resolve the (major) discrepancies in the data for those schools. So, well need to qualify those findings in the report. (If LRSD wanted an amended report, involving re-analysis once the anomalies for that school, are resolved, wed need to discuss and negotiate the additional time involved.) My staff informs me that they hope to be able to verify by Oct 1, all the Pre-K Literacy data sets, to ensure that we have what we need to start the analyses. If so, we will try, by making extraordinary efforts, to complete that report by November 15*. So, for now Read 180 and 21 will be in on Oct 15, and Pre-K by November 15. Well inform you if issues or problems arise that would preclude meeting those projected deadlines. Perhaps there is some flexibility at the district end in reviewing the reports? Steve 10/2/2006Page 2 of 2 We, again, are fully open to conference calls with you or any stakeholders to explain what needs to be done to produce meaningful, accurate, and scientifically valid evidence for LRSD. Steven M. Ross. Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Direct Line: 901-678-3413 Center Toll Free: 866-670-6147 Fax:901-678-4257 http://crep.memphis.edu From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:58 PM To: Steven M Ross (smross) Cc: Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\nroy.g.brooks@lrsd.org\nAaron Jeffrey Mcdonald (ajmcdnid) Subject: three evaluations Steve - i've reviewed many of the documents concerning the availability of data for the three evaluations being prepared by crep. i did this with the expectation that i would report to Joshua and odm that additional time would be necessary, and then file a request with the court, it is in Irsd's best interest to do everything possible to meet the current deadline before we consider requesting another extension, please let me know if there is anything that can be done, even at an increased cost, to get the evaluations, or any of them, drafted by October 15. if not, can you assure me that there is nothing that crep or pre could have done to get the evaluations done on time, thanks, ch 10/2/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, September 25, 2006 4:28 PM FW: deadline fo October 1st From: James Catterall [mailto:jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: deadline fo October 1st Hi Karen  Oops. 1 thought we had discussed on the phone a couple of weeks ago that October 10th would suffice as OK. Sorry if I mis-heard this. I'll assume I did. At this point, I should be able to hand a draft to FedEX on the morning of October 4th, and perhaps earlier by a day or two. So you would get the report between the 3rd and 5th. Sorry about my confusion. James I am at home today if we should talk. 310-455-2720 On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Dejarnette, Karen wrote: Hi James, Just checking in on youre A+ report draft. When will I receive the initial draft? We should file it with the court on Friday if it is to make the October 1* deadline. Karen 10/2/2006Margie Page 1 of 5 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, September 25, 2006 4:29 PM FW: evaluations From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:27 AM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: RE: evaluations Chris, I thought I answered your questions. Here goes again\ndid someone from pre tell crep that the mid-august data file was either incomplete or possibly inaccurate? When Ed sent the file to CREP as soon as he received it-without PRE verifying the dataI told everyone it needed to be verified. Then, when Ed sent the 2\"' file it looked to me like he sent it because the demographics were incorrect on the first file. Also, we all had discussion that the first ITBS file was incorrect and being resent from Riverside. did someone from pre tell crep on September 1 that the data was complete? if so, i'd like that document, too. We had a phone call with CREP on September 1^. are you saying that the mid-august data was good data but crep did not begin its analysis because they were waiting for us to tell them that? No. We all had concerns about the file being sent to CREP during mid-August because PRE had not verified the data as we told CREP we would. was there any communication between pre and crep in the last two weeks of August? Yes. is the data we sent in mid-august the data that crep is now using? Yes, but CREP had found errors in the data and even today we are trying to work those errors out. regarding the pre-k evaluation, when did we contract with riverside to produce the qeli data? Jim has provided the PreK dates and copies of contract. can i get a copy of that contract (or is it already in a quarterly report)? 9/26/2006Page 2 of 5 who at normes declined to produce the qeli data? when? Ed received some data from NORMES but not the detailed data Anna needed. are you saying that the Irsd data had 15,000 errors (we can't have had that many students tested, i don't think)? No. what happened between the time we filed our motion to extend time in July, where we said that pre expected the qeli data in early August, and now? this may be a question better directed to Steve ross but, if you know, what are the prospects that crep can get their work done in six weeks, rather than eight weeks, so we can meet the current deadline. In Ross' email last Friday, he said he can provide the Readl80 report by October 15^, the 21stCLC report by October 15* with a disclaimer about the data (WHICH I WOULD DEFINITELY NOT RECOMMEND) and the PREK report by mid-November. if it can't be done otherwise, could we authorize the use of more people or do anything else to expedite this work? No. Chris. I do not understand the delay in seeking an extension for these studies. When we called Dr. Ross last Tuesday at 1p.m. (the call you said we did not need to have) he shared with the group his concern that an extension has not been requested. He then asked me to write a letter to Judge Wilson to notify him of the problems. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 3:27 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: RE: evaluations karen - you told me yesterday that pre has already met to prepare responses to my questions, i still don't have the responses, just a few emails that don't directly address my questions, please provide responses, if you want to have another meeting \"with everyone together\" to answer my questions, please do that as quickly as possible and then provide me a written response, please understand that i cannot just forward a request to the court without knowing the reasons for it. finally, you say the the \"important outcome is that crep needs an extension of time for each of their three studies\", the court has established a schedule for resolving the remaining issues in this case and its important that we stick to that schedule if at all possible, if we must seek more time, we should have very good reasons, i'm asking to to give me the information i need to explain those reasons, my latest information from dr ross is that, depending on verification of certain data,\" read 180 and 21st century will be in on oct 15, and pre-k by November 15\". what, then, would be the basis for a request to extend the current deadline for all three evaluations? ch 9/26/2006Page 3 of 5 \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/21/2006 6:11 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; The best thing we could do is have a meeting with everyone together to answer your questions. I set up such a meeting for last Thursday. Then, you emailed and said you had talked to people and the meeting did not need to happen. Now, you have lots of questions. All of us have pieces of answers to your questions, together we could provide you with a more complete response. Many phone calls have taken place as well as emails. Not all of PRE staff or CREP staff were on each call or included in every email. The important outcome is that CREP needs an extension of time for each of their three studies. They realized and communicated that on September 1 yet the request had not been forwarded to the Court. From: Chris Heller [maiito:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Williams, Ed Subject: RE: evaluations i have reviewed the emails you just sent, they do not answer most of the questions i sent on Tuesday, would you please review my questions and either answer them or direct me to the particular document which you believe provides the answer, also, after reviewing what ed sent to crep on August 15 and 17, i don't understand why dan at crep did not seem to know on August 21 that crep had received any data, finally, it looks like ed advised crep on August 17 that crep should use the data file he attatched because it \"represents the most current information we have on student demographics\", but that it could be linked with the August 15 file if the evaluators wanted \"more types of data\", i don't see where ed indicated that there was any problem with the data in either the August 15 or August 17 data files, was james confused by this? maybe i'm missing something, but i don't see much sense of urgency, if crep had a problem or a question, why didn't someone contact us when they got the data from ed? from the correspondence i've seen, it looks like they didn't know they had any data until maurecia checked with them, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/21/2006 1:50 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Chris, We have met and I am forwarding a number of emails to you now that show the line of conversation. The forwarded emails include one sent from Ed on August 15^, another from Ed on August 17*^, one from Debbi Lawson on August 31 and one from me to Ed today. I am also sending the NORMES posting printed on June 22'^'. Let me know if you have additional questions after you review these documents. I would have scanned these and sent in one file but our copier is jammed today. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:38 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: evaluations karen - i've reviewed the documents you sent this summer and don't find clear answers to my questions, have 9/26/2006Page 4 of 5 you had a pre meeting yet to prepare a response? ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/20/2006 1:25 PM \u0026gt; I would like to meet with PRE staff before responding because I may not know of all of the communications that have happened between PRE and CREP. Two statisticians are moving among schools today providing test training. We can meet and provide answers tomorrow morning or you can meet with us tomorrow morning to hear the answers. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:19 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: RE: evaluations karen - did someone from pre tell crep that the mid-august data file was either incomplete or possibly inaccurate? if so, would you please send me a copy of that document, did someone from pre tell crep on September 1 that the data was complete? if so, i'd like that document, too. are you saying that the mid-august data was good data but crep did not begin its analysis because they were waiting for us to tell them that? was there any communication between pre and crep in the last two weeks of August? is the data we sent in mid- august the data that crep is now using? regarding the pre-k evaluation, when did we contract with riverside to produce the qeli data? can i get a copy of that contract (or is it already in a quarterly report)? who at normes declined to produce the qeli data? when? are you saying that the Irsd data had 15,000 errors (we can't have had that many students tested, i don't think)? what happened between the time we filed our motion to extend time in July, where we said that pre expected the qeli data in early August, and now? this may be a question better directed to steve ross but, if you know, what are the prospects that crep can get their work done in six weeks, rather than eight weeks, so we can meet the current deadline, if it can't be done otherwise, could we authorize the use of more people or do anything else to expedite this work? these are a few of the questions i must be in a position to answer, thanks for your help, ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/19/2006 10:02 AM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Chris, Here are answers to your questions. Karen first, what happened between the time we sent benchmark data to crep in mid-august and the time \"crep received confirmation on September 1, 2006 from pre that the benchmark data we received from pre is complete\"? Ed sent two files in mid-August and did not verify which on to use until September 1^. who said the data may not be complete? what was the problem? NORMES posted incorrect data for the month of August and PRE (Ed, Jim, and Maurecia) worked with schools to clean and correct misinformation for students who showed on the NORMES mismatch and nomatch databases, why didn't crep begin to analyze the data two weeks earlier? They were waiting on us to tell them which file to use and that the data had been verified. second, when was qeli data added to the pre - k evaluation design? In January I believe-at the eval team meeting. why was it added? Steve and Anna felt it necessary. why has it taken so long to get the qeli data from riverside publishing? Riverside did not offer it in an electronic format, NORMES said it would but then determined it had over 15,000 errors and decided not to offer it. PRE then contracted with Riverside to get it. 9/26/2006Page 5 of 5 finally, I understand that dr catterall will be on time with his evaluation, is that correct? Yes i understand that the algebra 1 tests recently found at mcclellan will not further delay the 21st century evasluation. is that correct? Yes, Ross proposes to use what he has. We are not sure the McClellan tests will be scored. From\nChris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:39 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: evaluations karen - a couple of questions so that i can report to odm, Joshua and judge wilson. first, what happened between the time we sent benchmark data to crep in mid-august and the time \"crep received confirmation on September 1, 2006 from pre that the benchmark data we received from pre is complete\"? who said the data may not be complete? what was the problem? why didn't crep begin to analyze the data two weeks earlier? second, when was qeli data added to the pre - k evaluation design? why was it added? why has it taken so long to get the qeli data from riverside publishing? finally, i understand that dr catterall will be on time with his evaluation, is that correct? thanks, ch ps - i understand that the algebra 1 tests recently found at mcclellan will not further delay the 21st century evasluation. is that correct? 9/26/2006Page 1 of 3 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, September 29, 2006 8:55 AM FW: data elements for program assessment From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:33 AM To: Roberts, Olivine Cc: Wohlleb, Jim Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment Okay. Also, Id like more discussion on the comments you made yesterday about PRE does not have the authority to determine the types of data to collectthose decisions need to go through Cabinet. I was very surprised by your statement and need clarification as to what you meant. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 7:29 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment Lets meet on Monday following Cabinet to discuss the Monitoring Report and the Climate Survey. Please ask Jim to attend. Thank you. Olivine Roberts. Ed.D. Associate Superintendent, Educational Services Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone: 501.447.3320 Fax: 501.447.3321 From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:36 AM To: Milhollen, Mark\nWohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Morgan, Nancy\nCrawford, Kevin\nCole, Chris\nTipton, Mattie Ruth\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment In addition to examples provided by Jim, Catterall found the highest error rate in parent contact information. From: Milhollen, Mark Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 7:37 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nWohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Morgan, Nancy\nCrawford, Kevin\nCole, Chris\nTipton, Mattie Ruth\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment When you say inaccurate data would you provide specific examples so that we can investigate From: Dejarnette, Karen 9/29/2006Page 2 of 3 Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 7:05 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nMilhollen, Mark\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Morgan, Nancy\nCrawford, Kevin\nCole, Chris\nTipton, Mattie Ruth\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment Thanks for the thoughtful comments Jim. I agree. I left the meeting thinking that we also need to focus on cleaning all data thoroughly before entering it into a data warehouse. PRE staff members, as well as external evaluators, have noted a high error rate in some data sets. For example. Dr. Dreyfus could not carry out her full study last year because data was either not available, not coded properly, or not accurate. Dr. Catteralls upcoming report on the A+ program notes that he found a 65% error rate in the parent data during his study of YRE during the 2004-05 school year and a 70% error rate in the same database during his study of A+ in the 2005-06 school year. And, Dr. Ross informed us on September 1* that reports will be late because of problems with inaccurate data. We really need to focus on cleaning the data. And, the District needs to develop a comprehensive process (with the responsible department or positions named) for maintaining accurate data. Thanks for including PRE in the discussion. From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 5:19 PM To: Milhollen, Mark\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Morgan, Nancy\nCrawford, Kevin\nCole, Chris\nTipton, Mattie Ruth\nDejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed Subject: data elements for program assessment Mark, Thanks for arranging this afternoons meeting. It was helpful to see what data is ready for use and hopeful to learn we can recommend more. Some thoughts still fresh in my mind follow. Although the measures presented by Larry are important and appropriate for getting started, there is more I would recommend in the near future and long term: Soon, we should be able to connect multiple years test scores so we can assess students progress longitudinally (rather than compare different groups/cohorts of students as they pass through the same grades). That means at least several years results for ITBS, benchmark, AP, and others mentioned today. These, of course, are not available for all students for all grades. Because were moving fonward with wellness for the ACSIP, well soon want to use health-related data. The attached Excel file has 04-05 data from nurses reports to the health services director. (A disclaimer is that I was the keypuncher, and Ive not thoroughly checked the data.) Margo just delivered last years reports this week, and Ive begun keying them into another Excel file. This will do as a stopgap measure. Long-term, devising a friendly data-entry and management program for the nurses \u0026amp; their helpers would make their data collection efficient and more quickly useful to the nurses, administrators, and others. Such software probably exists somewhere. LRSD can no doubt devise something much better than the states painfully slow and inconvenient web-based data entry for BMI (another measure well want to include in the ACSIPs). I hope to learn more about school health at a public health meeting in November where many school health researchers will present studies and vendors will show their products. At least two aspects of this data interests us(1) the number \u0026amp; variety of services provided to students and staff by nurses et al and (2) the patterns of health events and traits among our students and staff. The first should help administer needed services, while the second should help us discover students needs and understand possibly why some have difficulty learning. Another kind of information is environmental, both social and physical. We have been planning for the past year or more to survey students, parents, teachers, and administrators with the help of Vicky Bernhardts group (with whom Ed, Maurecia, \u0026amp; I studied for a week in July 2005 and who has consulted with us over that period). We want to introduce it as an on-line questionnaire, realizing that we might need to supplement it with paper questionnaires or suffer low participation in early years. This climate survey asks for impressions about the quality of operations and human relations in the schools. It will provide soft but consistent clues for improving 9/29/2006Page 3 of 3 the schools and assessing such efforts. Weve begun exploring what physical environmental information might exist and in what format. This is probably as important as the other information, but we cant be certain until we look at it. It might include data from property inspections, air and other sampling, injuries, etc. Finally, financial information was not mentioned (that I heard) today. An interest we explored with some researchers allied with Vicky Bernhardt is efficiency estimates. Much forethought, of course, will be required with this kind of analysis, but per capita and per program costs are certainly interesting. I hope these notes are helpful. Theyre going to everyone in todays meeting I can remember except Larry (because I dont have an address for him). Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 9/29/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From\nTo: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday. September 29, 2006 8:55 AM FW: Report to Court From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:28 AM To: 'Brenda Kampman' Cc: Chris Heller Subject: RE: Report to Court I have not received any report from Chris by email or other. From\nBrenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 4:30 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Chris Heller Subject\nRe: Report to Court Karen: Chris Heller asked me to check on the status of the report to the court that he emailed you about late yesterday. He needs to provide a response to Judge Wilson tomorrow and would like to review that information first thing. Please see if you can get it to him as early as possible tomorrow. Thanks. Brenda Kampman Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 direct line: 501-370-1444 fax: 501-376-2147 9/29/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie Powell\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:54 PM Requests for Information from Dr. DeJarnette Chris, On yesterday I asked Khayyam to have the documents that I requested from Dr. Dejarnette on September Sth available for my review as well as the documents he was providing to me from another request. It is my understanding from Khayyam that those documents consist of 277 pages and were emailed to you by Dr. Dejarnette as an attachment. Great!! Would you kindly email those documents to me and there would be no need for your office to copy them. Thank you for your cooperation. Joy Springer ) 9/29/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:49 PM database revised.doc\nrequest from Mr. Walker sept 8.pdf FW: response to foi fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:49 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: response to foi Chris, The following email and enclosed file was requested by Mr. Walker on September 8^. The foi is also enclosed. Karen From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:44 PM To: Griffin, Beverly Subject: RE: Snapshot Compliance Remedy - External Evaluations On June 12'^ PRE and Chris Heller were told by ADE staff that electronic benchmark data for individual students would be available to us (and evaluators) from NORMES on July 10'^. So far, the data is not available. Chris Heller has provided an update to the Court saying we expected to receive data by July lO**^. However, he has not filed a motion for an extension. On Monday, the 10^, and again yesterday I let Chris know the data was not available and asked him to file a motion for an extension. To my knowledge he has yet to file a motion. I wish he would file one immediately. I am concerned the Judge will look harshly on a late motion. What else can I do? Compliance Remedy - Deeply Embedded Assessment Process See document enclosed that outlines the timeline and work efforts of PRE to meet this requirement. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 11:06 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Snapshot Karen: An update on the status of completing the compliance report? 10/2/2006In the fall of 2004, three new staff members joined the PRE Department to carry out the Compliance Remedy ordered by the US District Court in the spring of that year. This included developing policy for assessing LRSD programs and overseeing well designed evaluations of eight LRSD programs. The Court also clearly directed LRSD to weave assessment and evaluation into the fabric of its operations, so that programs would start, continue, and end based on evidence of their performance. Consistent with contemporary practice, continuous improvement depends on sound knowledge of effectiveness. The biggest obstacle to fulfilling challenges of the Compliance Remedy was access to current, reliable data related to LRSD and its programs. Both content and process were (and remain) problems: 1) Content - LRSD collects little data other than demographic information and student outcomes such as standardized tests scores, this data is not related to specific programs, and no one checks its accuracy. 2) Process - Individual departments collect data, assemble much of it into data bases, and provide it to Information Services Department and other departments\nso PRE depends on other sources for unchecked data in various stages of automation. On October 5, less than two weeks after PREs new hires, Drs. DeJamette and Roberts discussed a plan of action with Dr. Steve Ross to address the tasks outlined in the Courts Compliance Remedy-developing a comprehensive assessment policy for LRSD and identifying the first four key programs for evaluations. (The Court named Dr. Ross as a preferred consultant.) This policy assumed timely access to reliable information about individual students, staff, resources, and programs. A plan and three experts to carry it out were approved by Dr. Ross, as required by the Compliance Remedy. By the end of October, the three consultants agreed to assist: Dr. Ross would conduct the first three external evaluations. Dr. James Catterall one external evaluation, and Dr. Victoria Bernhardt would assist with development of a comprehensive assessment process to be deeply embedded in our day-to-day educational operations. The work outlined with Dr. Victoria Bernhardt included phases such as 1) 2) 3) determining useful data sets for program assessment, creating a district portfolio in printed format so LRSD staff could immediately access key data for assessment purposes without requesting it, and designing a data warehouse to store all data needed for program assessment. Dr. Bernhardt worked with PRE staff during 2005 to accomplish these tasks. She met with PRE staff during visits to Little Rock, and three PRE staff attended her week-long workshop in Chico, California. The first draft of a printed portfolio, a collection of data collected by October 1, 2005, was helpful to PRE staff and external evaluators. However, other data collected after October 1 and additional data related to other measures were needed.On the recommendation of Dr. Bernhardt, PRE staff engaged in design conversation with personnel from TetraData to determine the type of data warehouse that would be most useful for LRSD program assessments. TetraData is a company that designs, builds, and maintains data warehouses specifically for educational organizations. Its databases offer up-to-the-minute triangulation of multiple measures of data-a time-efficient model for conducting ongoing program assessments. During this same period, PRE encountered two primary deficiencies with current data sent to the Information Services Department and in turn provided to PRE: 1) incorrect, duplicated, and missing data and 2) lack of tags to instructional programs. For example, two external evaluators reported 60-65% error rates in parent contact information as they tried to conduct parent phone interviews for the first round of evaluations. PRE recommended to Cabinet members and the Information Services Department cleaning the data and relating it to programs. Gena Magaruh, a representative of TetraData, met with PRE staff in July 2005. Through the end of 2005 she demonstrated to senior LRSD administrators the ability of TetraData to design, build, and maintain a database tailored to PREs needs. Her forecast for its completion was summer 2006. After these meetings, PRE requested of Dr. Roberts, Mr. Hattabaugh, and Mr. Milhollen that LRSD purchase a TetraData warehouse. Estimated costs varied depending on how much LRSD wished to service or maintain the data, from $250,000 on up. By early 2006, PRE learned that LRSD would not engage TetraData, but instead its Information Services Department would design and build a Crystal Objects database. PRE would have access to the same type of data and services as TetraData proposed to offer. At least one senior programmer of the Department expressed doubts about its capacity to accomplish this task in a reasonable time frame. PRE offered input into the design of the Crystal Objects database. Information Services Department offered a glimpse into the development of the new database. In July 2006, Information Services Department announced that three pieces of student data-demographics, standardized test scores, and transcriptsare available in the new database, but there is no schedule for completion. Thus, PRE faces the same set of problems as in the fall of 2004.Comparison______________________ Crystal Database as of July 11, 2006 TetraData offered Student demographics Standardized test scofes Student Transcripts Student and staff demographics Standardized test scores Perceptions from surveys of students, parents, staff et al. Discipline, graduation, etc. Instructional Programs School resources School finances PRE requests, and CISD supplies data in fonaats requested PRE imports data files into SPSS and Word p)r analyses and reports. PRE staff arrange data Statistical features support analyses and reports.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \"Margie Powell\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Monday, October 02, 2006 12:02 PM Fw: Requests for Information from Dr. Dejarnette Chris, would you please advise whether you intend to forward the requested information via email. Please advise. If the documents are in an email, I do not see the need for me to come to your office in order to review them. Thank you for your attention to this request. Joy Springer  Original Message  From: Joy Springer To: HELLER@fec.net Cc: John W. Walker\nDejarnette, Karen\nMargie Powell Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:54 PM Subject: Requests for Information from Dr. Dejarnette Chris, On yesterday I asked Khayyam to have the documents that I requested from Dr. Dejarnette on September Sth available for my review as well as the documents he was providing to me from another request. It is my understanding from Khayyam that those documents consist of 277 pages and were emailed to you by Dr. Dejarnette as an attachment. Great!! Would you kindly email those documents to me and there would be no need for your office to copy them. Thank you for your cooperation. Joy Springer 10/2/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, October 02, 2006 3:50 PM FW: qeli data From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:50 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\nWilliams, Ed\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia Cc: Roberts, Olivine Subject: RE: qeli data We expect initial/draft reports from James and Steve, these reports should go to evaluation team members, Cabinet and Board for feedback. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:40 PM To: Williams, Ed\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia Cc: Roberts, Olivine Subject: RE: qeli data thanks, on a related matter, would the pre-k eval filed on November 15 be considered a \"draft\"? if so, how quickly could it be finalized? ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 10/2/2006 3:36:56 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; CREP decided they needed more detailed QELI data than Normes could provide. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:23 PM To: Williams, Ed\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia Cc: Roberts, Olivine Subject: qeli data we told the court on July 18 that qeli data from normes was \"delayed due to over 15,000 missing numbers and 10/3/2006Page 2 of 2 names\", but that pre expected \"to provide the qeli database to dr ross by early August\", can someone please explain, right away (this is my third request) what happened, also, i understand from aaron that jim is currently working with riverside on the qeli data, what is the status of that effort and when will usable data get to crep? ch 10/3/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, October 02, 2006 3:40 PM FW: compliance report fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:41 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: RE: compliance report Chris, Please review all of the Quarterly Updates we have provided thus far and let me know what else you would expect to be included. I believe PRE has fully informed the Court, through the Quarterly Reports we have sent to you, all of our compliance efforts. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 2:27 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: compliance report karen - as you know, our compliance report to judge wilson is due in two weeks, we must document our compliance with the section 2.7.1 of the revised plan as specified in the June 30, 2004 compliance remedy (pp. 61 - 67 of the memorandum opinion), although much information has been provded in our quarterly reports, we will want to include everything necessary to fully document our compliance in this final report, in that regard, would you please provide me a summary of the things we have done to comply with each requirement of the compliance remedy and, for each separate requirement, either a list or copies of the documents which demonstrate our compliance, once i have the summary and the documents, we can discuss final preparation of our compliance report, please call if you have any questions, thanks for your help, ch 10/3/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Karen Dejarnette\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie Powell\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, October 02, 2006 4:36 PM Re: Fw: Requests for Information from Dr. Dejarnette i just checked w/ khay. he is in the process of having the documents numbered and expects to provide them today, ch \u0026gt; \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; 10/2/2006 12:02:40 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Chris, would you please advise whether you intend to forward the requested information via email. Please advise. If the documents are in an email, I do not see the need for me to come to your office in order to review them. Thank you for your attention to this request. Joy Springer -----Original Message------ From: Joy Springer To: HELLER@fec.net Cc: John W. Walker\nDejarnette, Karen\nMargie Powell Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:54 PM Subject: Requests for Information from Dr. Dejarnette Chris, On yesterday I asked Khayyam to have the documents that I requested from Dr. Dejarnette on September 8th available for my review as well as the documents he was providing to me from another request. It is my understanding from Khayyam that those documents consist of 277 pages and were emailed to you by Dr. Dejarnette as an attachment. Great!! Would you kindly email those documents to me and there would be no need for your office to copy them. Thank you for your cooperation. Joy Springer 10/3/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:24 PM FW: alleged violations of compliance remedy From: Chris Heller [mailto:HEIJ.ER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:40 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: alleged violations of compliance remedy karen - i have been made aware of your allegation, made in an employee relations complaint, that you have been required to withhold information from the court, the monitors and the parties in violation of the compliance remedy, please tell me what information \"mandated by the compliance remedy\" you were directed to withhold and who directed you to withhold it. if the information is in document form, please send me copies of the documents, if not, please summarize the information which you believe must be shared with the court, the parties and odm. in order to address this issue with the court, if necessary, i need a response from you as soon as possible, please understand that i do not make this request as a part of the process for resolving your complaint, but in order to fulfill my responsibilities in Irsd v. pcssd. ch 10/11/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:01 PM documents related to withheld information.pdf FW: alleged violations of compliance remedy From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:01 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: alleged violations of compliance remedy Chris, In response to your email about information being withheld from the Court, monitors, and parties (and omitting material relating to my allegation that I have been directed to withhold information from the Districts Board), PRE was directed by Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts, and yourself to withhold the following information from the September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update: 1) Information included in Section B that relates to the comprehensive assessment process (see Section B of the Compliance Remedy for evidence LRSD must include) 2) Information included in Section F, specifically a list of programs currently being assessed by PRE I am enclosing a file of documents that can provide more details. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:40 PM To\nDejarnette, Karen Subject: alleged violations of compliance remedy karen -1 have been made aware of your allegation, made in an employee relations complaint, that you have been required to withhold information from the court, the monitors and the parties in violation of the compliance remedy, please tell me what information \"mandated by the compliance remedy\" you were directed to withhold and who directed you to withhold it. if the information is in document form, please send me copies of the documents, if not, please summarize the information which you believe must be shared with the court, the parties and odm. in order to address this issue with the court, if necessary, i need a response from you as soon as possible, please understand that i do not make this request as a part of the process for resolving your complaint, but in order to fulfill my responsibilities in Irsd v. pcssd. ch 10/11/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:26 PM foia October 3.pdf\nfoia October 3 response.pdf FW: foia October 3rd From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:24 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject\nfoia October 3rd Enclosed you will find two files. First, an foia from Mr. Walker dated October 3, 2006. And second, scanned emails in response to the October 3^*^ foia. 10/11/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent\nTo: Cc: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate\" survey designed for LRSD by EPF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true, Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. . Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) j i m, wo h 11 eb @ I rsd. o rg 10/17/2006Notes of discussion about the second annual survey for the monitoring report October 2, 2006 Attending: Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Dr. Olivine Roberts, Mr. Joe Mittiga, Dr. Karen Dejarnette, Ms. Maurecia Robinson, Dr. Ed Williams, and Mr. Jim Wohlleb Olivine summoned Jim and Karen to the administration building for a conference, and Karen invited Ed and Maurecia. PRE Department members thought it would be about the authority of PRE to determine what it assesses. Instead, Dr. Roberts led discussion about this years survey of teachers, parents, and students for the monitoring report. Mention of on-line surveys by Education for the Future (EFF), ready for administration now, was met by Mr. Hattabaughs declaration that any services by outside organizations require RFPs. Dr. DeJamette noted that EFF is so busy it does not consider RFPs. In her opinion, LRSD is turning away from the best methods and services and instead using its own unvalidated measures. Given this, she prefers that Mr. Mittigas office rather than PRE conduct the survey for the monitoring report. All agreed on a more attractive survey instrument than last years and distribution by some means other than USPS. Showing high priority to the survey is a way to increase participation. For ES parents, teachers can ask them to answer questionnaires at the start of conferences with teachers. This might not work so well with parents of middle \u0026amp; high school students. There was agreement by both Dr. Roberts and Mr. Mittiga that last years questions were ambiguous. They also endorsed stakeholder participation in the design. Martha Hill was mentioned as a good participant. Afterwards, Mr. Wohlleb sent copies of the four EFF questionnaires to Mr. Mittiga, and he sent around a copy of the survey he designed with UALR but did not administer due to lack of funds. Comments sent with the EFF documents noted the intended application of them in PREs assessment of the teacher performance challenge as step 2 evidence.Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine OCivine 'Roberts, 'PRD. .Associate Superintendent, 'Educational'Servires Eittl'e Rock School''District. 3001 S. Eufastii. St. Little 'Rock, J47\u0026lt; 72406 Pfione: 501.44\n0 fax: 501.447-332I  MWi IW11 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate\" survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true, Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Wohlleb, Jim Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis. Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly, Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine OR-vine 'Roberts, Rif'D. -Associate. Supermtendent, IdiicationaCServices Little 'Rocfi School 'District 3001 S. 'PuLaslii St. Little sA'Rpzeofi 'Pfione: 561.44-.3320 fax: 501.447-3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate\" survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true, Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim. woh I leb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of 2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:18 PM Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey The group agreed to use a locally developed instrument. Olivine 'Roberts, 'Dtf.'D. Associate Su/)enn tencfent, 'Lducatianal Services RittCe Rocli Scfiool District 3001 S. 'Pulh.-iki SI. Rock, SPR 722 RIitmp.: 301.447.3320 fax: 501.447-3321 00' From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly. Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine OCh'me Roberts, 'RfiJ. .'Associate Superhitendent, 'Rdiicat umal Services Lit Ue. Rocii Scl'woC'District 3001 S. 'Rulas/ii. St. PittLe 'Rocli., 7\\'R 7'2206 Tlione: 501.44, 3320 fax: 501.447.3321 r\u0026lt; ................ k ... From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of 2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Dejarnette, Karen Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:43 PM Wohlleb, Jim\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Robinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Jim, I understood there were two purposes for the meeting. See the following email I received from Dr. Roberts on Friday September 29*^ at 9:29a.m: Lets meet on Monday following Cabinet to discuss the Monitoring Report and the Climate Survey. Please ask Jim to attend. Thank you. Olivine. 'Roberts, 'fd.'D. dissociate Superintendent, XtiiicationaCServices Xittle 'Rock School District 3001 S. 'Put'oski St. Xtttie Rock, SVR 72206 Rkone: 501.447.3320 J'ax: 501.447.3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly, Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. ijunorjiiK From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb. I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine Olivine 'Roberts, 'Ecti'D. dissocia te S upe. rin ten den I, Educat ionatServ ices Eittle 'Ri)ck .SdiooC'District 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 SOO I S. 'PuCaski St. ittCe 'KocH, A'R -2206 THme: 501.44/.332o fax: 5O].447.S3:^ From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate\" survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true, Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb. Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of 2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine Thursday. October 12. 2006 3:07 PM Dejarnette. Karen\nWohlleb. Jim\nHattabaugh. Hugh\nMittiga. Joseph Robinson. Maurecia\nWilliams. Ed\nParadis. Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Karen, you are right. That is why it was a part of the discussion. OCivine 'Roberts, Rd.!). .Associate Superintendent, ducatirmul'Servire.s Rittte 'Roca Scfiool District sooi S. 'Pulaski St. ittfe Rock, RX'R recob 'Rhone: 501.447.^'320 Fax: 5O1.44R-3321 From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:43 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Robinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Jim. I understood there were two purposes for the meeting. See the following email I received from Dr. Roberts on Friday September 29*^ at 9:29a.m: Let's meet on Monday following Cabinet to discuss the Monitoring Report and the Climate Survey. Please ask Jim to attend. Thank you. Olivine 'Roberts, 'cC.D. Associate Sujierintendent, RdiicatumaCServices fittbe Rock Seboot'District 3001 S. 'Pulaski St. Fittbe Rock, A'R 72206 Rhone: 501.447.3320 fax: 501.447-3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly. Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 To: Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE\nMr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine Olivine 'd:D. y^ssociale Superint\u0026lt;md\u0026amp;iit, hfucalional Services Utle 'Rocli Scbool 'District 5()()i S. 'Putasbi St. LUlLe 'Rock, SAR 72206 'RIione: 501.447.3320 J'ax: 501.44 21 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate\" survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true, Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh Monday, October 16, 2006 7:11 PM Wohlleb, Jim Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams. Ed\nParadis, Darral\nRoberts, Olivine\nMittiga, Joseph Subject: I stated that a RFP needed to be processed through LRSD Procurement, if we proceed with EFF. It was stated that EFF is to busy to be subjected to the RFP process. If a RFP for the survey instrument and services is not processed, your conclusion is correct. Sincerely, Hugh E. Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72210 (W) 501-447-1009 (C) 501-580-6815 (FAX) 501-447-1159 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim,wohlleb@l.rsd,org 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Dejarnette, Karen Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:35 PM Hattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph\nRoberts, Olivine Wohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia Subject: superintendent's report PRE will attend the meeting about the Superintendents monitoring report on Thursday afternoon. However I will not be bringing a detailed budget to the meeting. I cannot create such until I have the details of the project. At this time, I am unclear on the number of questionnaires, cover letters, and how they will be administered. Will all questionnaires be administered by hard copy? Or, will any surveys be mailed? If questionnaires will be administered to all parents (26,000), most students (3''' -12* would be about 20,000), all teachers (2000) and all community partners (200) then the printing part of this project will likely be large enough to go through the bidding process. We are talking about almost 50,000 questionnaires. And, I am assuming you will want cover letters to go with each questionnaires so that means about 100,000 total pages printed. Last year only 12,000 pages (questionnaires and letters) were printed. If you are planning to include open response items on each questionnaire then there will be need to be discussion about who will transcribe the written comments, likely a group of consultants will need to do this. Last year Metros print shop printed the questionnaires and many parents, staff and students complained that the forms were too hard to read, bubbles printed so lightly they could not see which bubble to fill in. The questionnaires may need to be in two colors (not just black and white) so they are more easily readable. For example, bubbles can be printed in light blue for more easy reading and scanning. Also, last year Metro printed many unusable/unscannable questionnaires, their registration on printing was off. These are just some of the points to be discussed before a budget can be detailed. As you know PRE worked with Dr. Bernhardt last year to draft questionnaires. However, Dr. Bernhardts group does not recommend administering any hard copy questionnaires. They do however have an online system that will provide questionnaires to respondents, quantify the responses as they are collected, and provide a report at any time during or after administration. The cost for online administration of parent, student and staff questionnaires to all LRSD is 45,000 total (about 900 per school site). 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:37 AM FW: reports from James and Steve From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:37 AM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: reports from James and Steve Chris, I received the following emails from James and Steve last night. Karen Hi Karen, I'm planning to get it all into PDF and e-mailing it to you. I might be ready to do that on Friday, but I might need some weekend time. Hope things are good there. james Karen, The two reports (Read 180 and 21* Cent) are almost ready and the researchers in charge plan to email them to you on Oct 15. You can then forward them to Chris. No delays are expected, so check your email on the 15*^. Busy time for all of us! Steve 10/12/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:28 AM FW: Cabinet Recap /10-09-06 From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:29 AM To: Griffin, Beverly Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap / 10-09-06 Beverly, You have asked for each Cabinet member to send recommended revisions for the organizational chart. As you know, last summer I met with Dr. Brooks to request for PRE to be moved from the Educational Services Division, from where the reorganization of the District moved it, and instead report directly to the Superintendent again. Afterwards, I also sent this request to him by email. It is still the desire of PRE to move from Ed Services, since it seems a conflict of interest for the same division to assess the programs that it selects and supervises. At the least, this arrangement deprives PRE of independent assessments, which the District and its Board require. As we understand the US District Courts opinion, PRE should operate independently without influence from possible self-interest of a department or division. When I began as Director of PRE two years ago, the department reported to Dr. Brooks. Since last years reorganization, PRE has experienced barriers and obstacles from both Ed Services and the Superintendents office. The Board of Directors, which is ultimately accountable for the Districts operations, has not received some reports needed for it responsibility. In the light of its experience, PRE should report directly to the Board of Directors, parallel to the internal auditors position. This arrangement would keep the assessment function within the District but distance it from interests of any one division or department. Karen From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:55 AM To: Griffin, Beverly\nAdams, Wayne\nBabbs, Junious\nCarter, Karen\nDejarnette, Karen\nGlasgow, Dennis\nHartz, David\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMilhollen, Mark\nMitchell, Sadie\nMittiga, Joseph\nRoberts, Olivine\nVann, Suellen\nWatson, Linda Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap / 10-09-06 One additional reminder - - please review the org chart for your line of authority and get those revisions to me before Friday. We will probably go over the updated charts at cabinet on Monday. Thanks to those of you who have already submitted your changes. They have been made and Ive sent the revised pages to you to check. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 5:25 PM To: Adams, Wayne\nBabbs, Junious\nCarter, Karen\nDejarnette, Karen\nGlasgow, Dennis\nHartz, David\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMilhollen, Mark\nMitchell, Sadie\nMittiga, Joseph\nRoberts, Olivine\nVann, Suellen\nWatson, Linda Cc: Brooks, Roy G 10/12/2006Page 2 of 2 Subject: Cabinet Recap / 10-09-06 Snapshots: - Dennis Glasgow - Foreign Language / AP Credit for Middle School courses Updates \u0026amp; Other Assignments: - Joe Mittiga / policies drafted re: campaigning on school district properties. Will be presented to the board in November for first reading. - Joe Mittiga! discussed drafting a charter school proposal to provide remedial catch up instruction for fifth through seventh graders, chronically low-performers. Project Management Matrix - Suellen Vann - PTA Officers Breakfast scheduled 11-17-06 - Hugh Hattabaugh / David Hartz - completion of Cycle Reports to Arkansas Department of Education prior to October 15 deadline FYI: Media Event at Central High School at 3:00 on Friday - - ceremony retiring Joe Johnsons jersey Next meeting: Monday, October 16, 2006, 9:00 a.m. Beverly J. Griffin Sr. Executive Assistant Little Rock School District 501-447-1005 10/12/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;blktinzie1@yahoo.com\u0026gt;\n\"Riley, Cheryl\" \u0026lt;Cheryl.Riley@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts. Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson. Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb. Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ray. Katina\" \u0026lt;Katina.Ray@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Fletcher. Danny\" \u0026lt;Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Monday. October 16. 2006 1:53 PM A+ Evaluation Meeting To All: The A+ evaluation team meeting has been rescheduled for the afternoon of the 30*^ at 1p.m, Room 18 of the IRC. Please call me if you have any questions, 447-3386. Ed R. Williams, ph.D. 10/16/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Robinson. Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb. Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Miller. Leticia \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking. Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary,Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs. Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell. Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts. Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan. Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday. October 16. 2006 2:52 PM meeting.ics Magnet Team Meeting When: Wednesday, November 08. 2006 1:30 PM-2:30 PM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US \u0026amp; Canada). Where: Room 18 IRC Hello Team, Jeanne Dreyfus, the external consultant and technical writer for the Magnet Evaluation, will be here on November 8, 2006 at 1:30 P.M., to begin and discuss year two of the Magnet report. The meeting will be held in Room 18 at the IRC. I hope you will be able to attend. Please call if you have questions, 447-3382. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 10/16/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:41 AM database training today PRE will attend a training session offered by the Janis Group today at the Tech Center form 8:30-3 to learn more about data access. 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail,com\u0026gt; Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:34 AM disc06oct2.doc FW: From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Notes of discussion about the second annual survey for the monitoring report October 2, 2006 Attending: Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Dr. Olivine Roberts, Mr. Joe Mittiga, Dr. Karen DeJamette, Ms. Maurecia Robinson, Dr. Ed Williams, and Mr. Jim Wohlleb Olivine summoned Jim and Karen to the administration building for a conference, and Karen invited Ed and Maurecia. PRE Department members thought it would be about the authority of PRE to determine what it assesses. Instead, Dr. Roberts led discussion about this years survey of teachers, parents, and students for the monitoring report. Mention of on-line surveys by Education for the Future (EFF), ready for administration now, was met by Mr. Hattabaughs declaration that any services by outside organizations require RFPs. Dr. DeJamette noted that EFF is so busy it does not consider RFPs. In her opinion, LRSD is turning away from the best methods and services and instead using its own unvalidated measures. Given this, she prefers that Mr. Mittigas office rather than PRE conduct the survey for the monitoring report. All agreed on a more attractive survey instrument than last years and distribution by some means other than USPS. Showing high priority to the survey is a way to increase participation. For ES parents, teachers can ask them to answer questionnaires at the start of conferences with teachers. This might not work so well with parents of middle \u0026amp; high school students. There was agreement by both Dr. Roberts and Mr. Mittiga that last years questions were ambiguous. They also endorsed stakeholder participation in the design. Martha Hill was mentioned as a good participant. Afterwards, Mr. Wohlleb sent copies of the four EFF questionnaires to Mr. Mittiga, and he sent around a copy of the survey he designed with UALR but did not administer due to lack of funds. Comments sent with the EFF documents noted the intended application of them in PREs assessment of the teacher performance challenge as step 2 evidence.Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Dejarnette, Karen Tuesday. October 17, 2006 1:50 PM Roberts. Olivine\nHattabaugh. Hugh\nBrooks. Roy G\nHELLER@fec.net Subject\ntimeline for evaluation reports As you know three of the draft evaluation reports were submitted yesterday to the court. Final drafts are to be submitted by November 17. I need your assistance to define a timeline for Board members to review the draft and provide feedback to evaluators so they can produce final drafts for submission to the court on Nov. 17^. Based on feedback from board members attending last weeks board meeting they seem to want hard copies of lengthy reports. Therefore. I am printing copies of the reports this afternoon and tomorrow and will bring enough copies to Beverly tomorrow for Board members. I will also send copies of each report to Cabinet members via interdistrict mail as soon as they are printed. I need your assistance to complete the timeline below, see number 4: 1. Copies of draft reports delivered to evaluation team members. Cabinet and Board members as soon as possible, or by Friday. 2. Evaluation teams will meet at the IRC (with evaluators on conference call) to give feedback on October 25 (Read 180 and 21 Century) and October 30 (A+). 3. Cabinet members to provide feedback by or during October 30 Cabinet me\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_72","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2006-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/72"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 2 8 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW OfflCE OF PLAINTIFl\u0026gt;~EGREGATION i10NITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Based on the information available at June 30, 2006, the ADE calculated the State Foundation Funding for FY 05/06, subject to periodic adjustments B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Based on tlie information available at June 30 2006, the ADE calculated for ~ 05/06 sub\"ect to eriodic ad'ustments C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2006 On June 30 2006 distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 05/06 were as follows: RSD -$67,135,18 NLRSD - $34,528,908 CSSD - 57 834 709 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 05/06 at June 30 ~006 sub'ect to riodic adjustments, were as follows LRSD-$67,135,18 NLRSD - $34,528,908 PCSSD - $57 834 709 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2006 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2006 for F~ 05/06 subect to periodic adjustments E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2006 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30 2006 for F'1 05/06 sub'ect to eriodic dustments It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2006 Basecl on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2006 for 05/06 subject to eriodic ad'ustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Distributions for FY 05/06 at June 30, 2006, totalecl $13,862,944. Allotment calculated for FY 05/06 was $13,862,944 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2006 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Distri utions for FY 05/06 at June 30, 2006, were RS 482,380 NL 91,996 ........,. _______ .........._ 19,283 The allotments calculated for FY 05/06 at June 30, 2006, subject to eriocr adjustments, were: LRSD - $,t,482,380 NLRSD - $4,691,996 PCSSD-$11,619,283 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2006 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 In November 2005, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $4,143,106.00 NLRSD - $834,966.13 PCSSD - $2,884,201.56 In November 2005, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $1,415,633.33 NLRSD - $284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD - $1,948,253.16 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. {Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 {Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD-14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD -12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. Q. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) s. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. U. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 16 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled afterthe Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201- A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearance Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7\n2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued} The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool {PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMTand its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 1 O, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 40 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start, Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended in service to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 47 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 {Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program {ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program {ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district we re provided the op po rtu n ity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued} 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 {Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Leaming and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and ShelleyWeirwere presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference atthe ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language {ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November?-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued} The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Leaming\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions o\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_841","title":"\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-07/2006-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","School boards","School employees","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/841"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n. , BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED JUL l 7 2006 OFROCFE DESEGREMGAOTKIOITNO RINI ass e North Little Rock School District Thursday, July 20, 2006 5:00 P.M. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. CALL TO ORDER, Marty Moore, President II. INVOCATION, Cecil Gibson, Argenta Academy Instructional Aide III. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS None VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:00 P.M. (Regular)-Page A- 1 B. Tuesday, June 27, 2006 5:30 P.M. (Special) -Page A- 6 C. Tuesday, July 11, 2006 5:30 P.M. (Special)-Page A- 9 VTI. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS Page 2 - Board Agenda July 20, 2006 A. Consider Arkansas School Boards Association Membership - K. Kirspel - Page B - 1 B. Consider 2006-2007 Proposed Budget ofExpenditures- K. Kirspel - Page C- 1 C. Consider Budget Workshop Date - K. Kirspel D. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - I 3. Consider bid items - Page R- 1 4. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - I IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS None X. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Thursday, August 17, 2006- 5:00 P.M. Regular Board Meeting XI. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES June 15, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, June 15, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. There were no public comments. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5 :00 p.m. Shara Brazear, Communications Specialist, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Absent Dorothy Williams, Member Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) and NLRHS - TV (video) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS None. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION Scott Teague moved to accept the minutes of the May 18, 2006 as printed. John Riley seconded the motion. A-l YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report No Report from Certified Personnel Policies Committee. Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker presented their report with nineteen (19) new proposals at this time. Eight (8) of the policies are to add nothing to the policies but to add the CL to designate them as classified policies. They are CFA (was CFB) -Working Hours for Non -Instructional Staff\nCFJ - Payment of Debts\nCFK - Citizenship Rights/Political Activities\nCFR - Tobacco Use By Employees\nCFSB - Employee Substance Abuse\nCGA - Grievance Procedures\nCGB - Solicitations\nand CGD - Directory Information. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the eight (8) new policies for the classified staff with no revisions other than adding the CL used to designated as classified policies: CF A (was CFB) -Working Hours for Non - Instructional Staff\nCFJ - Payment of Debts\nCFK - Citizenship Rights/Political Activities\nCFR - Tobacco Use By Employees\nCFSB - - Employee Substance Abuse\nCGA - Grievance Procedures\nCGB - Solicitations\nand CGD - Directory Information. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) Mrs. Tucker also presented eleven (11) new policies that need revising and the addition of CL for classified designation. They are: CDB - Teacher Retirement System- First paragraph - to add the words \"new employees\" and remove the words \"certified personnel, instructional aides, and secretariaVclerical staff' and \"either on a contributory or non contributory basis.\" CDC - Public Employees Retirement System - to add \"new\" and \"Contributory\" and \"Teacher\" deleting the words \"custodial, maintenance, transportation, and cafeteria\" and the phrase \"either contributory or non contributory.\"  CDH - Expense Reimbursement - Third paragraph - to add the word \"administrator\" and delete the words \"assistant superintendent.\" CEBA - CL - Extended Leave Without Pay - Second paragraph - adding the words \"building administrator\" in two places and \"District Personnel Officer\" and deleting the A-2 words \"principal\" and \"Director of Personnel\" and in the third paragraph- adding the - words \"District School\" prior to Board of Education. CEH - Vacations - two typographical errors were corrected. CFMB - Discipline of Employees - only CL will be added to this one. No other changes. CFO - Sign In/Out Procedures - adding the words \"Employees\" at the beginning of .the sentence and \"as directed by their supervisor and as required for proper payroll functions\" at the end of the sentence\nto delete the words \"by initialing the attendance roster upon arrival and departure. The posting of the time or the use of a time clock shall not be a part of this procedure.\" CFP - Annual Survey of Job Preference - to add the word \"Personnel\" in the title between Annual and Survey\nand as the second word in the first and second sentences\nand also as the fourth word in the first sentence of the third paragraph. CFSC - Network Appropriate Use - adding the word \"many\" between provides and employees in the first sentence\nand removing the words \"and students.\" Also this would remove all references to students in this policy. CFT - Personal Communications - adding the words \"employee should\" and removing \"teacher shall\"\nadding the word \"work\" and removing the word \"class\". CGC - Gifts - adding the words \"or vendors\" after staff. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the eleven (11) new policies for the classified staff with revisions as presented and to add the CL used to designated as classified policies: CDB - Teacher Retirement System\nCDC - Public Employees Retirement System\nCDH - Expense Reimbursement\nCEBA - Extended leave Without Pay\nCEH - Vacations\nCFMB - Discipline of Employees\nCFO - Sign In/Out Procedures\nCFP - Annual Personnel Survey of Job Preference\nCFSC - Network Appropriate Use\nCFT - Personal Communications and CGC - Gifts. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) Increase in School Lunch Prices Marsha Satterfield, Food Services Director, presented recommendation to the Board to increase the cost of school lunches for elementary students to $1.50 (increase of 10)\nsecondary students to $1.75 (increase of 25)\nand Adultffeachers (increase of 25). A-3- MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept the increases as proposed by Administration. Teresa - Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) Contract Renewals for Transportation Employees Danny Reed, Director for Personnel and Special Services, presented the list of transportation employees for contract renewals as printed in the agenda. MOTION John Riley moved to accept Administration's recommendation for contract renewals for transportation employees as printed in the agenda. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) Student Insurance Proposals Barry Kincl, Director of Finance, Audit and Purchasing, presented the recommendation to use Dwight Jones Insurance for one year coverage for athlete, spirit groups and all sanctioned AAA activities for $26,000. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept Administrations' recommendation to use Dwight Jones Insurance for insurance for one year for athletes, spirit groups and all AAA sanctioned activities for $26,000. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) Special Board Meeting Date Mr. Kirspel explained the bids for roofing and asbestos removal could not be completed until later this month but all must be filed with the State before June 30, 2006. The Board discussed date options. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to have a special Board meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 in the Board Room. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) Consent Agenda Mr. Kirspel requested approval of the consent agenda as printed. A-4 MOTION Scott Teague moved to accept the consent agenda as presented. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) INFORMATIONAL ITEM John Haynie, Transportation Director, presented to the Board some options to explore concerning the transportation communication system. He explained that technology needs to be utilized to insure the safety of our students. He requested permission from the Board to research more communication tools for the buses in the district. The Board agreed for him to pursue more information and present to the Board at a later date. PERSONNEL HEARING Mr. Reed stated no personnel hearing at this time. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Marty Moore, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-5 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES June 27, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a special session on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 in the Board Room of the Adrriinistration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member Absent Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall taped (audio) the meeting. Academic Transitional Facility Bids Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services, explained the new roofs, roof repairs and asbestos abatement bids for Poplar Street Middle, North Heights Elementary, NLRHS East Campus, Lakewood Elementary, NLRHS West Campus Music Building, NLRHS West Campus Creative Arts Building, NLRHS West Campus Science Building, Rose City Middle, Seventh Street Elementary, Lynch Drive Elementary, Ridgeroad Middle Charter, Amboy Elementary, and Crestwood Elementary with the Transitional Academic Facilities Funding. Mr. Massey expla\nn!!d his previous estimates on the bids were considerably lower than the bids due to prices increases for energy costs and the gulf coast States supply demand for repairing from Hurricane Katrina last year. A-6 MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the bids as presented and as listed on pages A -1 through A - 6. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) 2006 - 2007 Student Handbooks Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs, explained the variety of changes on the elementary, middle school and high school levels with the District Suspension form. In compliance with Arkansas Nutrition Standards Regulations and Act 1220 of 2003, all of the handbooks have wellness section explaining the new guidelines for students. After a discussion, the Board also amended the high school handbook to remove the reference on page 13 to \"Vespers\" under the excluded activities while a student is suspended. Vespers is no longer a school - sponsored activity. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the rev1s1ons to the student handbooks as presented by Administration with the Board's amendment (to remove Vespers). Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Employment and Transfer of Personnel Mr. Kirspel presented a new employment and a transfer as printed. MOTION John Riley moved to enter into executive session to discuss personnel recommendations. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) The Board entered into an Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. The Board reconvened in Regular Session at 6:55 p.m. MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept Administration's recommendation as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus- absent) A-7 ADJOURNMENT MOTION Dorothy moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Marty Moore, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-8 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES July 11, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a special session on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member Absent Rochelle Redus, Secretary Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nGregg Thompson, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall taped (audio) the meeting. Employment and Transfers of Personnel Mr. Kirspel presented the employment and transfers of personnel. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to enter into an executive session. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Redus - absent) The Board entered into an executive session at 5:32 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 6:00 p.m. A-9 MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the Administration's recommendations for the employment and transfers of personnel. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: ADJOURNMENT MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Redus - absent) Trent Cox moved to adjourn the meeting. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Teague and Williams NAYS: None (Riley - absent) President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Marty Moore, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-10 Arkansas School Boards Association .Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive  Little Rock, AR 72202-3646 (501) 372-1415  Fax (501) 375-2454  1-800-482-1212  www.arsba.org MEMORANDUM June 23, 2006 TO: All Superintendents, Co-op Directors FROM: Kathy McFetridge, ASBA President \u0026amp; Dan Farley, Executive Director RE: 2006-07 ASBA Membership RECEIVED JUN2 8 2006 ASBA's programs and services are outlined in the enclosed flyer, which has been sent to all members. Membership in the association has never been as important. ASBA is here to serve you, your board, and your school district by providing you with all the help it can to make your work a little bit easier. Our mission is to make the brightest possible future for our children through the education we provide them. Working together as a united force, we can improve our schools and better serve our communities. The ASBA Board of Directors approved the current membership fee schedule at its April 20 meeting. Some districts, if they lost students, may see a decrease in their fees\nothers, who gained students, may see a slight increase. The fees area based on the revenues published in the \"Annual Statistical Report of the Public Schools of Arkansas,\" published by the Arkansas Department of Education. The scale consists of 10 brackets and is printed on the enclosed flyer. We look forward to a successful new year of working together to improve the academic achievement and well-being of Arkansas public school students. B - 1 Arkansas School Boards Association 808 Dr. Martin Luther King Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: 1-800-482-1212 Bill To North Little Rock School District Kenneth Kirspel, Superintendent P.O. Box687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Date Event/Item Description 7/1/2006 Membership 2006-07 ASBA Membership Due Upon Receipt Phone# Fax# E-mail Web Site l-800-482-1212 (501) 375-2454 arsba@arsba.org www.arsba.org B - 2 Invoice Date Invoice No. 6/30/2006 4626 P.O. No.: Event/Item ASBA Membership Qty Cost Amount l 1,867.00 1,867.00 Total $1,867.00 Payments/Credits $0.00 Balance Due $1,867.00 PROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES TOGETHER WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2007 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30,-2008 The Board of Directors of the North Little Rock School District No. 1 of Pulaski County, Arkansas, in compliance with the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-622 and Amendment No. 40 and No. 74 of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas has prepared, approved and does hereby make public a proposed budget of expenditures for the district in 2007 - 2008 together with a supporting tax rate. The proposed budget of expenditures includes:  Salary Fund Expenditures Instructional Expense Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation Expense Pupil Transportation Expense Other Operating Expense Nonbonded Debt Payment Bonded Debt Payment Building Fund Expense $ 45, 000,000 20,515,000 6,800,000 3,670,000 1,380,000 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Dedicated M \u0026amp; 0 (Current Expend/Capital Outlay) 420,000 1,548,000 2,000,000 1,600,000 To provide for the foregoing proposed budget of expenditures, the Board of Directors proposes a total tax rate (state and local) of 40.9 mills on the dollar of the assessed value of taxable property located in this School District. The proposed tax includes the uniform rate of 25.0 mills (the \"Statewide Uniform Rate\") to be collected on all taxable property in the State and remitted to the State Treasurer pursuant to Amendment No. 74 to the Arkansas Constitution to be used solely for maintenance and operation of schools in the State. As provided in Amendment No. 74, the Statewide Uniform Rate replaces a portion of the existing rate of tax levied by this School District and available for maintenance and operation of schools in this District. This total tax levy includes 28. 7 mills for maintenance and operation of school\n2.9 mills for dedicated maintenance and operation Millage (formerly current expenditure/capital outlay) dedicated for the purpose of purchasing school buses, purchasing furniture and equipment to support instructional programs, purchasing computer software, and renovating, repairing and equipping existing facilities\nand 9.3 mills for debt service previously voted as a continuing levy and pledged for retirement of existing bonded indebtedness. Surplus revenues produced each year by debt service Millage may be used by the District for other school purposes. This request represents no increase in the total tax from the previous year. Given this 20th day of July 2006 North Little Rock School District No. 1 of Pulaski County, Arkansas C - 1 Marty Moore Presidl\\t t of Board Rochelle Redus Secretary of Board I North Little Rock School District Local Revenue Current Taxes Pullback Delinquent Taxes Excess Commissions Land Redemption Penalties \u0026amp; Interest on Taxes Tuition-Summer School/Day Care Interest on Investments Soft Drink Sales Misc Rev From Local Total Local Revenue Revenue From Intermediate Source !Severance Tax Revenue from State Sources-Unrestricted State Equalization Aid Student Growth Funding 0th Unrestr Grants-in-Aid Revenue from State Sources-Restricted Regular Education Special Education Early Childhood M-to-M Non-Instr Pgms Misc State estate NUE OPERATIONS d eotal Revenu TOTAL REVE Building Fun Capital Outla Food Service Federal Revenue y ATOTALFEDE 9J\"OTALREVE s Unrestricted-PL 874 Title I-B-4 ROTC Satellite Ed Research Erner Impact Aid Pgm Title I Title V-A Innovative Pgm Homeless Assistance Carl Perkins - Vocational Title 11-D Formula Grant Title VI -B Head Start Special Ed Preschool Medicaid Eisenhower Math/Science Title Ill - Eng Lang Acq Title IV-A Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Comprehensive Sch Health Accountability RAL REVENUE NUE JUNE 2006 2005-2006 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual $13,735,000.00 $0.00 $12,078,615.58 $6,530,000.00 $735,280.65 $6,178,911.28 $1,410,000.00 $64,374.78 $1,283,498.74 $150,000.00 $0.00 $311,991.32 $181,000.00 $15,866.64 $195,615.08 $42,000.00 $5,853.28 $68,216.66 $102,500.00 $57,433.23 $121,487.75 $360,000.00 $118,080.44 $899,347.46 $90,000.00 $8,324.64 $82,464.26 $819,990.00 $14,102.19 $108,279.96 $23,420,490.00 $1,019,315.85 $21,328,428.09 $13,000.00! $0.00! $8,004.97! $33,414,099.00 $3,409,249.00 $34,528,908.00 $0.00 $416,691.00 $829,872.00 $9,000.00 $0.00 $1,750.00 $499,745.00 $0.00 $536,057.74 $4,866,499.00 $497,020.00 $4,680,512.00 $2,155,150.00 $0.00 $2,256,650.00 $4,825,000.00 $713,700.45 $6,737,033.84 $1,805,435.00 $5,425.00 $1,284,662.66 $136,000.00 $5,508.77 $48,788.39 $47,710,928.00 $5,047,594.22 $50,904,234.63 $71,144,418.00 $6,066,910.07 $72,240,667.69 $46,000.00 $98,817.41 $239,511.43 $1,523,253.00 $79,209.84 $1,512,090.74 $3,213,000.00 $326,242.10 $3,598,362.86 $2,500.00 $64,717.00 $64,717.00 $65,549.00 $0.00 $0.00 $120,000.00 $9,066.59 $92,639.79 $180,000.00 $0.00 $180,000.00 $0.00 $229,261.00 $313,011.00 $3,175,702.00 $1,408,961.00 $3,175,702.00 $276,426.00 $0.00 $380,906.00 $180,000.00 $0.00 $183,000.00 $202,587.00 $6,127.00 $202,587.00 $58,407.00 $0.00 $58,407.00 $1,871,018.00 $0.00 $2,098,268.00 $705,491.00 $0.00 $494,241.00 $361,000.00 $54,353.54 $473,574.24 $610,000.00 $0.00 $982,010.00 $16,976.00 $16,542.00 $16,542.00 $73,706.00 $0.00 $73,706.00 $0.00 $0.00 $45,000.00 $65,000.00 $0.00 $19,834.83 $7,964,362.00 $1,789,028.13 $8,854,145.86 $83,891,033.00 $8,360,207.55 $86,444,778.58 0-1 YTD Budget Balance Actual/Bud $1,656,384.42 87.94% $351,088.72 94.62% $126,501.26 91.03% -$161,991.32 207.99% -$14,615.08 108.07% -$26,216.66 162.42% -$18,987.75 118.52% -$539,347.46 249.82% $7,535.74 91.63% $711,710.04 13.21% $2,092,061.91 91.07% $4,995.03! 61.58%! -$1,114,809.00 103.34% -$829,872.00 $7,250.00 19.44% -$36,312.74 107.27% $185,987.00 96.18% -$101,500.00 104.71% -$1,912,033.84 139.63% $520,772.34 71.16% $87,211.61 35.87% -$3, 193,306.63 106.69% -$1,096,249.69 101.54% -$193,511.43 520.68% $11,162.26 99.27% -$385,362.86 111.99% -$62,217.00 2588.68% $65,549.00 0.00% $27,360.21 77.20% $0.00 100.00% -$313,011.00 $0.00 100.00% -$104,480.00 137.80% -$3,000.00 101.67% $0.00 100.00% $0.00 100.00% -$227,250.00 112.15% $211,250.00 70.06% -$112,574.24 131.18% -$372,010.00 160.99% $434.00 97.44% $0.00 100.00% -$45,000.00 $45,165.17 30.52% -$889, 783.86 111.17% -$2,553, 7 45.58 103.04% Expenditure Category CERTIFIED SALARIES CERTIFIED BENEFITS CLASSIFIED SALARIES CLASSIFIED BENEFITS TOTAL SALARIES \u0026amp; BENEFITS Purchased-Prof ff ech Services Purchased Property Services Other Purchased Services Supplies and Materials Property Other Objects Other Uses of Funds Total Other Expenditures OPERATING FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND BUILDING FUND FEDERAL FUND FOOD SERVICE FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES North Little Rock School District JUNE 2006 2005-2006 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual $34,874,548.00 $6,672,296.66 $36,954,715.16 $10,107,052.41 $2,016,823.29 $9,728,580.42 $10,422,770.60 $1,435,956.94 $10,300,991.69 $3,857,441.17 $590,622.18 $3,683,491.20 $59,261,812.18 $10,715,699.07 $60,667,778.47 $977,902.19 $96,466.15 $1,093,359.44 $979,384.54 $122,806.91 $948,306.55 $2,537,508.99 $200,604.04 $2,633,381.52 $4,669,020.15 $388,528.65 $4,184,872.52 $274,292.00 $158,752.90 $392,215.11 $1,005,410.84 $3,621.38 $648,288.70 $700,207.00 $0.00 $353,202.73 $11,143,725.71 $970,780.03 $10,253,626.57 $70,405,537.89 $11,686,479.10 $70,921,405.04 $1,599,207.00 $91,525.52 $1,228,772.42 $1,676,206.00 $16,267.00 $16,267.00 $9,635,909.95 $1,819,860.97 $6,605,237.43 $2,942,736.00 $345,578.47 $3,375,426.56 $86,259,596.84 $13,959,711.06 $82,147,108.45 0-2 %Yid Budget Balance Actual/Bud -$2,080,167.16 105.96% $378,471.99 96.26% $121,778.91 98.83% $173,949.97 95.49% -$1,405,966.29 102.37% -$115,457.25 111.81% $31,077.99 96.83% -$95,872.53 103.78% $484,147.63 89.63% -$117,923.11 142.99% $357,122.14 64.48% $347,004.27 50.44% $890,099.14 92.01% -$515,867 .15 100.73% $370,434.58 76.84% $1,659,939.00 0.97% $3,030,672.52 68.55% -$432,690.56 114.70% $4,112,488.39 95.23% Function Category 11 XX Reqular Proqrams-Elem/Sec 12XX Special Education 13XX Workforce Education 15XX Comoensatorv Education 19XX Other Instructional 21XX Support Services-Students 22XX Suport Services-Instruction 23XX SuPPort Services-Administration 24XX Support Services-Sch Admin 25XX Suooort Services-Business 26XX M \u0026amp; 0 Plant Services 27XX Pupil Transportation 28XX Support Services-Central 29XX Other Support Services 31XX Food Services 33XX Community Service Operations 34XX Other Non-Instr Services 43XX Site Improvement Services 44XX Arch/Eng Services 46XX Bldg Acq/Constr Services ?XX Building Improvements 51XX LEA Indebtedness 53XX Payment to other LEA 55XX Indirect CosUAdmin Charqes GRAND TOTAL North Little Rock School District FUNCTION - JUNE 2006 2005-2006 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual $27,427,290.72 $5,874,594.88 $29,057,768.43 $9,477,206.00 $1,914,420.13 $9,339,226.95 $2,077,304.00 $256,952.14 $1,750,248.05 $3,857,957.00 $1,065,344.82 $3,197,616.53 $3,200,050.51 $503,779.05 $3,180,613.18 $7,141,053.00 $1,112,614.53 $6,064,280.33 $5,587,492.92 $771,897.13 $4,948,728.89 $1,092,984.39 $81,191.02 $1,033,283.09  $4,337,794.80 $526,815.81 $4,330,008.98 $673,014.00 $49,311.92 $693,056.30 $6,521,692.50 $821,183.27 $6,598,121.37 $4,141,782.00 $314,442.24 $3,458,828.76 $1,494,281.00 $98,213.43 $1,386,114.56 $456,555.00 $35,450.43 $506,222.15 $3,615,511.00 $411,705.50 $4,031,855.69 $71,841.00 $30,444.18 $47,238.31 $68,243.00 $12,394.45 $120,078.09 $0.00 $16,267.00 $21,562.00 $0.00 $0.00 $195,000.00 $45,500.00 $0.00 $1,815.00 $1,676,206.00 $32,850.00 $42,112.00 $1,889,564.00 $29,839.13 $1,018,649.03 $1,270,000.00 $0.00 $1,124,680.76 $136,274.00 $0.00 $0.00 $86,259,596.84 $13,959,711.06 $82,147,108.45 0-3 %Ytd Budget Balance Actual/Bud -$1,630,477.71 105.94% $137,979.05 98.54% $327,,055.95 84.26% $660,340.47 82.88% $19,437.33 99.39% $1,076,772.67 84.92% $638,764.03 88.57% $59,701.30 94.54% $7,785.82 99.82% -$20,042.30 102.98% -$76,428.87 101.17% $682,953.24 83.51% $108,166.44 92.76% -$49,667.15 110.88% -$416,344.69 111.52% $24,602.69 65.75% -$51,835.09 175.96% -$21,562.00 -$195,000.00 $43,685.00 3.99% $1,634,094.00 2.51% $870,914.97 53.91% $145,319.24 88.56% $136,274.00 0.00% $4,112,488.39 95.23% North Little Rock School District SOURCE OF FUNDS  JUNE 2006 ' Current Month Ytd Source of Funds Category Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual Budget Balance Actual/Bud 000 Non-categorical $67,849,075.08 $10,406,372.64 $66,526,589.02 $1,322,486.06 98.05% 003 Extended Day Programs $0.00 $2,413.42 $28,037.09 -$28,037.09 020 Alternative-Local $7,047.00 $50.55 $1,388.78 $5,658.22 19.71 ' 045 Summer School $58,375.00 $41,717.44 $68,435.69 -$10,060.69 117.23% 050 Camp Robinson Work Pgm $44,000.00 $1,980.39 $19,966.81 $24,033.19 45.38% 053 GIT Summer Quest $25,350.00 $25,532.18 $25,813.19 -$463.19 101.83% 055 Soft Drink Sales $207,352.31 $28,917.78 $127,029.77 $80,322.54 61.26% 066 Teachers of Tomorrow $0.00 $0.00 $525.00 -$525.00 075 Arkansas Arts Council $0.00 $0.00 $360.00 -$360.00 077 Walton Family Foundation $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 083 Ark Heritage/Wildwood $640.00 $0.00 $640.00 $0.00 100.00% 090 Yale 21st Century $25,ooo.od $3,266.17 $21,259.04 $3,740.96 85.04% 095 ADE Gates Grant $4,283.15 $0.00 $0.00 $4,283.15 0.00% 199 Summer Pre-K Program $0.00 $13,002.79 $13,002.79 -$13,002.79 213 Intensive School Improvement $9,000.00 $0.00 $3,990.36 $5,009.64 44.34% 223 Prof Development Act 59 $521,961.22 $45,255.49 $371,906.29 $150,054.93 71.25% 225 Technology Grant $1,724.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,724.00 0.00% 227 CPEP $71,710.00 $24,242.92 $42,824.81 $28,885.19 59.72% 245 Pathwise Mentoring $63,969.00 $37,670.48 $120,247.64 -$56,278.64 187.98% 250 Act 591 Residential $73,000.00 $9,300.00 $45,950.00 $27,050.00 62.95% 260 Early Childhood Sp Ed $729,627.00 $123,053.66 $757,146.04 -$27,519.04 103.77% 271 GfT Advance Placement $4,000.78 $0.00 $204.00 $3,796.78 5.10% 275 Alternative Leaming Environment $1,290,745.00 $236,719.19 $1,248,746.91 $41,998.09 96.75% 276 English Lang Learners $68,973.00 $7,506.63 $67,057.24 $1,915.76 97.22% 281 NSLA $2,710,070.00 $525,827.04 $2,893,899.17 -$183,829.17 106.78% 340 Workforce Start-up $28,090.00 $0.00 $577.65 $27,512.35 2.06% 365 ABC Preschool $2,198,770.08 $478,450.40 $2,243,853.94 -$45,083.86 102.05% 381 Smart Start Literacy $80,619.00 $4,384.27 $78,898.73 $1,720.27 97.87% - 392 General Facility Funding $564,409.00 $72,887.25 $585,853.26 -$21,444.26 103.80% 398 DHS Preschool Improvement $10,711.27 $2,182.40 $3,550.80 $7,160.47 33.15% 406 Academic Fae lmmed Repair $0.00 $49,117.00 $244,117.00 -$244,117.00 406 lmprv Lit Thru Libraries $0.00 $2,390.05 $61,044.81 -$61,044.81 430 ROTC $120,000.00 $16,995.18 $122,868.49 -$2,868.49 102.39% 441 Title IV-B 21st Century $242,547.76 $34,549.40 $271,087.56 -$28,539.80 111.77% 501 Title I-Reg Comp Ed $4,490,638.39 $638,721.48 $2,223,633.21 $2,267,005.18 49.52% 504 Title I Program Improvement $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 520 Title V-A Innovative Program $344,251.00 $251,091.06 $259,167.98 $85,083.02 75.28% 523 Title I Reading First $234,444.00 $168,142.52 $351,792.59 -$117,348.59 150.05% 530 Homeless-Stewart McKinney $19,209.00 $1,428.82 $12,483.92 $6,725.08 64.99% 535 Title V-B Charter Schools $131,053.54 $400.00 $80,311.64 $50,741.90 61.28% 565 Teacher Quality Enhancement $0.00 $15,317.36 $70,632.51 -$70,632.51 570 Carl Perkins Vocational $196,114.00 $67,751.92 $203,114.73 -$7,000.73 103.57% 595 Title 11-DE d Technology I $61,493.95 $58,071.70 $58,071.70 $3,422.25 94.43% 702 Title VI-B PL 94-142 I $1,780,741.00 $247,131.68 $1,332,208.55 $448,532.45 74.81% 703 Title VI-B Head Start $89,910.00 $15,130.90 $83,118.11 $6,791.89 92.45% 710 Sp Ed Preschool Sec 619 $823,280.00 $136,258.28 $712,194.37 $111,085.63 86.51% 720 Title VI-B Sliver Gr.:: ,t $99,254.00 $0.00 $0.00 $99,254.00 0.00% 750 Medicaid $288,382.00 $19,154.21 $163,702.42 $124,679.58 56.77% 751 Medicaid Sp Ed Preschool $60,000.00 $7,197.99 $47,713.18 $12,286.82 79.52% 756 Title II-A Improve Teaching $534,343.31 $92,394.99 $407,461.83 $126,881.48 76.25% 761 Title Ill Eng Lang Acqui $11,662.00 $0.00 $13,969.72 -$2,307.72 119.79% 781 Title IV-A Drug Ed $73,586.00 $19,653.90 $75,075.95 -$1,489.95 102.02% 785 Comprehensive Sch Health $24,837.40 $28,674.99 -$28,674.99 - 796 Workforce Investment Act $35,000.00 $3,242.13 $26,909.17 $8,090.83 76.88% GRAND TOTAL $86,259,596.84 $13,959,711.06 $82,147,108.45 $4,137,303.39 95.23% 0-4 $80,000,000.00 $70,000,000.00 $60,000,000.00 $50,000,000.00 $40,000,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 NLRSD Actual to Budget Comparison As of June, 2006 Operating Building Capital Outlay Funds 0-5 Federal Food Service !.!Budget LI Expenses NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Board Agenda - July 20, 2006 ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS June Haynie Penny Elliott NAME: Administration, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Effective 7 /14/06 NEW ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL Rose City Middle School, Principal Effective 7 /24/06, Category I, Step 10, 252 days NEW ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS Penny Elliott PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Rose City Middle School, Principal EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: BS- University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/81 MA - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/90 Nevada-English 7-12, Speech \u0026amp; Drama, School Administrator K-12 Arkansas License pending reciprocity Chaparral High School, Las Vegas, NV - Principal, 2003 - 2006 Orr Middle School, Las Vegas, NV - Principal, 2001 - 2003 Cimarron-Memorial High School, Las Vegas, NV - Asst. Principal 1999-2001 Cimarron-Memorial High School, Las Vegas, NV - Administrative Dean 1997 - 1999 Cimarron-Memorial High School, Las Vegas, NV - English Teacher, 1991 - 1997 Oak Grove High School, North Little Rock, AR - English/ Theatre Teacher 1982 - 1991 Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Ken Kirspel, Superintendent of Schools CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS Kathy Arnold Sara Berryman Lori Brainerd Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Math Specialist Effective 6/14/06 Seventh Street Elementary, Reading Recovery Effective 7 /3/06 NLRHS East Campus, Special Education/Cheer Sponsor Effective 8/1/06 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS CONTINUED Karen Cobb Natalie Cope Rebecca Davis Whitney Fletcher Melanie Gilliam Anita Gray Cathie Huey Cassandra Jones Patrick Kirwin Anna Lowrance Patrick Miller Nancy Moore Jennifer Park Betty Powell Amber Runsick Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Social Studies Effective 8/13/06 Seventh Street Elementary, First Grade Effective 5/30/06 Amboy Elementary, Third Grade Effective 8/12/06 NLRHS East Campus, Clinical Counselor Effective 6/20/06 Amboy Elementary, Second Grade Effective 8/1/06 Indian Hills Elementary, Kindergarten Effective 6/22/06 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, English Effective 5/30/06 Boone Park Elementary, First Grade Effective 8/7 /06 Lakewood Middle School, English/Social Studies/Math Effective 5/30/06 Redwood Early Childhood Center, Pre-Kindergarten Effective 8/14/06 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Math Effective 7 /10/06 Poplar Street Middle School, Special Education Effective 5/30/06 NLRHS East Campus, F ACS/Keystone Effective 6/30/06 NLRHS West Campus, French III \u0026amp; IV .38 FTE Effective 5/30/06 Belwood Elementary, Media Specialist .50 FTE Effective 8/1/06 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS CONTINUED Amanda Symancyk Paul Taylor Amboy/Meadow Park Elementary, Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Facilitator Effective 8/1/06 NLRHS East Campus, Band Director Effective 7/12/06 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES Ruba Abdin From Amboy Elementary, Kindergarten To Amboy Elementary, Pre-Kindergarten Honnye Athanasiou ---- From Argenta Academy, Special Education To Lakewood Middle School, Special Education Michelle Baggett From Lynch Drive Elementary, Kindergarten To Crestwood Elementary, First Grade Mindi Disterdick From Lynch Drive Elementary, Second Grade To Lynch Drive Elementary, Special Education Suzanne Gilliam From Park Hill Elementary, ALE Classroom To Park Hill Elementary, Special Education Resource Nancy Greene From Special Services - Annex, Speech Therapist To Seventh Street Elementary, Speech Therapist Carolyn Hanks From Lynch Drive Elementary, Math Coach To Crestwood Elementary, Fifth Grade Gwen Hammonds From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Social Studies To NLRHS West Campus, Social Studies Cindy Lann From Indian Hills Elementary, Third Grade To Park Hill Elementary, Math Coach Deanna Mann From Amboy Elementary, Fifth Grade To Amboy Elementary, Math Coach Carrie Manning From Boone Park Elementary, Fifth Grade To Boone Park Elementary, Math Coach Denise Maxam From Amboy Elementary, Pre-Kindergarten To Amboy Elementary, Fifth Grade -P-3 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES CONTINUED Sara McAlister From Belwood Elementary, Special Education To Lakewood Middle School, Special Education Joy Nichols From Lakewood Middle School, Special Education To Argenta Academy, Special Education Lynda Sisco From NLRHS West Campus, Special Education To Special Services -Annex, Special Education Hearing Impaired Vicki Steadman From North Heights/Boone Park Elementary, Special Education To North Heights Elementary, Literacy Coach Eric Waldorf From North Heights Elementary, Second Grade To North Heights Elementary, Math Coach Joanie Walker From Amboy Elementary, Reading First Coach To Lynch Drive Elementary, Reading First Coach Melanie Wooldridge ---- From Lynch Drive Elementary, Second Grade To Indian Hills Elementary, Second Grade Susan Bruton Amy Buehlig Mindy Carroll Holly Crossman Raymond Girdler Arline Hemphill Hannah Hill NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL Unassigned Elementary Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Special Services Department, Speech Language Pathologist Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 4, 190 days Tri-District Early Childhood, Speech Pathologist Effective 8/7/06, Category IV, Step 1,200 days Lakewood Middle School, PE/Health/ Athletics Effective 7 /31/06, Category I, Step 0, 200 days Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Math Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Lynch Drive Elementary, Kindergarten Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Lynch Drive Elementary, Second Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 2, 190 days P-4 - Matthew How Robin Johnson Araceli Johnston Rachel Jouvenaux Bruce Maddox Porsha Martin Angela McAlpin - Kelly Meyer Julie Mobley Marybeth Norcross Trinina Norris Megan Page Barrett Petty Tanya Phillips Tabitha Radford NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED North Heights Elementary, Fifth Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category, IV, Step 9, 190 days Boone Park Elementary/North Heights Elementary, Special Education Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days NLRHS West Campus, Spanish Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 2, 190 days Glenview Elementary, Special Education Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days NLRHS West Campus, Secondary Math Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 2, 190 days Meadow Park Elementary, Kindergarten Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Belwood Elementary, Special Education Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 12, 190 days Indian Hills Elementary, Third Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 6, 190 days Lakewood Elementary, Fifth Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 18, 190 days Poplar Street Middle School, Language Arts/Social Studies Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Boone Park Elementary, Fifth Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Amboy Elementary, Third Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 2, 190 days NLRHS East Campus, Math Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days NLRHS East Campus, Criminal Justice Teacher Effective 8/18/06, Category IV, Step 5, 195 days Special Services, Speech Language Pathology Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 2, 190 days P-5 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED Barbara Rhodes NLRHS West Campus, Art Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category VI, Step 21, 190 days Leslie Riddick Unassigned Elementary Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 5, 190 days Randi Riggs Amboy Elementary, Second Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days ' Rhonda Rook Amboy Elementary, Literacy Coach Effective 8/14/06, Category VI, Step 20, 190 days Anna Sanders Meadow Park Elementary, Fifth Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category V, Step 10, 190 days Erica Smith Unassigned Elementary Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Jessica Spaeth NLRHS West Campus, Spanish Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 1, 190 days Gena Sparks Poplar Street Middle School, Special Education - Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 6, 190 days Gladys Swift Lakewood Middle School, Special Education Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 0, 190 days Lindy Thompson Tri-District Early Childhood, Special Education Effective 8/14/06, Category II, Step 17, 190 days Sophia Vega North Heights Elementary, Second Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 2, 190 days NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION: Susan M. Bruton Unassigned, Elementary Teacher BSE -UALR, Little Rock, AR 5/06 Early Childhood P-4 Redwood Early Childhood Center, North Little Rock, AR 8/05 - 3/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel -P-6 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION AmyBuehlig Special Services Department, Speech Language Pathologist BSE - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/99 MSE- University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/02 Speech Language Pathologist P-12 NW AESC Early Childhood Program, Farmington, AR 10/03 - 6/05 Richardson Center, Fayetteville, AR 05/03 - 10-03 Meyer Pediatric Therapy Services, Rogers, AR 5/02 - 5/03 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Mindy E. Carroll Tri-District Early Childhood, Occupational Therapist BS - University of Central Arkansas, 12/03 MS - University of Central Arkansas, 8/05 State of Arkansas, Medical Board, Occupational Therapist ACCESS Schools, Little Rock, AR 8/05 - 8/06 Thelma Jasper, Coordinator Tri-District Early Childhood Program Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of ,Personnel Holly Crossman Lakewood Middle School, PE/Health/ Athletics BA- Lyon College, Batesville, AR 05/03 Non-Traditional Provisional License Pending Non-Traditional Licensure Program Dr. Ginger Wallace, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Raymond Girdler Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Secondary Math BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/06 Secondary Math 7-12 Vilonia Junior High School, Vilonia, AR 8/04 - 12/04 Conway J-Jigh School East, Conway, AR 1/05 -5/05 June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel -P-7 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION Arline Hemphill Lynch Drive Elementary, Kindergarten BSE - University of Arkansas Little Rock, AR 5/06 Early Childhood Education P-4 Lakewood Elementary, North Little Rock, AR 8/05 -3/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel ' Hannah Hill Lynch Drive Elementary, Second Grade BSE - Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL 4/04 License Pending Reciprocity Gadsden City Schools, Gadsden, AL 8/04 - 5/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Matthew How North Heights Elementary, Fifth Grade BA- University of California, Los Angeles, CA 12/97 M.Ed- National University, Los Angeles, CA 01/02 Early Childhood Education P-5\nGrades 5-6 Endorsement\nESL P-8 and ESL 7-12 Chino Valley Unified Schools, Chino, CA 8/03 -6/06 Pasadena Unified Schools, Pasadena, CA 9/02 - 6/03 Chino Hills Christian Schools, Chino Hills, CA 9/98 - 6/02 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Robin Johnson Boone Park/North Heights Elementary, Special Education BSE -Arkansas State University, Beebe, AR 5/06 Early Childhood Education P-4\nALP for Special Education McRae Elementary, McRae, AR 1/06- 5/06 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Araceli Johnston NLRHS West Campus, Spanish University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 5/93 Spanish P-8 and Spanish 7-12 Academics Plus Charter School, Maumelle, AR 8/04 - 8/06 June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel P-8 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION Rachel Jouvenaux Glenview Elementary, Special Education BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/06 Initial License Pending Mayflower Elementary, Mayflower, AR 3/06 - 6/06 Ida Burns Elementary, Conway, AR 11/05 - 3/06 Easter Seals Preschool, Little Rock, AR 9/05 - 10/05 Mayflower Elementary, 1/05 -4/05 Cabot Central Elementary, 9/04- 12/04 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Bruce Maddox NLRHS West Campus, Secondary Math BA - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/86 MA- Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 3/96 Secondary Math 7-12 Des Arc High School, Des Arc, AR 8/04 - 6/06 June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Porscha Martin Meadow Park Elementary, Kindergarten BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/06 Initial Licensure Pending Florence Mattison International Elementary, Conway, AR 1/06- 5/06 Ida Burns Elementary, Conway, AR 9/05 -12/05 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Angela McAlpin Belwood Elementary, Special Education BSE - University of Arkansas, Monticello, AR 12/03 Early Childhood Education P-4\nALP for Special Education Jacksonville Middle School, Jacksonville, AR 12/03 - 5/05 Mayflower Elementary, Mayflower, AR 08/05 - 05/06 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel -P-9 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION Kelly Meyer Indian Hills Elementary, Third Grade BSE - University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA 5/00 License Pending Reciprocity Wilderness Oak Elementary, San Antonio, TX 8/05 - 5/06 Redland Oaks Elementary, San Antonio, TX 8/04 - 5/05 Cody Elementary School, San Antonio, TX 8/00 - 5/04 Sheryll Smith, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Jenna Mobley Amboy Elementary, Kindergarten BSE - Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR 8/06 Initial License Pending Fox Meadow Elementary, Jonesboro, AR 1/06-5/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Julie Mobley Lakewood Elementary, Fifth Grade BSE -Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR 5/84 MSE -Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR 5/97 Elementary 1-6\nMiddle School English 5-8 Piggott School District, Piggott, AR 8/84 - 6/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Marybeth Norcross Poplar Street Middle School, Language Arts/Social Studies BA - University of California, Davis, CA 6/83 Provisional Middle Level Education - Math, English, Science And Social Studies 4-8 Non-Traditional Licensure Program Bill Bowers, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Directo .. n,f Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel -P-10 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION Tranina Norris Boone Park Elementary, Fifth Grade BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/05 Middle Level Education - Math, English, Science, and Social Studies 4-8 Ruth Doyle Intermediate, Conway, AR 8/04-12/05 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Megan Page Amboy Elementary, Third Grade BSE- University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 12/03 Early Childhood Education P-4 Lincoln Consolidated School District, Lincoln, AR 8/04 - 6/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Barrett Wade McCoy Petty NLRHS East Campus, Math BA - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/03 Non-Traditional Provisional License Pending Non-Traditional Licensure Program D. Lee Tackett, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Tanya Phillips NLRHS East Campus, Criminal Justice BA- Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 12/98 MA- University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 04/01 Special Education Instructional Specialist P-4, Special Education Instructional Specialist 4-12\nCriminal Justice endorsement pending Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR 08/05 - 06/06 D. Lee Tackett, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Tabitha Radford Special Services DepartrnPnt, Speech Language Pathologist BS - University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 5/02 MA - University of Arkansas Medical Sciences, Little Rock, 5/04 Licensed Speech Therapist, ADE License Pending Allied Therapy, Ward, AR 8/04- 7/06 Developmental Therapy, Little Rock, AR 7/04- 12/04 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel P-11 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Barbara Rhodes NLRHS West Campus, Art BSE - University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 5/69 MSE - University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 5/03 Art P-8\nArt 7-12 Pulaski County Special School District, Little Rock, AR 8/77 - 6/06 Oak Grove High School, No. Little Rock, AR 9/70 - 6/72 Glen Junior High, Winston Salem, NC 8/69 - 1/70 June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Leslie Riddick Unassigned Elementary Teacher BSE- Union University, Jackson, TN 5/01 MSE-Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, MO12/05 License Pending Reciprocity Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Randi Riggs Amboy Elementary, Second Grade BSE- University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 12/05 Early Childhood Education P-4 Magness Creek Elementary, Cabot, AR 8/05 - 12/05 Marguerite Vann Elementary, Conway, AR 1/05 -5/05 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Rhonda Rook Amboy Elementary, Literacy Coach BSE- Southern State College, Magnolia, AR 5/75 MSE- Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, AR 8/78 Elementary Principal K-9\nEarly Childhood Education P-4\nElementary Education K-6\nReading Specialist P-8 Sheridan School District, Sheridan, AR 705 - 6/06 Hope School District, Hope, AR 7 /03 - 6/05 North Little Rock School District, No. Little Rock, AR 7/01-6/03 Dawson Education Services Cooperative, Arkadelphia, AR 7 /99 - 6/00 Arkansas Better Chance Program, Little Roel.:: AR 1/98 - 6/99 William Jefferson Clinton Primary School, Hope, AR 8/95 - 1/98 Edith Brown Elementary School, Hope, AR 8/89 - 9-92 Yerger Middle School, Hope, AR 8/84 - 8/89 McRae Elementary School, McRae, AR 8/77 - 8/84 Fairview Kindergarten, El Dorado, AR 8/75 -8/77 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel -P-12 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Anna Sanders Meadow Park Elementary, Fifth Grade BA - Hendrix College, Arkadelphia, AR 5/96 M.Ed. - University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 5/99 Elementary Principal K-9\nMiddle School Social Studies 5-8\nElementary 1-6 Our Lady of Good Counsel, Little Rock, AR 8/97 - 6/06 FACT, Inc. El Dorado, AR 8/96-5/97 Rosie Coleman, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Erica Smith Unassigned Elementary Teacher BSE-Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, AR 5/06 Initial License Pending Smackover Elementary School, Smackover, AR 1/06 - 5/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Jessica Spaeth NLRHS West Campus, Spanish BA - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/05 Spanish P-8\nSpanish 7-12, English/Language Arts 7-12\nESL-P-8 Greenbrier Junior High, Greenbrier, AR 1/05 - 5/05 June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Gena M. Sparks Poplar Street Middle School, Special Education BSE - University of Houston, Houston, TX 6/02 License Pending Reciprocity Evans Middle School, McKinney, TX 8/04-6/06 Winship Elementary, Spring, TX 8/03 - 5/04 Lynn Lucas Middle School, Willis, TX 8/00- 5/03 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel P-13 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Gladys Swift Lakewood Middle School, Special Education BS - University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff, AR 8/76 MA- Webster University, Little Rock, AR 5/93 Health Education 7-12\nSecondary Physical Education 7-12  ALP for Special Education Dr. Ginger Wallace, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Melinda Kaye Thompson Tri-District Early Childhood Program, Special Education BSE - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/82 Elementary 1-6\nSpecial Education Early Childhood Specialist P-4\nSpecial Education Hearing Impaired P-4\nSpecial Education Hearing Impaired 4-12 Allied Therapy, Sherwood, AR 1997 - 2006 Access School, Little Rock, AR 1996 - 1997 Victory Baptist School, Sherwood, AR 1995 - 1996 Hurst, Euless, Bedford Schools, Hurst, TX 1987 - 1988 Williams Academy, Fort Worth, TX 1984 - 1987 A Arkansas School for the Deaf, Little Rock, AR 1982 - 1984  Thelma Jasper, Coordinator Tri-District Early Childhood Program Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Sophia Vega North Heights Elementary, Second Grade BA-Texas Lutheran University, Seguin, TX 12/99 MA- University of Texas, San Antonio, TX 12/04 License Pending Reciprocity John Glenn Elementary, San Antonio, TX 2004 - 2006 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL TRANSFERS AND CHANGE~ Jeff Martello From Adm. Annex, Computer Technician To Administration, Software Support Specialist Effective 7 /21/06 P-14 NEW PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL PERSONNEL - Cedric Black Administration, Computer Operator Effective 7 /21/06 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS Sharon Conner Indian Hills Elementary, Special Education Aide Effective 6/30/06 Linda Evans NLRHS West Campus, Custodian Effective 6/29/06 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES Elden Baxter From Plant Services, Substitute Custodian To NLRHS West Campus, Custodian Stacy Reed From Amboy Elementary, Lead Custodian To Lakewood Middle School, SAC Aide - NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL Rebecca Reeves Lakewood Middle School, Nurse-Bachelor's Effective 8-9-06, Category 403, Step 4, 193 days P-15 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JULY BIDS FOR APPROVAL BID NUMBER : 06-06-064 BID NAME : Copy Paper (3,000 cases) SOURCE OF FUNDING : District LOCATION: Warehouse Printing Paper Unisource Corporate Express * ** *** **** ***** Did Not Meet Specifications Part of all or No Bid Quality Not Recommended Limited Coverage Recommended $86,700.00 $80,115.00 $72,660.00 ***** S-1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT A AES P - ARKANSAS ASSN. OF A AES P - ARKANSAS ASSN. OF A AES P - ARKANSAS ASSN. OF AP EXAMS A PLUS EDUCATION A T \u0026amp; T A T \u0026amp; T A TO Z INHOME TUTORING A TO Z INHOME TUTORING AW PELLER \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES INC AW PELLER \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES INC A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC MEA MEA MEA MEA MSBO MTFACS/FACS INSERVICE ABC SCHOOL SUPPLY ABC SCHOOL SUPPLY ABC SCHOOL SUPPLY ABERNATHY COMPANY ACADEMIC COMMUNICATION ASSOC. ACADEMIC SUPERSTORE ACCESS SCHOOLS ACCESS SCHOOLS ACI PLASTICS ACT PUBLICATIONS ADEQ ADEQ ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AEA AEA AEA AEA AEA AEA AEA AEA AEA FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT UNION UNION UNION UNION UNION UNION T-- 1 AMOUNT .00 60.00 1,250.00 1,700.00 2,814.00 5,791.70 84.00 4 61. 72 5,910.30 2,700.00 222.85 58.22 1,285.11 503.02 158.12 590.58 34.00 510.00 318.80 75.84 850.00 20.00 200.00 374.81 127.63 353.87 316.80 37.50 276.30 3,900.00 3,600.00 368.67 500.00 150.00 150.00 11,303.45 11,822.90 9,318.02 88. 77 1,317.71 678. 96 189.60 189.60 50.00 2,477.00 2,414.50 2,414.50 1,839.50 1,839.50 CHK. NO. 0 57429 58056 58184 57245 57905 57488 57656 57833 58190 57120 57617 57379 57716 58007 58179 57701 57118 57405 57752 57829 57828 57506 57119 57430 57 616 57275 57257 57838 57145 57845 57434 57521 57148 57441 57773 57795 58039 57189 57878 57598 57747 57813 57081 57397 57609 57738 57782 57805 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. AFRICAN AMERICAN IMAGES 263.07 57224 AHA PROCESS INCORPOARTED 36,575.29 57330 AHA PROCESS INCORPOARTED 5,894.44 57564 AIMEE WRIGHT 76.48 57556 ALAN CROWNOVER 167.88 57133 ALAN CROWNOVER 317.93 58193 ALARMCO INCORPORATED 1,569.50 57552 ALEXANDRA PRITCHETT 14.43 57153 ALIGN .00 57072 V ALIGN .00 57083 V ALIGN .00 57108 V ALIGN .00 57116 V ALIGN .00 57388 V ALIGN .00 57403 V ALIGN .00 57420 V ALIGN .00 57428 V ALIGN .00 57585 V ALIGN .00 57594 V ALIGN .00 57601 V ALIGN .00 57614 V ALIGN .00 57719 V ALIGN .00 57730 V ALIGN .00 57743 V ALIGN .00 57750 V ALIGN .00 57764 V ALIGN .00 57774 V ALIGN .00 57786 V ALIGN .00 57797 V ALIGN .00 57809 V ALIGN .00 57814 V ALIGN .00 57822 V ALIGN .00 57827 V ALIGN ~oo 58010 V ALIGN .00 58018 V ALIGN .00 58030 V ALIGN .00 58040 V ALIGN .00 58055 V ALIGN .00 58183 V ALIGN .00 58247 V ALIGN .00 58259 V ALISHA HERRING 110.29 57344 ALL AMERICAN INC. 2,840.00 57620 ALL AMERICAN INC. 2,221.05 57830 ALL AMERICAN INC. 242.92 58186 ALL AMERICAN SPORTSWEAR 1,619.73 57972 ALL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. 112. 77 57384 ALL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. 313.14 57717 ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. 2,430.70 57837 - ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING 2,505.00 57289 T- 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLISON CALLAHAN ALLTEL ARENA ALLTEL ARENA ALLTEL MOBILE AMANDA STUCKEY AMANDA SYMANCYK AMBOY ELEM ACTIVITY FUND AMERICAN COMPOSTING INC. AMERICAN COMPOSTING INC. AMERICAN RED CROSS AMERICAN RED CROSS AMERICAN TECHNICAL PUBLISHERS AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMSTERDAM PRINTING AMY VOLLMAN ANDRIA SMITH ANITA BELL ANN COWART ANNAN. VAMMEN ANNE PONDER APPLE COMPUTER APPLE COMPUTER INC AR BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARKANSAS ALTACARE ARKANSAS ART CENTER ARKANSAS AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS, ARKANSAS BAG \u0026amp; EQUIPMENT CO ARKANSAS COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH ARKANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH ARKANSAS DEPT. OF LABOR ARKANSAS FLAG \u0026amp; BANNER, INC. T-- 3 AMOUNT 462.00 2,580.00 4,315.78 4,287.44 4.37 147.84 10,925.00 99. 96 233.88 43.14 58.56 38.68 43.42 332.00 2,442.25 606.96 425.00 11,600.00 425.00 9,650.00 9,650.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 192.07 140.87 110 .10 7.80 538.00 40.45 236.70 650.00 1,990.34 1,440.00 267.42 1,918.52 1,972.50 45,045.00 362.50 407.22 689 .13 110. 00 110. 70 319.00 2,865.25 2,712.60 25.00 425.00 75.00 36.44 CHK. NO. 57538 57957 57248 58223 57359 57313 58148 57136 57327 57355 57692 57940 58126 57227 57490 57220 57080 57396 57593 57608 57737 57781 57804 57128 57260 57307 57308 57933 57698 57530 57950 57866 57296 57162 57636 57858 58128 57492 57545 58178 57523 57161 57635 57857 58073 57270 57524 57256 58058 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT ARKANSAS LYMPHEDEMA \u0026amp; THERAPY ARKANSAS PARENTING EDUCATION ARKANSAS SAFE SCHOOLS ASSN. ARKANSAS SPANISH INTERPRETER \u0026amp; ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARMATUR EXCHANGE ARROW PLUMBING INC ARTIS LOFTON ASCD ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASHELY MALLETT ASHLEY HANAN ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; BACKGROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS BAM INSTITUTIONAL SALES BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BARBARA KREMERS BARBARA LEE BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARRY KINCL BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BECKY WITCHER BEDFORD CAMERA AND VIDEO T- 4 AMOUNT 360.00 30.00 150.00 333.25 744.35 647.00 1,308,019.12 60,002.87 7,024.22 135. 70 1,500.00 306.85 189.00 12,675.56 1,969.87 3,688.20 2.54 38.84 1,997.02 24.95 200.00 2,391.84 98,749.17 478,821.22 25,459.07 414,612.38 413,838.98 310,813.23 322,626.09 26,144.40 313,920.84 1,291,782.36 83,865.67 1,095,567.78 1,095,125.77 842,235.24 940,828.30 87,011.50 248.99 26. 42 503.78 4,594.52 205.47 63.94 70.78 926.05 126.90 147.19 422.54 CHK. NO. 57235 58174 57233 57569 57600 57749 58260 58261 58262 57460 58165 57959 57682 57123 57618 58057 58252 57347 57226 57436 57433 57986 57074 57390 57587 57603 57732 57776 57799 57824 57073 57389 57586 57602 57731 57775 57798 57823 57186 57109 57140 57624 57841 58063 58060 57840 58062 57252 57435 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT BEDFORD CAMERA AND VIDEO BENCHMARK EDUCATION COMPANY BENCHMARK EDUCATION COMPANY BILL DUVALL BILL DUVALL BILL DUVALL BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S OFFICE FURNITURE BILL'S OFFICE FURNITURE BLICK ART MATERIALS BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BMI EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BMI EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BOBBY D PERRY MD BOONE PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND BOONE PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BRANDY NESSELRODT BRAYE VALENTINE BRENDA BUTLER BRENDA BUTLER BRENDA PARKER BRIAN HARVEY BRIGHT APPLE BROAD REACH BSW ADVERTISING BUDGET OFFICE FURNITURE BURGE PHOTOGRAPHY INC BUSINESS MACHINES SYSTEMS, INC BYE WAY BOOKS INC CA VINES ARKANSAS 4-H CENTER C.T.A. C.T.A. C.T.A. CABOT FLORISTS CABOT FLORISTS CAMBIUM LEARNING INC CAPITAL ONE BANK SIGNET BANK CARLTON-BATES CO. CARSON DELLOSA PUBLISHING CO CATFISH CITY CATHERINE ALEXANDER CATRICIA HICKMAN CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CEI T- 5 AMOUNT 153.48 8,337.10 3,032.64 71.12 91. 30 29.91 19. 62 356.33 87.20 2,172.76 253.24 228.90 156.83 4,987.91 168.81 110.01 12.15 1,088.10 3,724.75 99.61 140.00 76.93 30.42 106.24 182.61 968. 75 133. 52 473.96 4,959.37 244.68 103.55 151.31 13,404.25 9,073.35 9,073.35 7,850.70 150.27 39.19 35.37 10.00 551.88 18.07 619.44 236.70 236.70 5,230.75 9,137.08 147.00 207.87 CHK. NO. 57623 57303 57548 57141 57842 58196 57647 57869 57126 57831 57378 57437 57142 57626 57094 57106 57107 57843 58064 57360 57917 57320 57557 57366 57887 57977 58201 57892 57253 57385 58189 58176 58187 57595 57744 57810 57440 5784 6 58076 57101 57147 57277 57498 57535 57529 57570 57982 58156 57216 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. CENTER FOR EDUCATION AND 432.00 57923 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 26.08 57132 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 8,733.27 57836 CENTERS FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES 21,802.50 57860 CENTRAL ALARM SYSTEMS INC 158.95 57903 CENTRAL ARKANSAS SPORTS 220.53 57102 CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. 1,654.16 57532 CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. 1,188.10 57953 CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. 287.62 58136 CEZIRAE THOMAS 100.00 57669 CHANNING BETE COMPANY INC 2,608.15 57631 CHANNING BETE COMPANY INC 1,128.78 58067 CHERYL HALL 16.62 57266 CHEYENNE INDUSTRIES 1,086.77 57229 CHILD CARE PROVIDERS FUND 50.00 57941 CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP 195.87 57150 CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP 367.98 57442 CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP 592.52 57630 CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP 3,350.95 57849 CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP 943.75 58066 CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP 183.97 58198 CHILDRENS LIBRARY RESOURCES 109.05 57709 CHILDRENS LIBRARY RESOURCES 13.98 57996 CHRISTEN BURKE PITTS 85.56 57788 CHRISTOPHER-GORDON PUBLISHERS 34.95 57487 CINTAS 128.18 57088 CINTAS 38.26 57407 CINTAS 128.18 57423 CINTAS 128.18 57816 CITY CREEK PRESS INC 64.18 57238 CLARION RESORT HOTEL 306.30 57279 CLARION RESORT HOTEL 238.20 57387 CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. 1,002.80 57207 CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. 1,526.00 57654 CLASSROOM DIRECT 376.66 57309 CLASSROOM DIRECT 471.50 57697 CLASSROOM DIRECT 2,296.00 57971 CLAUDIA MORAN 87.91 57350 CLEAN SOLUTIONS 347.00 57994 CLEAR MOUNTAIN 93.20 57290 CLEAR MOUNTAIN 73.55 57541 CLEAR MOUNTAIN 'i4. 80 57689 CLEAR MOUNTAIN 89.59 57962 CLEAR MOUNTAIN 58.15 58143 CLEMENTS \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES/ 16,267.00 57922 COMC ABLES 4,596.21 57861 COMCAST CABLEVISION 100.00 57622 COMCAST CABLEVISION 100.00 58194 - COMMUNICATION PLUS+ 356.50 57517 T- 6 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT COMMUNITY PRODUCTS LLC COMMUNITY PRODUCTS LLC COMPASS LEARNING COMPASS POINT BOOKS COMPUTER PREP CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS COSTUME CORNER COUNCIL FOR PROFESSIONAL CREATIVE DIVERSITY CRESTWOOD ELEM ACTIVITY FUND CROCKETT BUSINESS MACHINES CROCKETT BUSINESS MACHINES CROW BURLINGAME CO CROWN TROPHY CRYSTAL EVANS CRYSTAL WOOD CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC CUMMINS MID SOUTH LLC CWI, PLC D \u0026amp; H DISTRIBUTING D \u0026amp; H DISTRIBUTING DAN RUSSELL DANA CHADWICK DANA CHADWICK DANA CHADWICK DANA CHADWICK DANA MCCOY DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DANNY REED DANYIAL WILLIAMSON DAPHNE KNIGHTEN DAPHNE KNIGHTEN DARLA EARLES DATAMAX OF ARKANSAS DATAMAX OF ARKANSAS DATEK, INC. DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP T- 7 AMOUNT 937.00 880.00 129,179.95 578.30 2,078.33 152.23 191.25 117. 69 21,986.30 876.06 895.47 3,470.50 867.17 48.58 76. 00 5.99 47.38 305.89 1,464.60 208.36 160.44 32.37 13 .08 125.97 125.97 81. 30 42.86 2,235.00. 17,352.70 2,345.00 140.01 90. 45 91.10 1.15 4.69 160.33 20.00 121.87 594.00 29.14 96. 64 22.62 26,108.68 28.80 157.79 494.32 2,963.00 71. 08 2,963.00 CHK. NO. 5734 6 57991 57974 57504 58112 57768 57791 58034 57272 57525 57945 58130 58230 57885 58108 58069 57295 57677 58124 57526 57646 57531 57181 57408 57721 57754 57539 57463 57124 57619 57968 57155 57447 57787 58248 57361 57086 57687 57483 57286 58233 57182 57615 58185 58006 57084 57404 57421 57751 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT DAVID D. COOP DAWNE CARROLL DEALERS TRUCK EQUIPMENT DEANN ROACH DEBBIE DAVENPORT DEBORAH ANDERSON DEBORAH COKER DEBORAH G DUNSTON DEBRA BUTLER DELI PARTNER'S DELI PARTNER'S DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DELTA EDUCATION DEMCO DEMCO DEMCO DENISE HOUGHTON DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX DINAH ALLEN DISCOUNT DICTIONARIES DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY DISCOUNT TROPHIES, INC. DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DON ADAMS DONNA STEWART DORCUS HOUSE DOROTHY FARRIS DOYALENE WASSON DREW CAMP EAST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND EAST COAST WHOLESALE INC EAST SIDE ENTREES INC EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS ECOLAB, INC. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDS SUPPLY CO. T- 8 AMOUNT 2,963.00 61. 35 34.40 32.10 14.59 278.99 31.20 1,600.00 2.73 264.30 258.14 54,838.54 43,167.71 33,731.45 55,190.24 661.10 312.00 102.17 429.93 809.36 372,069.31 9.38 11,499.00 31. 01 6,562.16 672. 95 201.81 2,811.11 349.38 229.22 98.00 136.85 98.00 98.00 131.85 120.00 79. 56 62. 40 138.72 361.44 126.05 1,131.0C 131.94 17,232.00 450.00 300.00 891.62 443.33 54.15 CHK. NO. 58019 57300 57881 57351 57581 57219 58154 57577 57269 57249 57927 57112 57767 58033 58255 57920 57446 V 57632 58068 58224 58041 57852 58264 57154 57336 57276 57528 58134 57157 57093 57409 57425 57722 57755 57818 57284 57149 57930 57318 57832 57376 57690 58144 57657 57299 57694 57854 57158 57855 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT EDS SUPPLY CO. EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF ELAINE OTTO ELAINE WOMACK ELECTRONIC VIDEO SYSTEMS ELECTRONIC VIDEO SYSTEMS ELENA REYES-LOVINS ELIZABETH BROOKS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTS INC ERIC ARMIN INC. ETA/CUISENAIRE ETA/CUISENAIRE ETA/CUISENAIRE EYE ON EDUCATION EYE ON EDUCATION FAIRY TALE FLORALS FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FERRELLGAS FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLISS FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FRAN HARRIS FRAN JACKSON FREY SCIENTIFIC CO. FRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY CARE INC FULL COUNSEL PREPARATORY ACAD GALVIN WAITS GARRETT BOOK COMPANY GARY BUNN GEORGE TAYLOR GESCO COMPANYIN C GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHJX GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX T- 9 AMOUNT 191. 61 638.54 107.15 7,235.61 50.00 400.00 701.96 5,504.68 236.70 236.70 389,686.62 292,545.02 228,463.28 377,802.86 25.00 2,014.05 717.81 394.24 5,637.22 352.32 69.90 126.80 353.16 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 115. 52 241.54 667.47 47.00 616.29 625.00 603 .11 1,013.88 295.64 1,339.94 618.56 52 6. 92 2,015.00 '.:,,456.00 103.96 751.60 79.91 16.38 51.06 552.46 952.99 CHK. NO. 58070 57159 57634 58071 57240 57931 57144 57844 57580 57467 57114 57772 58038 58257 57099 57280 57129 57163 57637 58074 57134 57839 58170 57413 57726 57759 58015 58024 57168 57639 58078 57494 57451 57979 57166 57450 58077 58225 57367 57167 57223 57668 57104 57565 57948 58205 57904 57328 57975 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX 842.92 58152 GLORIA SMITH 90.17 58005 GLOVERS TRUCK PARTS \u0026amp; 268.69 57453 GRAINGER 1,162.94 57241 GRAINGER 88.58 57500 GREAT AMERCIAN OPPORTUNITIES 1,688.19 57455 GRETCHEN LAUIPPA 360.00 57341 GWEN FITZPATRICK 11. 44 57862 HAND IN HAND DAY CARE 1,500.00 57613 HANDWRITING WITHOUT TEARS 520.00 57319 HARCOURT ACHIEVE 1,680.77 57357 HARCOURT ACHIEVE 3,928.36 57710 HARCOURT ACHIEVE 2,420.89 58241 HAROLD D STARK 94.38 57373 HAROLD D STARK 40.56 57715 HAROLD NASH 300.00 57050 V HAROLD NASH 100.00 58164 HELPING HAND CHILDRENS 1,711.25 57554 HIGHSMITH INC 2,100.20 57174 HIGHSMITH INC 2,701.84 57458 HIGHSMITH INC 1,173.07 58208 HOBBY LOBBY 684.75 57642 HOBBY LOBBY 187.52 57864 - HOME DEPOT/GECF 431.12 57509 HOME DEPOT/GECF 229.21 57674 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 476.58 57417 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 278. 23 57727 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 278.23 57761 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 278. 23 58016 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 278.23 58026 HOT SPRINGS TECHNOLOGY 440.00 57555 HOT SPRINGS TECHNOLOGY 2,970.00 58149 HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY 561.42 57643 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NLR 2,000.00 57625 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 2,887.21 57335 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 367.41 57702 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 4,097.99 57985 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 421.08 58238 HUM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL 31. 23 57175 HUM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL 4.59 58081 I TECH AUDIO 907.30 57187 ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT 425.00 57414 IMMACULATE CONCEPTION SCHOOL 2,880.00 57645 IMPACT EDUCATION 10,250.00 58215 IN DYER NEED ENTERPRISES 192.83 57131 INDEPENDENT MUSIC SERVICE, INC 435.00 57 680 INDEPENDENT MUSIC SERVICE, INC 70.00 58227 INFORMATION VAULTING SERVICES 153.40 57454 - INFORMATION VAULTING SERVICES 153.40 58204 T-10 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS INN OF THE OZARKS INSIGHT MEDIA INSTRUCTIVISION INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNATIONAL READING ASSN J \u0026amp; B MUSIC SALES, INC. J \u0026amp; B SUPPLY COMPANY J L HEIN SERVICE INC JS PRINTING J. L. HEIN SERVICE, INC. JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACQUELINE SUMLER JAMES R WILLIAMS JAMES W. WOODARD, JR JAMIE EUBANKS JANET E. THOMAS P.T. JANET FOSTER JANIS MASTERS JANN PHARO JEANNE P WILLIAMS JEFFREY MARTELLO JEFFREY MARTELLO JEFFREY MARTELLO JENNIFER CONNER JENNY OBANNON JERRY DOWDY JERRY DOWDY JERRY DOWDY JERRY DOWDY JERRY MASSEY JERRY MASSEY . T-11 AMOUNT 4 62. 50 3,465.00 300.00 2,950.00 2,950.00 2,502.50 2,502.50 333.76 229.95 496.73 130,704.36 2,496.69 1,387.33 71,954.91 55,151.65 446.16 136.00 136.00 136.00 136. 00 136. 00 61. 00 27.52 2,453.76 49,574.00 240.00 26,583.00 5,943.75 983.50 63.02 538.00 83.62 1,680.00 980.00 273.24 3,330.00 48 .13 67.92 257.58 52.81 173.23 236.70 237.87 36. 00 25.85 52.81 111.89 174.05 152.45 CHK. NO. 57079 57395 57592 57607 57736 57780 57803 57919 57273 58059 57302 57546 57696 57966 58146 58234 57412 57725 57758 58014 58023 57156 58117 57942 58168 57246 57993 57644 58082 57368 57921 57370 57571 57247 57264 57520 57254 58061 57209 57889 58216 57472 57326 57363 57583 57999 58244 57265 58228 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT JIMMIE DOTSON JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JODY EDRINGTON JODY EDRINGTON JODY EDRINGTON JOE COVEY JOHNS BURGIN JOHN TURNER SCHOOL SUPPLIES JOSH E MCHUGHES ATTORNEY JOSH E MCHUGHES ATTORNEY JOSH E MCHUGHES ATTORNEY JOSH E MCHUGHES ATTORNEY JOSH E MCHUGHES ATTORNEY JOSH SPILLYARDS JOSTENS JOSTENS-THE GRAD SHOP JOURNEYWORKS PUBLISHING JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE CLEVELAND JUDY BROUGHTON JUDY BROUGHTON JUNE HAYNIE JUNIOR LIBRARY GUILD JUST FOR KIDS THERAPY SERVICES JUST US KANSAS PAYMENT CENTER KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAREN BREWER KAREN COLEMAN KAREN POWELL KARLA WHISNANT KASSANDRA WELLS KATHRYN HALE KATHY VANCE CHAMBERS KATIE VANDIVER KATIE VANDIVER KATIE VANDIVER KATY GEARHART HUNT KAYE LOWE KAYE LOWE T-12 AMOUNT 64.07 281. 37 281.37 281. 37 113. 94 149.04 3,374.51 50.00 2,000.00 134.78 50.35 50.35 50.35 50.35 50.35 128.00 69.04 52.32 1,414.80 592.44 5,781.54 327.23 5,781.54 297.23 5,781.54 1,216.88 236.70 241.80 252.38 280.80 1,770.00 372. 35 46.15 1,124.19 765.54 1,217.19 770.00 236.70 70.04 236.70 20. ~o 7 4. tj2 135. 25 378.70 236.70 538.00 111.07 201.14 50.26 CHK. NO. 57343 57090 57424 57817 57261 57518 57679 57926 57912 57358 57418 57728 57762 58017 58027 57978 57969 57924 58114 57100 57416 57427 57760 57821 58025 58222 57540 57958 58084 57898 57578 57851 57089 57178 57461 57870 57567 57576 57278 57491 58251 577C':_ 57274 57465 57466 57872 57135 57629 57848 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT KAYE LOWE KAYE LOWE KEATHLEY PATTERSON ELECTRIC KEITH FAULKNER KENNETH A. KIRSPEL KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KEVA RODGERS KEVIN MARTIN KEVIN MARTIN KEVIN MARTIN KIM PEARSON KIM PEARSON KIM REYNOLDS KIMBERLY JOHNSTON KIMBERLY STAFFORD KNOWBUDDYR ESOURCES KNOWLEDGE TREE KNOWLEDGE TREE KONE INC KRISTEN MADDOX KRISTIE RATLIFF KRISTIE RATLIFF KRISTIE RATLIFF KROGER #639 KROGER COMPANY/INDIAN HILLS KRONOS KRONOS LAHARPES OFFICE FURNITURE LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKEWOOD ELEM ACTIVITY FUND LAKEWOOD MIDDLE ACTIVITY FUND LAKEWOOD MIDDLE ACTIVITY FUND LANCE BALLARD LARA HUMPHRIES LAURA JENNINGS LAURA WINTERS LEARNING RESOURCES T-13 AMOUNT 24.00 11. 23 500.21 178.75 500.00 443.76 10,919.86 2,816.50 593.17 4,027.36 2,951.39 29,665.37 4,405.13 31.98 36.00 52.81 64.82 145.08 130. 38 33.97 25.00 266.52 1,144.70 188.13 94.36 1,090.00 26.52 49.76 20.70 4.50 167.69 51.08 862.50 262.50 9,047.50 3,173.20 3,528.89 4,826.15 2,516.00 300.74 732.20 137.74- 526. 72 608.45 125.00 77.96 87.13 56.24 182.72 CHK. NO. 58065 58197 57117 57103 57386 57380 58008 58180 57711 57998 58123 58173 58243 57321 57364 58001 58246 57306 57970 57152 57110 58249 58151 57512 57935 57510 57305 57322 57558 58236 57251 57179 57638 58202 58085 57213 57484 57658 57891 58100 58217 57542 57691 57963 57673 57348 57125 57204 57317 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT LEARNING RESOURCES LEE TACKETT LESLIE HUFFMAN LETITIA MARTIN LETITIA MARTIN LETITIA MARTIN LIBRARIANS' BOOK EXPRESS LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LISA DOSS LISA DOSS LISA DOSS LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. LONGS ELECTRONICS LONNELL D TIMS LORI PORTER LOWE'S LOWE'S LUNCHBYTE SYSTEM INC LYNCH DRIVE ELEM ACTIVITY LYNDA SISCO LYNN CHADWICK LYNN CHADWICK LYNN CHADWICK LYNN CHADWICK LYNN CHADWICK M J COMMUNICATIONS MACHINE ADVANTAGE MAD SCIENCE OF CENTRAL MAGIC SPRINGS \u0026amp; CRYSTAL FALLS MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCIA CHAPPLE-DEAN MARCIVE, INC . MARCIVE, INC MARDEL #8 MARDEL #8 MARGARET VICKERS MARI INC. T-14 AMOUNT 18.43 462.00 87.67 18.34 234.00 8.98 800.83 316.93 832.83 5,118.34 7,260.52 143.18 581.30 834.06 544.03 11,297.50 607.31 571.84 194.25 236.70 524.20 538.00 134. 41 778.94 749.00 300.00 300.00 287.81 711. 64 310.00 395.91 100.00 145.47 15.99 96.20 408.64 9.38 43.60 1,674.00 616.00 532.00 30,833.33 77.03 54.45 34.68 52. 89 29.10 236.70 158.68 CHK. NO. 58235 57345 57184 57369 57714 58004 57876 57464 58087 57075 57391 57588 57604 57733 57777 57800 57825 57180 58086 57511 57675 57934 57191 58210 57648 57671 57237 57718 58181 57550 57294 57847 57513 57676 57789 57937 58253 57381 58095 58106 57331 57621 57288 57185 57650 57271 57684 57572 57944 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. MARIA TOUCHSTONE 83.23 57314 MARIA TOUCHSTONE 19.89 57553 MARIBEL SIEMS 770.00 57708 MARILYN BURNS EDUCATION ASSOC 790.00 57742 MARJEAN ROWE 146.68 57138 MARSHA SATTERFIELD 162.47 57268 MARSHA SATTERFIELD 94.87 57522 MARSHA SATTERFIELD 111. 03 58229 MARTHA NORTON 1,645.00 57354 MARY A. WILES 164.74 57205 MARY BETH COX 67.39 57310 MARY CAROLYN EAST 61. 55 57374 MARY KATHERINE BENTLEY 128.00 57867 MARY TAYLOR 25.00 58169 MATH SOLUTIONS PUBLICATIONS 1,813.54 58155 MATTHEW SEGO INC 2,888.95 57907 MBEA 1,185.00 57239 MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 5,325.00 57340 MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 6,255.00 57703 MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 4,700.00 57988 MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 4,600.00 58161 - MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 1,325.00 58162 MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 1,945.00 58163 MCM 69.88 57267 MELISSA CANNON 300.62 58127 MELISSA DOUGLAS 93.36 57202 MELISSA DOUGLAS 811.17 57479 MELISSA HANCOCK 75.66 57337 METHODIST DAY TREATMENT SCHOOL 33,770.00 58158 METHODIST DAY TREATMENT SCHOOL 2,850.00' 58159 METRO BUILDERS \u0026amp; RESTORATION 519.13 57127 METRO FOODS 13,220.50 57263 MICHAEL BLYTHE 45.65 57850 MICHAEL BLYTHE 134. 86 58199 MICHAEL HEAVNER 5,715.00 57925 MICHAEL MARSH 236.70 57471 MICHELLE BONES 172.49 57172 MICHELLE BONES 445.70 57456 MICHELLE BONES 125.99 58206 MICHELLE KEATON 56.00 57349 MIDAMERICA BOOKS 118. 77 57574 MIKKI EUBANK 1,077.79 57082 MILLENNIUM EDUCATION MUSIC 3,467.00 57633 MISSION SERVICE SUPPLY INC 3,060.33 57686 MISSION SERVICE SUPPLY INC 6,899.82 58232 MITCHS TIRE SERVICE 60.00 57562 - MOUNT ST MARY ACADEMY 200.00 57667 MR. WIZARD STUDIOS 60.90 58120 MRS CLARKS FOOD 1,439.00 57481 T-15 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT MU ALPHA THtTA MU ALPHA THETA MUSIC IN MOTION MUSIC THEATRE INTERNATIONAL N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY NAEIR NAEIR NAEIR NANCY C. GREEN NANCY SETZLER NANCY SHEEHAN NANCY STEWART NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NASC/NASSP NASCO NASCO NASCO NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY NATIONAL HOME CENTER NATIONAL HOME CENTER NATIONAL SCHOOL PRODUCTS NATIONAL SCHOOL PRODUCTS NATIONAL SCHOOL PUBLIC NBI INC NC CHILD SUPPORT CENTRALIZED NFHS NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLRHS WEST CAMPUS NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD WJ.\n:-'EHOUSE NLRSD-BACKGROUND CHECK NLRSD-BACKGROUND GHECK NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE NO. LITTLE ROCK EDUCATORS CRED NO. LITTLE ROCK EDUCATORS CRED T-16 AMOUNT 529.60 7.00 80.80 40.00 244.85 34.99 1,118.63 127.60 40.00 432.00 41. 00 75.04 13.63 70.98 339.03 630.47 391.16 12.79 66.00 282.10 282.88 631.20 9,819.39 581. 93 36.28 357.96 133.20 5.95 325.00 1,495.00 137. 00 120.00 10.31 120.00 4,296.18 8,786.82 420.00 703.50 283.50 725.00 2,750.00 2,225.00 257.64 53.80 11,216.79 14,651.43 8,805.34 78,506.13 56,674.16 CHK. NO. 57164 57449 57259 57877 57190 57469 57651 58088 57505 57913 58119 58135 58263 57193 57282 57169 57452 57863 58091 57192 57652 57879 57194 58211 57470 57880 57195 58090 57203 57171 57415 58089 57196 57478 57236 57493 57664 57910 58113 57584 57713 58003 57599 57748 57771 57794 58037 57596 57745 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT NO. LITTLE ROCK EDUCATORS CRED NO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NORTH AMERICAN BOOK NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH POINT FORD NORTHSIDE SALES COMPANY NORTHSIDE SALES COMPANY NOVA STAGGS O'REILLY AUTO PARTS OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OLIVIA MARTINEZ G:-1AR BROWN OMAR BROWN OMNI NEW HAVEN HOTEL AT YALE OTTER CREEK INSTITUTE OTTER CREEK INSTITUTE OUR HOUSE OXFORD GRAPHICS PACHECO OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT T-17 AMOUNT 35,040.08 151. 59 394.96 38.56 8,905.25 105.00 273.00 316.25 3,040.20 128.44 .56 316.44 277. 62 10.65 127.90 1,232.52 876.09 733.43 79,585.59 566.91 894.40 376.98 146.46 4.35 2,221.40 2,453.46 1,586.09 1,821.71 1,821.71 1,599.38 991.04 991.04 8,928.41 1,202.29 2,177.01 2,356.68 6,903.98 64. 62 64.62 64. 62 30.00 104.00 132. 00 1,696.80 537.00 179.00 93.60 136.93 16,384.86 CHK. NO. 57811 57197 57473 58092 58212 57551 57198 57199 57474 57105 57115 57419 57763 57796 58028 58258 57200 57448 57859 57468 57477 57653 57377 57568 57085 57406 57422 57720 57753 57815 58011 58020 57258 57515 57678 57938 58125 57095 57426 57819 57503 57183 57871 57243 57362 58175 57929 57188 57706 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. PACIFIC LEARNING 125.00 58195 PAM HANDLOSER 939.00 57332 PARK HILL FLORIST 51.78 57480 PARK HILL FLORIST 54.50 58214 PAT WONN 122.06 57932 PATRICIA MCMURRAY 77.22 57334 PAULA BRADLEY 236.70 57559 PAULA MCCARTHER 1,620.00 58226 PCI EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING 54. 95  57649 PCI EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING 69.19 57873 PEARSON EDUCATION 1,576.07 57575 PEARSON EDUCATION 3,891.02 57704 PEARSON EDUCATION 10,507.71 57990 PEARSON EDUCATION 1,122.04 58166 PEDIATRIC THERAPY SERVICES 2,801.25 57995 PENWORTHY COMPANY 382 .11 58002 PERFECTION LEARNING CORP. 714.08 58110 PERFORMANCE LEARNING INC. 743.35 57915 PERMA-BOUND 614.28 57173 PERMA-BOUND 1,324.21 57457 PERMA-BOUND 4,795.98 57641 PERMA-BOUND 70.74 58080 PERMA-BOUND 2,367.82 58207 PERSONNEL CONCEPTS 117. 85 58239 PETERSON CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK 333.84 57536 PETREVIA BOARDMAN 48.04 57960 PHOENIX LEARNING GROUP 104.45 57954 PILAR MURPHY 28.08 57339 PINNACLE POINTE HOSPITAL 41,120.00 58129 PIONEER DISTRIBUTING CO. 28,820.08 58094 PIONEER VALLEY EDUCATIONAL 566.50 57353 PIONEER VALLEY EDUCATIONAL 946.00 58171 PITTSBURGH PAINTS 433.15 57225 PITTSBURGH PAINTS 4,334.35 58107 PLATO INC 1,500.00 58157 PLAY WITH A PURPOSE 4 01. 35 57244 PLAY WITH A PURPOSE 273.70 58118 PLUMBING WAREHOUSE 2,587.29 57875 POE TRAVEL 614.70 57874 POPEYES CHICKEN 389.93 57234 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS 153.70 57533 POSITIVE PRO!:\u0026lt;CrIONS 165.45 58137 PRESTWICK HOUSE INC 154.48 57980 PRIMARY CONCEPTS 3,854.55 57325 PRINT CONNECTIONS PROMOTIONAL 505.76 57573 PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA 2,455.48 57400 PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA 2,192.74 57612 PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA 2,192.74 57741 - PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA 1,352.65 57785 T-18 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT - JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA 1,352.65 57808 PRO-ACT INC OBA 307.38 58138 PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS 253.00 57365 PROMOTIONS PLUS 1,157.53 57952 PROQUEST INFORMATION AND 79.95 57886 PROVIDIAN NATIONAL BANK 133. 06 57087 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES-RETIREMENT SY 3,725.00 57077 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY 1,385.28 57590 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY 936.48 57826 PUBLIC SCHOOL VEHICLE PROGRAM 120.00 57628 PURVIS BEARING SERVICE 27.01 57338 QUALITY PETROLEUM INC 4 04. 64 57459 RADIO SHACK 1,508.39 57210 RADIO SHACK 1,078.24 57655 RADIO SHACK 16.34 58097 RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A. 180. 96 57091 RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A. 20.00 57092 RAINEY ELECTRONICS 164.20 58098 RAMSEY CHEMICAL \u0026amp; EQUIPMENT 119.88 57301 RAQUELL BARTON 19 .11 57792 REALLY GOOD STUFF INC 143.17 57324 REALLY GOOD STUFF INC 1,124.55 58150 REBECCA GARDNER 236.70 57514 REBECCA R CARR 3,951.29 57304 RECORDED BOOKS LLC 6,032.06 57947 RED DOOR GALLERY 98.10 57890 RED ZONE ATHLETICS 12,542.11 57883 REDWOOD ELEM ACTIVITY FUND 123.57 57964 REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC 309.05. 57212 REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC 349.39 57482 REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC 227.80 58099 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62. 61 57411 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62.61 57724 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62. 61 57757 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62.61 58013 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62. 61 58022 RELLIA DILLINGER 76.79 57375 RENAISSANCE LEARNING INC 645.00 57228 RENAISSANCE LEARNING INC 587.23 57908 RENAISSANCE LEARNING INC 398.50 58109 RENEE' BONA 12.00 57372 REXEL DAVIES 133 .16 57160 REXEL DAVIES 170.77 58072 RHONDA BANKS 26. 52 57298 RHONDA BROWN 180. 96 57432 RHONDA BROWN 15.60 58188 RICHARD ALEXANDER 620.00 57401 - RICHARD ALEXANDER 490.00 57402 RITA LOVENSTEIN 42.31 57122 T-19 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT RIVENDELL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH RIVER CITY JANITORIAL SUPPLY RIVER CITY JANITORIAL SUPPLY RIVER VALLEY HORTICULTURAL RIVERSIDE BOX SUPPLY CO. RIVERSIDE BOX SUPPLY CO. ROBERT COX ROBERT GLOVER ROSE CITY MIDDLE ACTIVITY FUND ROSEMARIE DRAKE SAGEBRUSH CORPORATION SAIED MUSIC CO SAIED MUSIC CO SALLY MARTIN SAMANTHA CURRAN SAMS CLUB DIRECT SAMS CLUB DIRECT SAMS CLUB DIRECT SANDERS SUPPLY SANDERS SUPPLY SARA LOGAN SARA MCALISTER SARGENT-WELCH SCIENTIFIC CO SARGENT-WELCH SCIENTIFIC CO SAX ARTS \u0026amp; CRAFTS SBG-VAA SBG-VAA SBG-VAA SBG-VAA SBG-VAA SCANTRON CORPORATION SCHOLARS LEARNING CENTER SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS SCHOLASTIC INC SCHOLASTIC INC SCHOLASTIC INC SCHOLASTIC LIBRARY PUBLISHING SCHOOL AIDS SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCHOOLWI DE INC  SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP T-20 AMOUNT 550.00 76.20 145.13 198.97 43.00 958.90 104.00 138. 79 117. 53 1,540.00 9,124.67 77 .17 70.59 98.01 37.17 380.18 120.00 7,700.90 160.18 511. 54 126.36 200.00 20.38 3,239.87 78.80 1,031.00 1,031.00 1,031.00 1,031.00 1,031.00 2,941.66 30,870.00 397.10 3,411.89 340.89 5,006.07 606.08 12,047.35 3,910.90 271.30 1,254.34 559.48 26,406.27 4,103.03 6.98 675.00 675.00 675.00 575.00 CHK. NO. 58102 57549 58147 57206 57485 58101 57232 57902 57292 57462 57311 57695 57965 57137 57139 57208 57888 58096 57356 57579 57534 57218 57946 58131 57659 57398 57610 57739 57783 57806 57211 58122 57352 57992 58240 57214 58103 58218 57342 57896 57215 57660 57895 58219 57627 57399 57611 57740 57784 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP SETH SPEER SEVENTH STREET ELEM ACTIVITY SHANDRIA GORDON SHARA BRAZEAR SHARA BRAZEAR SHARON ELDRED SHARON HAVER SHARON HAVER SHEILA BAKER SHELLY JONES SHERMAN ACQUISITION LIMITED SHERMAN ACQUISITION LIMITED SHERRY RATLIFF SHRED-IT SHRED-IT SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP SKILLS USA/VICA SOCCER PLUS SOCIAL STUDIES SCHOOL SERVICE SOUTHERN ICE EQUIPMENT SOUTHERN ICE EQUIPMENT SOUTHERN ICE EQUIPMENT SOUTHWEST SPORTING GOODS CO SPECIAL SHOW 2006 SPLASH FULL SERVICE CARWASH \u0026amp; SPORTSCENE OF ARKANSAS ST. MARY'S SCHOOL ST. PATRICK'S SCHOOL STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STAR BOLT \u0026amp; SCREW CO., INC. STAR BOLT \u0026amp; SCREW CO., INC. STATE BUSINESS SUPPLY STATE BUSINESS SUPPLY STEPHEN WARD STEVE CANADY SUMMIT LEARNING SUNBURST VISUAL MEDIA SUNBURST VISUAL MEDIA SUNBURST VISUAL MEDIA SUPER DUPER INC SUPERIOR SPRING CLUTCH \u0026amp; GEAR SUPREME FIXTURE CO. SUSAN HYDEN SUSAN MAY SYLVAN LEARNING CENTER SYLVAN LEARNING CENTER T-21 AMOUNT 575.00 252.00 60.18 1,180.00 702.09 401.18 202.21 180.68 26.02 25.90 106.37 464.38 113. 60 159.89 146.25 357.50 1,364.90 431.64 12.50 325.08 47.73 274. 94 4,897.78 32.25 739.76 300.00 35. 94 270.59 1,152.00 8,064.00 2 61. 70 122.41 42.87 590.50 95.89 711. 65 800.00 59.52 62.55 5,151.72 383.20 334.88 340.48 629.71 115,142.90 231.50 236.70 11,699.96 22,136.03 CHK. NO. 57807 57853 57293 58167 57537 58139 57371 57497 58115 58177 58200 57096 57820 57250 57315 57973 57170 58079 57046 V 57961 57897 57997 58172 58242 57899 57316 57672 58209 57661 57662 57221 58104 57222 58105 57297 58145 57707 57894 57936 57663 57906 58220 57439 57486 57489 57177 57496 57165 58075 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT SYMTRAX CORPORATION T-SHIRT SHOP TARGET BUSINESS CARD SERVICES TASC TASC TASC TASC TASC TASC TASC TAYLOR M COLUMBUS TEACHER EDUCATION TEACHER EDUCATION TEACHER'S MEDIA COMPANY TEACHERS DISCOVERY TEACHERS MEDIA COMPANY TEACHERS MEDIA COMPANY TEACHING RESOURCE CENTER TEACHING RESOURCE CENTER TECH-KNOW INDUSTRIES TECH-KNOW INDUSTRIES TECH-KNOW INDUSTRIES TELE TOUCH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS THE BRIDGEWAY THE COLLEGE BOARD THE EDUCATION PEOPLE INC THE FIELD SHOP THE GRAD SHOP THE LIBRARY STORE THE LIBRARY STORE THE MCGRAW HILL COMPANIES THE MCGRAW HILL COMPANIES THE MCGRAW HILL COMPANIES THE MCGRAW HILL COMPANIES THE NATIONAL BETA CLUB THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY THE PRINTING DEPARTMENT INC THE SPORTSTOP INC. THE TIMES THELMA JASPER THERAPY PROVIDERS, P.A. THOMSON GALE TNT SCHOOL SUPPLIES INC. TODD HUFF TOM SNYDER PRODUCTIONS TOWNSEND PRESS BOOK CENTER TRACEE RAINEY TRANS AMERICAN TIRE COMPANY T-22 AMOUNT 450.00 13.35 361.34 116. 66 11,700.50 116. 66 10,964.61 10,964.61 8,626.75 8,626.75 132.00 300.00 2,100.00 515.68 33.90 682.70 26.93 113 .11 132. 80 7,324.43 1,156.98 1,176.00 105.37 1,300.00 1,350.00 690.00 999.88 84.93 731. 39 144.74 326.02 1,128.82 1,260.21 2,642.68 930.56 1,261.00 2,739.00 901.98 582.74 300.00 9.15 9,866.25 40.90 79.93 236.70 2,120.00 181.22 108.97 4,495.52 CHK. NO. 57981 57955 57230 57076 57392 57589 57605 57734 57778 57801 57865 57323 57560 57856 58160 57130 57834 57683 57943 57712 58000 58245 57431 57884 58133 57989 57566 57685 57987 57383 58009 57287 57688 57956 58141 57516 58203 57984 57901 57909 57939 57681 57121 57146 57443 58083 57151 57176 57143 . ' .... NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT TRANS AMERICAN TIRE COMPANY TRI-STATES VIDEO AND TRI-STATES VIDEO AND TRIARCO ARTS \u0026amp; CRAFTS TRIVIA MARKETING TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TURNER DAIRY TWIN CITY PRINTING \u0026amp; LITHO INC TWIN CITY PRINTING \u0026amp; LITHO INC TWIN CITY TRAILER SALES AND TYLER H LINDSEY US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US FUEL U S FUEL US POSTAL SERVICE U.S. TOY COMPANY INC. UALR UALR UALR READING RECOVERY UAMS UAMS UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY UNITED WAY OF PU~ASKI COUNTY UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOUNDATION UNIVERSAL MECHANICAL SERVICES UNIVERSAL MECHANICAL SERVICES UNIVERSAL MECHANICAL SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS T-23 AMOUNT 1,220.28 382.70 31.18 168.20 328.95 19,708.11 2,584.28 15,703.75 2,367.48 617.61 110. 33 128.00 3,526.15 4,211.60 2,764.70 5,811.16 3,859.42 2,874.36 5,607.30 15,793.28 10,734.86 8,347.20 15,254.32 101.84 204.03 204.03 204.03 204.03 204.03 246.85 129.13 1,581.58 152.50 825.64 825.64 4,800.00 20.00 8,340.80 2,500.00 1,496.85 1,039.70 847.14 550.00 548.05 4,935.92 3,335.15 1,865.10 17,540.00 1,150.00 CHK. NO. 57438 57217 57900 57255 57445 57949 58231 57382 57495 57911 57475 57868 57765 57790 58031 57111 57766 58032 58254 57113 57769 58035 58256 57098 57410 57723 57756 58012 58021 57543 57693 57281 57444 57561 57 699 57893 57097 57666 57 670 57597 57746 57812 58140 57527 57951 58132 57835 58191 58192 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC-VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VANDERBILT CENTER FOR SCIENCE VARSITY SPIRIT FASHIONS VICKI STEADMAN VICKI STEADMAN VIRCO MFG. CORPORATION VIRGINIA WALLACE VIVIAN HARRIS W PAUL BLUME WALCH PUBLISHING WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMARTC OMMUN:CTBYR C WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALSWORTH PUBLISHING CO. WANDA HAWKINS WANDA HAWKINS WARD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WARD'S ASBESTOS REMOVAL INC WARDS NATURAL SCIENCE WATERFUL WONDERBEDS WEEKLY READER WEEKLY READER WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND WEST MEMPHIS PAPER COMPANY WESTERN PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES WHITNEY FLETCHER WILLIAM E THRASHER BOYS \u0026amp; WILLIE JACKSON WORLD ALMANAC EDUCATION WORLD ALMANAC EDUCATION XEROX CORPORATION T-24 AMOUNT 3,360.40 3,847.60 2,499.60 5,915.66 598.30 912.26 787.31 3,034.45 825.00 31,719.63 805.00 27,578.63 27,613.63 18,206.13 18,206.13 50.00 4,200.00 131.12 149.29 149.29 67,251.66 20.51 164.42 1,687.50 2,552.38 3,386.51 5,007.70 1,796.04 1,002.53 1,518.42 1,532.97 29,343.08 129.63 100.00 1,694.42 32,850.00 4,250.02 1,175.02 64.14 817.50 217.22 4,161.75 557.37 24.79 500.00 1. 42 105. 42 239.56 997.25 CHK. NO. 57770 57793 58036 57201 57476 57882 58093 58213 57078 57393 57591 57606 57735 57779 57802 57394 57507 58116 57262 57519 57499 57285 57283 58142 57544 57329 57563 57700 57976 58153 58237 57502 57333 57983 57501 58029 57242 57665 57918 58121 57291 57916 57914 57582 57928 V 58250 58111 58221 57640 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT YOLANDA GIBSON YOLANDA GIBSON YOUTH HOME INC ZACH BARBER ZEECRAFT TECH AMOUNT 177. 90 4.20 6,490.00 104.00 52.00 CHK. NO. 57547 57967 57508 57231 57312 CHECK TOTALS FOR JUNE 2006 14,054,081.37 CHECK VOIDS FOR JUNE 2006 1,124.50 T-25 BOARD oF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA, ..#~~~ ~ ~~~..., :,\n, ass North Little Rock School District Thursday, September 21, 2006 5:00 P.M. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. CALL TO ORDER, Marty Moore, President II. INVOCATION, Kiara Webb, Lynch Drive Elementary Fifth Grader, daughter of Ms. Kengla Webb III. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Darrell Montgomery, Member Dorothy Williams, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS 1. Superintendent's Honor Roll - S. Brazear A. Indian Hills Elementary Staff and Parents B. NLRSD Maintenance \u0026amp; Custodial Staff 2. New Partners in Education - S. Brazear A. Kroger - Camp Robinson and Ridgeroad Middle Charter B. Treat Automotive U-Haul and Amboy Elementary 3. Special Recognition - S. Brazear A. NLRHS West Campus students in the Apple Program Page 2 - Board Agenda September 21, 2006 VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, August 17, 2006, 2006 5:00 P.M. (Regular)- Page A- 1 B. Thursday, September 7, 2006 5:30 P.M. (Special) - Page A- 5 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. Reorganization of the Board of Education - Chairman ___ _ Page B- 1 B. Consider Designation of the Superintendent as the Ex Officio Financial Secretary - Chairman ____ - Page B - 1 C. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider D. Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report- G. Tucker E. Consider Elementary Science Textbook Adoption Committee - K. Lowe -Page C-1 F. Consider Spring 2006 Test Data- L. Martin G. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 3. Consider bid items - Page R- 1 4. Consider building use requests - Page S - 1 5. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS None X. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. B. C. Saturday, September 30, 2006 -9:00 A.M. -Board Workshop at J.W. Nutt Company Thursday, October 19, 2006 -6:30 P.M. -ASBA Region 8 Fall Meeting - Cabot High School Thursday, October 26, 2006- 5:00 P.M. Regular Board Meeting XI. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES August 17, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, August 17, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. There were no public comments. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Fran Jackson, Director of Student Affairs, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer John Riley, Parliamentarian Teresa Burl, Member Absent Dorothy Williams, Member Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) and NLRHS- TV (video) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Shara Brazear, Communications Specialist, presented Rochelle Redus, outgoing Zone 3 Board member, a plaque and thanked her for her six years of service for the students of North Little Rock. Each Board member expressed their appreciation for her work on the Board. Mary \"Cricket\" Hicks, NLRSD International Baccalaureate Coordinator, introduced three of the seven NLRHS West Campus students who received International Baccalaureate diplomas. Wade Fuqua, Nadia Claassen, and Katy Matthews explained their hours earned for college credit and their great scholarships. The Board congratulated and thanked each of them for choosing North Little Rock School District. A....:I. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION Scott Teague moved to accept the minutes of the July 20, 2006 (Regular) meeting as printed. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) Scott Teague moved to accept the minutes of the July 31, 2006 (Special) meeting as printed. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Energy Education Reports Jerry Massey, Plant Services Director, explained more information would be coming from Energy Education in November or December to fully explain the savings so far. Board members inquired if the city of North Little Rock would be able to give the district a discount on our electricity. Mr. Massey said he would meet with them to explore the possibility: Health Insurance Revisions (Board Policies COE and COE-CL) Greg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer, presented the proposal to increase the district's portion of insurance payment from $240.62 to $264.78. The district will pay the rate increase of the employees' insurance. This is a change to board policy CDE Insurance Coverage for certified personnel and board policy CDE -CL Insurance Coverage for classified personnel. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the revision to Board Policy COE - Insurance Coverage as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) Trent Cox moved to accept the revision to Board Policy COE - Insurance Coverage as presented. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) Date for Workshop The Board discussed a mutual best date and decided to have their workshop on Saturday, September 16, 2006 at the J.W. Nutt Brokers office on Crestwood in North Little Rock from 9:00 a.m. to I :00 p.m. Board members were requested to send any topics of interest to Mr. Kirspel for him to prepare the agenda for the workshop. Superintendent's Salary Revision MOTION John Riley moved to enter into an executive session. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) The Board entered into an executive session at 6:00 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 8:12 p.m. MOTION John Riley moved to increase Ken Kirspel's salary three and a half per cent (3 %)from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) Consent Agenda Mr. Kirspel requested approval of the consent agenda as printed. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the consent agenda as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) INFORMATIONAL ITEM Barry Kincl, Health Advisory Committee Chair, advised the Board the committee was meeting regularly and our district is in compliance completely with Act 1220. Mr. Kine! also stated Kevin Danaher, Director of Athletics, Health and Physical Education will be the new chair of the committee beginning in January 2007. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Teresa Burl moved to adjourn the meeting. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Marty Moore, President NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES September 7, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a special session on Thursday, September 7, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member Absent None Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nDr. Angela Olsen, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall taped (audio) the meeting. Report from Certified Personnel Policies Committee Margie Snider, Certified PPC Chair, stated their committee met and unanimously passed the proposed change to Board Policy COE Insurance Coverage increasing the amount from $240.62 to $264.78. The committee will take a vote of the certified employees. Report from Classified Personnel Policies Committee Glenda Tucker, Classified PPC Chair, stated their committee met and unanimously passed the proposed change to Board Policy COE - CL Insurances Coverage increasing the amount paid by the district from $240.62 to $264.78. The committee will take a vote of the classified employees. A-5 2006 - 2007 School Year Budget Greg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer, presented the final budget to A the Board for their approval. Mr. Daniels explained adjustments were made and duplications W removed since the budget was originally presented in the July 31, 2006 budget workshop. Board members asked questions of Mr. Daniels and also thanked him for the clarity of his report. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the 2006 - 2007 School Year Budget as presented. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: ADJOURNMENT MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None Dorothy Williams moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Marty Moore, President Act 671 of2003 AN ACT TO CLARIFY THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR DISBURSEMENTS BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. SECTION 1. Arkansas Code  6-13-618 is amended to read as follows: 6-13-618. Organization - Disbursing officer. (a) At the first regular meeting following the annual school election, the board of directors of each school district shall organize by electing: (1) One (1) of their number president\n(2) One (1) of their number vice president\nand (3) A secretary who may, but need not be, a member of the board. (b) (1) The board, by resolution adopted by majority vote, shall designate (1) one of its members who shall serve as the primary board disbursing officer of the district. (2) In addition, the board may designate one (1) or more board members as an alternate board disbursing officer in the absence of the designated primary board disbursing officer. (3) Such resolution must be filed with the county treasurer and the Director of the Department of Finance and Administration. (c) No warrant or check, other than food service or activity funds, shall be valid in absence of the following manual or facsimile signatures: (1) The designated board member serving as disbursing officer for the district, or the designated alternate\nand (2) The superintendent of the school district. SECTION 2. Arkansas Code  6-17-918 is amended to read as follows: 6-17-918. Issuing and countersigning warrants. (a) (1) It shall be the duty of the district superintendent of schools to serve as ex officio financial secretary. (2) All warrants and checks shall be issued in accordance with the provisions of 6-13-618(c) and 6-13-701(e). (b) The district superintendent of schools shall neither issue nor countersign any warrants or checks until he has determined that the warrants have been issued in conformity with  6-20-402, this subchapter, and other laws. B-1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO: KEN KIRSPEL, SUPERINTENDENT FROM: KA YE LOWE, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION SUBJECT: ELEMENTARY SCIENCE/HEALTH TEXTBOOK ADOPTION COMMITTEE ' DA TE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 Recommendation for the Elementary Science/Health Adoption Committee 2006-2007 Name School Grade Michelle Green Meadow Park Kindergarten Mary Carol Copeland Boone Park First Grade Natalie Akin Seventh Street First Grade Laura Showalter Amboy Second Grade Carrie Glover Indian Hills Second Grade Becky Kimbrough Lakewood Third Grade Steve Orobona Park Hill Third Grade Dawn Stane Belwood Fourth Grade Tammy Reeder Glenview Fourth Grade Matthew How North Heights Fifth Grade Renita Parker Pike View Fifth Grade Wanda Mccranie Crestwood Fifth Grade Allison Wesson Lynch Drive Special Ed Resource Sheryll Smith Indian Hills Principal Mary Lou Ferguson Glenview/North Heights Gifted LaCher Rockins Seventh Street Parent Laura Miller Park Hill Parent Paulette Blevins Administration Science Instructional Specialist C-1 I North Little Rock School District ocal Revenue Current Truces Pullback Delinquent Truces Excess Commissions Land Redemption Penalties \u0026amp; Interest on Truces Tuition-Summer School/Day Care Interest on Investments Soft Drink Sales Misc Rev From Local Total Local Revenue Revenue From Intermediate Source l Severance True Revenue from State Sources-Unrestricted State Equalization Aid Student Growth Funding 0th Unrestr Grants-in-Aid Revenue from State Sources-Restricted Regular Education Special Education Early Childhood M-to-M - Non-Instr Pgms Misc State Total Revenu estate NUE OPERATIONS d TOTAL REVE Building Fun Capital Outla Food Service Federal TOTAL REVE y s NUE AUGUST 2006 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-0 Actual $12,510,000.00 $827,475.13 $1,542,304.44 $6,250,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,471,000.00 $25,784.28 $66,924.30 $310,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $185,000.00 $19,715.94 $42,422.38 $62,000.00 $795.00 $2,958.36 $105,000.00 ' $7,298.98 $6,998.98 $900,000.00 $90,739.90 $195,969.49 $79,000.00 $2,170.98 $2,170.98 $84,460.00 $38,067.09 $38,277.09 $21,956,460.00 $1,012,047.30 $1,898,026.02 $10,100.001 $0.00! $2,172.99! $35,477,276.00 $3,225,206.00 $3,225,206.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $534,639.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,903,623.00 $236,247.00 $238,076.00 $2,213,250.00 $534,600.00 $612,132.49 $6,980,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $381,715.00 $1,000.00 $189,207.00 $52,500.00 $12,219.34 $12,219.34 $50,545,003.00 $4,009,272.34 $4,276,840.83 $72,511,563.00 $5,021,319.64 $6, 1 TT ,039.84 $233,000.00 $31,256.35 $56,214.03 $1,550,000.00 $65,122.46 $122,819.55 $3,669,000.00 $65,751.97 $66,362.78 $7,181,864.00 $469,133.97 $469, 133.97 $85,145,427.00 $5,652,584.39 $6,891,570.17 0-1 %YTD Budget Balance Actual/Bud $10,967,695.56 12.33% $6,250,000.00 0.00% $1,404,075.70 4.55% $310,000.00 0.00% $142,577.62 22.93% $59,041.64 4.77% $98,001.02 6.67% $704,030.51 21.77% $76,829.02 2.75% $46,182.91 45.32% $20,058,433.98 8.64% $7,927.01! 21.51%! $32,252,070.00 9.09% $0.00 $2,000.00 0.00% $534,639.00 0.00% $4,665,547.00 4.86% $1,601,117.51 27.66% $6,980,000.00 0.00% $192,508.00 49.57% $40,280.66 23.27% $46,268,162.17 8.46% $66,334,523.16 8.52% $176,785.97 24.13% $1,427,180.45 7.92% $3,602,637.22 1.81% $6,712,730.03 6.53% $78,253,856.83 8.09% Expenditure Category CERTIFIED SALARIES CERTIFIED BENEFITS CLASSIFIED SALARIES CLASSIFIED BENEFITS TOT AL SALARIES \u0026amp; BENEFITS Purchased-Prof/f ech Services Purchased Property Services Other Purchased Services Suoolies and Materials Property Other Objects Debt Service Total Other Expenditures OPERATING FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND BUILDING FUND FEDERAL FUND FOOD SERVICE FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES North Little Rock School District AUGUST 2006 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-0 Actual $37,526,650.00 $793,810.86 $978,274.82 $9,846,135.00 $73,818.13 $107,791.58 $9,779,440.00 $474,447.93 $843,967.17 $3,975,887.00 $120,808.26 $197,002.16 $61,128,112.00 $1,462,885.18 $2,127,035.73 $1,421,058.00 $31,663.10 $130,012.12 $980,780.60 $65,694.83 $82,108.19 $2,600,000.00 $70,652.84 $456,506.10 $4,250,000.00 $774,797.09 $869,097.15 $2,208,614.00 $696, 123.53 $1,390,809.09 $700,000.00 $4,015.00 $15,744.00 $1,110,370.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,270,822.60 $1,642,946.39 $2,944,276.65 $74,398,934.60 $3,105,831.57 $5,071,312.38 $1,791,824.00 $82,085.10 $402,084.53 $5,530,900.00 $447,346.98 $735,412.23 $7,751,725.93 $125,229.96 $148,125.61 $3,212,423.00 $187,869.02 $222,104.76 $92,685,807.53 $3,948,362.63 $6,579,039.51 0-2 %Yid Budget Balance ActuaVBud $36,548,375.18 2.61% $9,738,343.42 1.09% $8,935,472.83 8.63% $3,778,884.84 4.95% $59,001,076.27 3.48% $1,291,045.88 9.15% $898,672.41 8.37% $2,143,493.90 17.56% $3,380,902.85 20.45% $817,804.91 62.97% $684,256.00 2.25% $1,110,370.00 0.00% $10,326,545.95 22.19% $69,327,622.22 6.82% $1,389,739.47 22.44% $4,795,487.77 13.30% $7,603,600.32 1.91% $2,990,318.24 6.91% $86,106,768.02 7.10% Function Category 11 XX Regular Proqrams-Elem/Sec 12XX Special Education 13XX Workforce Education 15XX Compensatory Education 19XX Other Instructional 21XX Suooort Services-Students 22XX Suport Services-Instruction 23XX Suooort Services-Administration 24XX Supoort Services-Sch Admin 25XX Suooort Services-Business 26XX M \u0026amp; 0 Plant Services 27XX Pupil Transportation 28XX Support Services-Central 29.XX Other Support Services 31XX Food Services 33XX Communitv Service Operations 34XX Other Non-Instr Services 43XX Site Improvement Services 5XX Ed Spec Dev Services 46XX Bldg Acq/Constr Services 47XX Building Improvements 51XX LEA Indebtedness 53XX Payment to other LEA 55.XX Indirect Cost/Admin Charges GRAND TOTAL North Little Rock School District FUNCTION  AUGUST 2006 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual $28,584,257.10 $830,197.95 $956,886.72 $9,561,331.69 $79,257.10 $80,815.20 $1,564,621.37 $96,678.60 $100,879.80 $4,340,644.20 $5,628.88 $5,628.88 $3,826,038.74 $65,416.14 $88,287.81 $6,055,139.19 $157,720.40 $190,561.38 $5,365,715.06 $224,819.14 $307,250.98 $1,210,728.13 $62,879.41 $114,585.02 $4,039,640.57 $273,935.77 $347,722.04 $1,428,158.93 $127,625.03 $188,845.21 $6,524,519.03 $458,717.21 $1,094,245.55 $3,547,667.77 $103,273.72 $529,407.26 $945,077.33 $82,836.79 $164,628.85 $436,103.89 $0.00 $0.00 $3,997,597.66 $211,812.66 $251,456.42 $47,274.41 $152.01 $209.68 $123,406.25 $9,307.68 $13,869.18 $938,867.80 $80,378.18 $368,443.43 $470.21 $0.00 $0.00 $12,225.33 $0.00 $0.00 $6,402,208.35 $1,075,571.04 $1,773,161.18 $1,923,825.10 $2,154.92 $2,154.92 $1,692,738.14 $0.00 $0.00 $117,551.26 $0.00 $0.00 $92~685,807 .53 $3,948,362.63 $6,579,039.51 0-3 %Yid Budget Balance ActuaVBud $27,627,370.38 3.35% $9,480,516.49 0.85% $1,463,741.57 6.45% $4,335,015.32 0.13% $3,737,750.93 2.31% $5,864,577.81 3.15% $5,058,464.08 5.73% $1,096,143.11 9.46% $3,691,918.53 8.61% $1,239,313.72 13.22% $5,430,273.48 16.77% $3,018,260.51 14.92% $780,448.48 17.42% $436,103.89 0.00% $3,746,141.24 6.29% $47,064.73 0.44% $109,537.07 11.24% $570,424.37 39.24% $470.21 0.00% $12,225.33 0.00% $4,629,047.17 27.70% $1,921,670.18 0.11% $1 ,692, 738.14 0.00% $117,551.26 0.00% $86,106,768.02 7.10% North little Rock School District SOURCE OF FUNDS  AUCUST 2006 Current Month Ytd Source of Funds Category Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual Budget Balance Actual/Bud 000 Non-categorical $67,861, 196.61 $2,492,919.05 $3,995,695.23 $63,865,501.38 5.89% 213 Intensive School Improvement $1,128.49 $0.00 $0.00 $1,128.49 0.00 223 Prof Development Act 59 $419,005.01 $22,762.28 $71,884.32 $347,120.69 17.16% 225 Technology Grant $1,626.91 $0.00 $0.00 $1,626.91 0.00% 227 CPEP $78,552.45 $300.97 $9,758.96 $68,793.49 12.42% 245 Pathwise Mentoring $85,953.48 $1,076.27 $1,076.27 $84,877.21 1.25% 250 Act 591 Residential $48,901.32 $0.00 $0.00 $48,901.32 0.00% 260 Early Childhood Sp Ed $982,979.62 $32,529.35 $42,914.08 $940,065.54 4.37% 271 G/f Advance Placement $4,523.03 $0.00 $0.00 $4,523.03 0.00% 275 Alternative Learning Environment $1,283,801.76 $17,056.45 $26,782.51 $1,257,019.25 2.09% 276 English Lang Learners $36,309.23 $2,982.01 $2,982.01 $33,327.22 8.21% 281 NSLA $2,303,528.84 $39,067.44 $46,443.60 $2,257,085.24 2.02% 365 ABC Preschool $2,409,866.65 $983.12 $4,991.26 $2,404,875.39 0.21% 381 Smart Start Literacy $74,838.77 $5,994.34 $11,310.20 $63,528.57 15.11% 392 General Facility Funding $571,534.22 $59,648.20 $83,606.88 $487,927.34 14.63% 398 OHS Preschool Improvement $940.41 $0.00 $0.00 $940.41 0.00% 401 Academic Fae lmmed Repair $2,111,549.76 $698,090.73 $1,395,680.87 $715,868.89 66.10% 403 Academic Fae Transitional Pgrn $4,878,659.39 $447,346.98 $735,412.23 $4,143,247.16 15.07% 404 Academic Fae Partnership Pgrn $322,654.70 $0.00 $0.00 $322,654.70 0.00% 406 lmprv Lit Thru Libraries $4,123.22 $774.74 $774.74 $3,348.48 18.79% 430 ROTC $119,009.84 $7,762.46 $7,762.46 $111,247.38 6.52% 441 Title IV-B 21st Century $193,747.24 $10,877.64 $14,826.04 $178,921.20 7.65% 501 Title I-Reg Comp Ed $4,106,564.85 $13,158.56 $20,978.65 $4,085,586.20 0.51% 520 Title V-A Innovative Program $9,404.10 $0.00 $0.00 $9,404.10 0.00% 523 Title I Reading First $294,198.13 $5,336.55 $5,336.55 $288,861.58 1.81% 530 Homeless-Stewart McKinney $34,795.17 $549.23 $4,146.73 $30,648.44 11.92% 535 Title V-B Charter Schools $47,678.79 $4,865.04 $4,865.04 $42,813.75 10.20% 565 Teacher Quality Enhancement . $67,652.16 $0.00 $0.00 $67,652.16 0.00% 570 Cart Perkins Vocational $202,278.45 $2,514.18 $6,715.38 $195,563.07 3.32% 702 Title VI-B PL 94-142 $1,798,865.29 $7,279.01 $7,279.01 $1,791,586.28 0.40% 710 Sp Ed Preschool Sec 619 $879,728.52 $50,013.09 $50,753.18 $828,975.34 5.77% 750 Medicaid $169,627.41 $819.56 $1,619.56 $168,007.85 0.95% 751 Medicaid Sp Ed Preschool $79,934.86 $5,694.49 $5,694.49 $74,240.37 7.12% 754 Javits - G/f Grant $9,404.10 $0.00 $0.00 $9,404.10 0.00% 756 Title II-A Improve Teaching $889,854.57 $12,189.75 $13,978.12 $875,876.45 1.57% 761 Title Ill Eng Lang Acqui $17,658.08 $985.00 $985.00 $16,673.08 5.58% 781 Title IV-A Drug Ed $56,080.41 $0.00 $0.00 $56,080.41 0.00% 785 Comprehensive Sch Health $14,952.53 $2,410.66 $2,410.66 $12,541.87 16.12% 796 Workforce Investment Act $25,861.28 $0.00 $0.00 $25,861.28 0.00% 995 Soft Drink Acct $186,837.85 $2,375.48 $2,375.48 $184,462.37 1.27% GRAND TOTAL $92,685,807.53 $3,948,362.63 $6,579,039.51 $86,106,768.02 7.10% $80,000,000.00 $70,000,000.00 $60,000,000.00 NLRSD Actual to Budget Comparison As of August, 2006 Operating Building Capital Outlay Funds 0-5 Federal Food Service  Budget  Expenses Shanda Coleman Christopher Sierra NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Board Agenda - September 21, 2006 NEW ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL Lynch Drive Elementary, Assistant Principal Effective 9/22/06, Category I, Step 4, 207 days NLRHS East Campus, Assistant Principal Effective 9/8/06, Category I, Step 3, 207 days NEW ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION NAME: Shanda Coleman PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Lynch Drive Elementary, Assistant Principal\nEDUCATION: BA- Harding University, Searcy, AR 5/03 MA- Harding University, Searcy, AR 6/05 LICENSURE: Standard 5 year- Elementary 106 Initial three year - Building Administrator P-8 EXPERIENCE: Park Avenue Elementary, Assistant Principal, Stuttgart, AR 7/05 -8/06 Clary Elementary, Stuttgart, AR 8/00 - 6/05 RECOMMENDATION: Loretta Hassell, Lynch Drive Elementary Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel NAME:\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_36","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2006-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/36"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner ducati9n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us June 29, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III JUN 3 0 2D06 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of June 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ittt~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia  Vice Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro   Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton .. Mary Jane Rebick, Little. Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale. An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED JUN 3 0 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for June 2006. Respectfully Submitted, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on June 29, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN 3 O 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 n May 31 2006, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 05/06 wer\nas follows D - $60,312,5-ii 1,119, 52028 he allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 05/06 at Ma 31 006, sub\"ect to eriodic adjustments were as follows RSD-$67,135,18 LRSD - $34,528,908 CSSD - $57,834 709 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 ased on the information available, the ADE calculated .a,..t..,.M...,a.._.....,..._.,. ..... .::.:\n...:.....:.i 5/06, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Base on the in onnation le, tlie .ADE calculate 5/06 subject to riodic ents G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 istributions for FY 05/06 at May 31, 2006, totaled $12,735,719. Allotmen , calculated for FY 05/06 was 14 011 194 subect to eriodic adjustments H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 31 2006, wee J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 In November 2005, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD- $4,143,106.00 NLRSD - $834,966.13 PCSSD - $2,884,201.56 In November 2005, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD -$1,415,633.33 NLRSD - $284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD - $1,948,253.16 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 {Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD-14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD-12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD -6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724, 165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCS SD - 5 of the 4 7 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 -47 passenger bus for$54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger busfor$56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) o. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) s. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 {Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued} 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 {Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 1 O was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled afterthe Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201- A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 {Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearance Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to reviewtheirfindings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 {Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 {Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued} E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued} 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. \"' Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool {PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 {Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June' 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, ttie Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and ap,.__......,.....,._. MT and its executive summa(Y\nfor the month of Ma . 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educaUonal technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date O.ngoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In. December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Startn Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Startn is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff developmentforthe administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999.  On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 49 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 {Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children {BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, {i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate {Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course {Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 52 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 {Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency {LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language {ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan {IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress {NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course {Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 57 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 {Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregati\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_54","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2006-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/54"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatiin 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us May 25, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2006 OFFICEOF IJESEOREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of May 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel ~ Arkansas Department of Education ~ ' .t- SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia  Vice Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for May 2006. Respectfully Submitted, Smith, Bar# 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 J, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on May 25, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 t~ cott mith RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 2 6 2006 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 13ased on the information available at A:pnl 30, 2006, the ADE calculated the State Foundation Funding for FY 05/06. subiect to~neriodic adiustmehfs!  B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 for FY 05/06 at ril 30 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2006 E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 at at Oo e It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 E ca cu ated at A G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 istri6ution ril 30, 2006, total calculated 011194 sub\"ectt H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2006 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 In November 2005, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $4,143,106.00 NLRSD - $834,966.13 PCSSD - $2,884,201.56 Ir:, November 2005, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD -$1,415,633.33 NLRSD - $284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD - $1,948,253.16 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD-14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD-12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724, 165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00  each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued} In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - B of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 4 7 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include B - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for$52, 135.00, and 1 -65 passenger bus for$53, 150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include B - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 -47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. Q. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) s. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference.  On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 13 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process.  The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued} 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 {Continued} In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b} the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment {SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201- A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 {Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also  discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Cleare nee Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Acb,ial as of May 31, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might  impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 {Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school\" districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool {PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed  revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would. be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMTand its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 {Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, r\n1nd scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 {Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2006 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On Ma on reviewed and apP.roved th MTan :..:=:..:::==~===.i~.:....=.==:.:=-:=-~ 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 41 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued} A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. {Continued} 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 {Continued} In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 42 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 {Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued} 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 45 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 {Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas {ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within  the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. so VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 {Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference atthe ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 51 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 {Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan {IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 {Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course {Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001 . The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 57 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Leaming\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Directorfor Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray S\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_120","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2006-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/120"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nARKANSAS DE PA RTM ENT OF or. r. Kenneth James, commissioner .Ed UC at 1 in 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us April 27, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED APR 2 8 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of April 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Since71ly, 1Cm/0 r '----SSOO:::Sm~ I ( L-General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia  Vice Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for April 2006. Respectfully Submitted, t.ti.'tb cottSrnith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on April 27, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 \u0026lt;Li.ttk:k- Scott Smith RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION .. APR 2 8 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE OF _ DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 '~!}, ~~~tt'f~ -'ti\n@ .f~~~(!, I~'  ~4!! -,\nr,1er:t~~, c,\n~111.~ ... j\nt,\ns-,, l~ft-::,f,tr, .',:,:\n::fill\n' :,~~tl\u0026lt;!Jfil\n~~ ~-!~~\" ~''i\ni-~71((ffi\"l 1 s D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 a G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 . - ' ._\n)\n. .,. '\u0026lt;~ J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 In November 2005, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD -$4,143,106.00 NLRSD - $834,966.13 PCSSD - $2,884,201.56 In Noyember 2005, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD -$1,415,633.33 NLRSD - $284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD - $1 ,948,253.16 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Jr:ansportation needs. (Continued) - 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD-14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD-12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 4 7 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and i urteen 65 pa~senger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 4 7 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M rr:ansportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 -47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53, 150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. r, 0 :',!Di'~ird!:~i ,,\n\\,t r,1\n tr,,:\n,:1.f:Jht~i:,J,t!r,,\\~.~~..'it.lil!~f,,gf:ii'lElc1t:iliJ1Ci ~r,irr:.W~iftn, ~Lff: ~i:Jr:1, r'r,r\n,, tr\"iI\n'.\u0026gt;ii\n~Jn?.tm~t ,r~~ITT !l!lili.'f-f C!Trf:i-'t~\u0026lt;\nll1i. (1'1\\tfr j, '\n:,,., \n tc:c}cti(J\" ii'[:11Wf~!)!i@tl.!ml~ .-'.~'i~~pr WJf~J.'1:~i-f!J!l([r,i\"ffl.:i .,\n~-~ft~WCJ!i!J.!1l~r~~JifiiJ.DL :ii~@iilit_\n~~~1~r1t,u~l!Ii.te\",\n~ ,\n0:!lIT:-r:, .t ~ ,1r\n:m~~,i~11f,t'fl~iJ.W~filf!l11iitmli1 ,m1ffiji\n'r\n(t}l'i\ni \\ 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. Q. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) s. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY O 1 /02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 {Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impact~ 9f compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impact_s of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts pf compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts pf compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impact$ pf compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 {Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impactl? 9f compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impact~ 9f compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 {Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool {PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201- A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impact~ of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued} A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impact~ of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued} On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearance Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appearto impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued} E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 {Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATl~N (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATl~N (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement_ and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 Ongoing D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Educatiq_n_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued)- 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool {PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Educatiq_n_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 {Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Educatio_n will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of EducatiQ~_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if ahy, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of EducatiQn_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Educatiq_n_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of EducatiQfl will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of EducatiQ.n. will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of EducatiQn_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of.Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Educatio_n_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 {Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education pr:_~grams will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 40 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education _p_rograms will be identified. {Continued) - 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 {Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 41 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education _p_rograms will be identified. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 {Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for te.chnical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education _p_rograms will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Leaming, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Startn is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 47 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 {Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program {ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program {ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 {Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the MS mart Step\" initiative, MStandard and Accountability in Action, and MCreating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, MThe Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference atthe ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from sctiools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 54 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 {Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 1 O and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 55 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 {Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001 . The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives {one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress {NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21 , 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 57 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 {Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initia\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_971","title":"'The Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of the Desegregation Plan''","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":["2006-03-13"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Gifted persons","School buildings"],"dcterms_title":["'The Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of the Desegregation Plan''"],"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/971"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_103","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2006-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/103"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF or. T. Kenneth James, commissioner .Ed U Cat 1 in 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us March 31, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEI'!~ APR -..l 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW  Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of March 2006 in the above-referenced case.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, J~\nGeneral Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia  Vice Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR - 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2006. Respectfully Submitted, ~v .. ~mitli, Bar# 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on March 31, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~~tts\u0026amp;b Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS RECEIVED APR - 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education {ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA . {State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 05/06 at Februa D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 e o u It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued} I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the first performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. M. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 In November 2005, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $4,143,106.00 NLRSD - $834,966.13 PCSSD - $2,884,201.56 In November 2005, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $1,415,633.33 NLRSD - $284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued} N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. {Continued} 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued} In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD-14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD-12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of. $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 4 7 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 -47 passenger bus for$52, 135.00, and 1 -65 passenger bus for$53, 150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. R. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 .. II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 13 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued} A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued} 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued} In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b} the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group metto review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201- A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearance Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2.  Actual as of March 31, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued} On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would_ impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONSTHAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83111 Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued} D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial. section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMTand its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued} On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. en March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Boa~q.efJ\n:Cfucat1on reviewed and aooroved the PMT and its executive summarv for the month of F:ebruarvJ 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCNCOE peer team visits. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI. F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 43 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review.  In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 46 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 47 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2006 {Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program {ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program {ACT AAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team . of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 49 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children {BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, {i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate {Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course {Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and ShelleyWeirwere presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for  alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas muth and science teachers to support  systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE heldthe Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level EducationD. Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Represe.ntatives from an three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on . October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 56 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 58 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses  on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address uovercoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented MBeyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented usmart Steps to\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_695","title":"\"Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-03-01/2006-09-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["\"Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/695"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nFebruary 28, 2006 RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Associate Monitors Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Powell: This accompanies a copy of the quarterly written update of March 1, 2006, in compliance with the June 30, 2004 memorandum opinion of the U.S. District Court. Please let us know if you would like more information. Thank you for your adviee and support in earrying out our responsibilities. Sincerely yours. Karen Director, PRE xc: Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 February 28, 2006 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: This accompanies the quarterly written update of March 1, 2006 in compliance with the U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). Sincerely yours, Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Gene Jones Ms. Marjorie Powell Mr. Robert Pressman Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 February 28, 2006 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421-5817 Dear Mr. Pressman: This accompanies the quarterly written update of March 1, 2006 in compliance with the U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). Mr. Walker has asked that we furnish you with copies of reports. Sincerely yours, DeJamette, .D. Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Gene Jones Ms. Marjorie Powell Mr. John Walker Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Associate Monitors Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr, Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Powell: On Monday, March 13 the evaluation team for Pre-K Literacy will convene at the IRC, 3001 South Pulaski Street, in room 10 at 10 AM. In a later mailing you will receive the proposed plan and questionnaires for the evaluation. We invite you to attend. Please contact us if you would like more information. Sincerely yoiKS, Karen DeJamette,rh.D. Director, PRE xc: Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 February 28, 2006 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: On Monday, March 13 the evaluation team for Pre-K Literacy will convene at the IRC, 3001 South Pulaski Street, in room 10 at 10 AM. In a later mailing you will receive the proposed plan and questionnaires for the evaluation. We invite you to attend. Please contact us if you would like more information. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Ms. Marjorie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller LRSD Counsel Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua Intervenors March 1, 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. M H PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206IN IN Little Rock School District (LRSD) IN IN QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua Intervenors IN IN March 1, 2006 IN RECEIVED mar 1 - 2006 OFFICEOF desegregation monitoring IN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF IN V. IN PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS IN KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS IN IN IN d Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 d dIntroduction This is the sixth quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE), submitted in accordance with the U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Rem^y (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: II A. B. c. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support... Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by Afncan-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a programs effectiveness. . . . PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval ... by December 31, 2004. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1... [ODMs responsibilities.] [Joshuas responsibilities.] Four step 2 program evaluations are due to the U. S. District Courts October 1, 2005 and four more not later than October 1, 2006. The Compliance Report is due October 15, 2006. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] 11 11 k II II II * i K a Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Page 2 of 5M Status as of March 1, 2006 M A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. I IN LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 who met the Compliance Remedys requirements and reported this accomplishment in its first quarterly written update of December 1, 2004. This team continues to carry out diligently the Compliance Remedy, as stated in this sixth quarterly written update. IN Arthur Olds joined the PRE Department in November 2005 as testing coordinator. His resume is in Appendix A. R B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. IN IN The PRE Department has continued to develop its comprehensive assessment process including a district portfolio, as reported in the fourth and fifth quarterly written updates. In addition to the LRSD senior administrators and principals who consult the portfolio, Dr. James Catterall used its data in his step 2 evaluation of the Districts Year-Round Education option in several schools. IN IN IN To support the portfolios expansion, frequent updates, and future utility, PRE is designing a data warehouse which LRSD staff and others can consult on a real-time basis. The LRSD Computer Information Department is consulting with Janis Group, Inc., a firm with expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data. After determining this sophisticated data warehouses purpose(s), this team is determining which data sets to include. The data warehouse will bring the portfolio alive by supporting frequent updates of the portfolio and timely reports for purposes of developing policy, planning, research, and evaluation at levels of classrooms, schools, grades, departments, and the district. IN IN Education for the Future (EFF) devised a welcome page and questionnaires for an on-line school climate survey. EFF based the questionnaires on interests that derived from consultations on the districts mission and operations. Principals, teachers, students, and parents will participate in the survey this spring, and its results will go into the district portfolio. Appendix B shows the questionnaire drafts. IN C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare eight formal step 2 evaluations. If If M Step 2 evaluations of 2004-2005 During LRSDs December vacation, the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP), directed by Dr. Steve Ross at the University of Memphis, submitted draft evaluation reports for CompassLeaming (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and SMART/THRIVE (S/T). Dr. Catterall sent his draft evaluation report for Year-Round Education (YRE) in early January. LRSD forwarded these four draft reports, as they arrived, to the U. S. District Court, to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors. PRE received final reports by early February and forwarded them to the same parties prior to their due dates. Summaries of the evaluation reports, submitted to the LRSD Board of Directors for their approval February 23, are in Appendices C through F. They include recommendations and resulting expectations. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Page 3 of 5LRSD evaluation policy requires follow-up of evaluation recommendations. Evaluation teams for each program will convene during the next year to consider how LRSD implements the external evaluators recommendations. To prepare for this, PRE will collect appropriate data from administrators of the four programs evaluated last year. Step 2 evaluations during the 2005-2006 school year Dr. Ross presented CREPs proposed designs for step 2 evaluations during the 2005-2006 school year21'-Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC), Pre-K Literacy (PKL), and Read 180to school principals January 18. In September, Dr. Catterall heard feedback about the evaluation design for A+ from the principal, teachers, and parents at Woodruff Elementary School. He also conducted a focus group and interviewed the principal. PRE recruited stakeholders for the four evaluation teams, and 22 participated on February 9 in reviewing their roles and discussing the four proposed evaluation designs (found in Appendices G, H, I, and J of this sixth quarterly written update). Their schedules indicate data collection starting in February. Joshua counsel did not attend\nbut ODM officers did and recommended more team members, with which PRE complied. Appendix K lists members of all four teams.  D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued working closely with the CREP team in completing their three step 2 evaluations of last year, reviewing closely and discussing with CREP its three draft reports in early January, convening the evaluation teams on January 12 for their reviews, submitting comments to CREP for incorporation into its final drafts, then submitting the final drafts to the Board of Directors for approval at its February session. PRE wrote evaluation teams questions and observations and distributed them the next day to all team members for further contributions and corrections. A week later, final comments went to CREP, and CREP sent a research brief, written in simpler language, for each program. Names of participants at the January 12 session and their comments appear in Appendix L.  On January 19, PRE convened the evaluation team for reactions to the draft report of the YRE evaluation and wrote down participants remarks, which went to all team members for additional contributions and corrections. After a week, having received no more, PRE sent the teams notes to Dr. Catterall for incorporation into his final draft. PRE submitted this final report to the Board of Directors for their approval February 23. Appendix L records participants names and their comments from January 19. I E. Evaluation will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective programs effectiveness. a During its critical reviews of the first four draft evaluation reports, PRE reminded the external evaluators of this requirement\nand the resulting final reports included these three required Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Page 4 of 5IN H elements. PRE will assure that the final four evaluation reports by external evaluators will also satisfy these requirements next year. F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. IN Earlier quarterly written updates have reported that PRE notified both ODM and Joshua of all eight LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations and furnished both parties with the LRSD comprehensive program assessment process per F of the U. S. District Courts June 30, 2004 remedy (page 65). In addition, PRE has notified ODM and Joshua of occasions when critical issues regarding the evaluations have been considered and decided. IN G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. IN IN Per G of the June 30, 2004 remedy by the U. S. District Court (page 65), PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December 1, 2004, its second on March 1, 2005, its third by June 1, 2005, the fourth prior to September 1, 2005, and the fifth written quarterly update by December 1, 2005. PRE now submits this sixth written quarterly update prior to its due date of March 1, 2005. To date, PRE has met all due dates of the remedy including the first annual report which the Court postponed from its original date of October 1, 2005. IN IN IN IN IN IN II n H N Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Page 5 of 5 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. J. K. L. APPENDICES Resume of Mr. Arthur Olds, new Testing Coordinator Draft questionnaires for on-line climate survey of LRSD teachers Summary of CompassLearning Evaluation Summary of Reading Recovery Evaluation Summary of SMART/THRIVE Summary of Year Round Education Draft design for Step 2 Evaluation of A+ by Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Draft design for Evaluation of 2L^ Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) by CREP Draft design for Evaluation of Pre-K Literacy (PKL) by CREP Draft design for Evaluation of Read 180 by CREP Evaluation team members during 2006-2007 for A+, CCLC, PKL, and Read 180 Teams and their feedback to draft evaluation reports of CL, RR, and S/T January 12 and YRE January 19, 2006 Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendices  I I 1 H IN Appendix A IN IN Testing Coordinator IN  Arthur Clyde Olds DI ID Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District ID ID ID ID ID ID Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix AEDUCATION: FOREIGN LANGUAGES: TEACHING EXPERIENCE: Arthur Clyde Olds 23 Sandstone Conway, Arkansas 72034 (501) 329-6106 arthirr.olds@conwaycorp.net A.B.D. Michigan State UruversitySpanish M.A. Michigan State Urtiversity-Spanish (1974) B.A. Brigham Young University-Spanish/History (1970) Teaching Licensure-State of Aricansas: ESL (K-12), Spanish (K-12), Latin (K-12), Middle School Spanish: Read, Speak, Write-Excellent Latin: Very Good French: Very Good 1990-present: Dunbar Magnet Middle School ESL school coordinator/ESL testing. I keep the ACSIP plan up to date and keep the several administrators and faculty current concerning school wide statistics, as I serve as School Testing Coordinator. I help with the Title 1 plan and budget and recently wrote an awarded grant of $100,000 for our after-school tutoring program in math and literacy, which I help coordinate. Teach all levels of Latin and Spanish, including our \"Introduction to Foreign Language\" courses. I have also taught reading. Serve at Dunbar as a member of the Campus Leadership Team, the Steering Corrunittee, NCA/COE chair. Discipline Hearing Committee chair. Foreign Language Department chair. Building Coordination Committee, SECME chair and team member (summer workshop). Quiz Bowl team leader and OM judge at Region and State competitions. For the LRSD serve on the Foreign Language Curriculum Revision Committee, on the District Textbook Adoption Committee in two cycles, the Middle School Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment Committee and the Activities Advisory Board. Also serve as a \"Pathwise\" Mentor for new teachers and teach computer classes for teachers in the district. 1980-present: Spanish Instructor in the Public Schools of Arkansas Taught all levels of Spanish, operated the language laboratory and served as Sparush Club advisor. Organized two torrrs to Mexico. Schools include: Southside-Bee Branch/Guy-Perkins, Perryville/East End, Magnet Cove and Parkview (Little Rock). English Instructor in the Public Schools of Arkansas Taught all levels of English (7-12), including Honors English, same schools. Co-director of a nationally recogiuzed restructuring program at Perryville High School that coordinated English, History and Cultural Studies. Worked under the direction of the State Department of Education and the Arkansas International Center at UALR. University of Central Arkansas (Instructor of Spanish1980-84) Taught all levels of Spanish, organized and conducted two summer programs in Mexico, and served as advisor to student teachers in the dq3artment. Developed third and fourth year proficiency testing and taught general education courses. Also worked in tire Elderhostel Program (Division of Continuing Education.) Taught English Composition I and II. University of Arkansas at Little Rock (Instructor of Spanish) Taught all first second and third year comses. 1969-1980: Graduate Assistant and Visiting Assistant Professor of Spanish Michigan State University (1973-80), Alma College (1976), University of Wisconsin-Madison (1972-73) and Brigham Young Uruversity (1969-72). Taught all first and second year courses offered by the departments as well as special sections of \"Spanish for Travelers.\" Had full responsibility for planning and conducting classes, text selection and production of materials for special classes. Also had language laboratory responsibilities.  II w  II R   II R R RA. C. Olds, page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE: 1990- Arkansas Foreign Language Teachers Association General Board present: and President of the Arkansas Classical Association. 1985-90: Arkansas State Coordinator for National Spanish Exam of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese. I 1985-88: President and Vice President, American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese DeSoto Chapter and Member, General Board of the Arkansas Foreign Language Teachers Association. K 1980-84: Department of Foreign Languages, University of Central Arkansas Student teacher advisor, proficiency testing and evaluation, textbook selection, sponsor oiLasociedad hispdnica, high school language festival judge, local university coordinator of National High School Spanish Exams, department publicity. National Committee of the Educational Testing Service CLEP Exam revision, foreign language reviewer for Publications of the Arkansas Philological Association, book reviewer for La Celestinesca. M 1974-80: Michigan State University: Department Chair Search Committee, Graduate Committee, Graduate Steering Committee, Advisory Committee, College of Arts and Letters Graduate Committee. H 1971-72: Brigham Young University: Department representative to College of Humanities Graduate Committee and Graduate School Advisory Committee. n RELATED WORK EXPERIENCE: 2001: Six week technology workshop, University of Arkansas at Little Rock IN 1997: SECME Summer Workshop, Tuskegee Institute 1991: II Summer workshop, Kingston, Jamaica, sponsored by the Arkansas International Center at UALR 1988: II Summer workshop, Guadalajara, Mexico, sponsored by the Arkansas International Center at UALR n 1985: Oral Proficiency Workshop of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, held at UALR 1984: First cycle of Program for Effective Teaching II 1974- Contract translation (Spanish to English/English to Spanish) for local present: businesses and legal translation for lawyers and the court II 1983-84: Editorial Board, Publications of the Arkansas Philological Association 1973-79: Editor, Tropos II11 A. C. Olds, page 3 II PUBLICATIONS/LECTURES: Papers presented at the Arkansas Philological Association Meetings\n\"Calisto: el loco enamorado (La Celestina).\" (1997) \"Celestina: Character as Author (La Celestina).\" (1995) \"Parmeno and Sempronio (La Celestina) and the Process of Self-Creation.\" (1993) \"The Thrust and Parry of Rojas' Prose: The Ironic Vision of La Celestina.\" (1991) \"Mirrors of Ambiguity: The Author in Search of Self in Miguel de Unamuno's La novela de Don Sandalio, jugador de ajedrez.\" (1989) \"If I'm OK and You're OK, Why Can't We Communicate?\" More on the continuing Saga of Don Quijote and Sancho.\" (1988) \"Irony and La Celestina\nThe Wonders of Rojas'Prose.\" (1987) \"Penas arriba : Adventure ofthe Archetypal Hero.\" (1986) M B B Other papers / lectures: \"Coordination and Cooperation: The High School and the University in Global Studies.\" Ark. International Studies Conference (UALR, April 1989.) \"Don Quijote y Sancho: El problema de la comunicacion.\" Tropos, 8 (1980), 17-27. \"Structure and Narrative Technique in La Celestina: The Aside.\" Mid-West MLA (Indianapolis: November, 1979). \"Scholarly Publishing: Dialogue Between an Editor and a Graduate Student.\" American Association of Comparative Literature Meetings (State College, Pennsylvania: April, 1979). Lockert, Lucia Fox. Spanish and Spanish-American Women Novelists. Scarecrow Press, 1979. (Book-length translation) \"Testing and Foreign Language Teaching\" (1977) and \"Oral Practice in Context\" (1976). Presented as part of a series on Foreign Language Teaching organized at Michigan State University. B 11 B PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: Arkansas Foreign Language Teachers Association, Modem Language Association, Mid-West MLA, American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese, Societe Rencesvals, Sigma Delta Pi, Comediantes, Arkansas Philological Association, Arkansas Classical Association, Mid-America Medieval Association, American Classical League, Classical Association of the Middle West and South B PROFESSIONAL TRAVEL\n1997: SECME workshop, Tuskegee Institute. 1991: Summer workshop, Kingston, Jamaica. 1988: Summer workshop, Guadalajara, Mexico. 1981, 1982, 1986, 1987: Guided study programs in Mexico. 1969-70 and 1970-71: Semester Abroad programs in Spain with BYU. 1970 and 1971: Extensive Summer European travel. 1966-1968: Close daily contact with Spanish-speaking people of Colorado, Texas and New Mexico. B B B REFERENCES: Available on request. B BAppendix B 4 I H n II n n n n n On-line Climate Survey Draft Questionnaires for Administrators (Principals), Staff (Teachers and others), Students, and Parents Prepared by Education for the Future For Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix B cII Education for the Future i I II Strongly Dim^ Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree w  I am a valued member of this School District I am able to participate meaningfully in District decisions that impact my responsibilities 1 am able to work with District leadership to generate special resources when I need them I am allowed to be an effective leader in my school I am encouraged to find unique solutions to issues in my school I clearly understand the specifics of what I am held accountable for in perfonnance reviews I enjoy my job 0.                              I understand what is expected of me in my role Others in the District have the same understanding of the nature of my role that I have People in the District can explain the Districts vision People in the District respect me      S)   11          Principals in the District generally like what they do here The District leadership cares about me The District leadership trusts my judgment The District provides an organizational climate in which all schools can succeed                  CD The District strategic plan will lead us to make our vision a reality There are opportunities forme to develop my skills There is a District-level strategic plan in place As a rule, District leadership requires that I use specific strategies to accomplish District goals in my school District leadership provides adequate resources for me to get my job done effectively District leadership provides me with direction District leadership supports my decisions II II II                                  Everyone who works in this District is expected to deliver high quality work Good work is consistently recognized in this District           II Copyright  1991 -2005 Education for die Future Initiative, Chico. CA. Page 1 of 2 II II II H Education for the Future I Wliat are the most effective things that the District does to facilitate your effectiveness? 4 What are the least effective things that the District does in relation to your effectiveness? What should the District be doing, that it is not doing currently, to help make you more effective? Hn fl fl - - - - - - - - - - - - Administrator Demographic Data- - - - - - - - - - - - - Demoi^raphic data, which is used for suniniary analysis, will not he reported if individualscan be identified. fl fl Ethnicity: (fi// in all that apply) Q African-American O American Indian/Alaskan Native O Asian O Caucasian 0 Hispanic/Latino O Other_______________ Gender\nO Female O Male 1 am a(ii): O Elementary Assistant Principal O Elementary Principal O Middle School Assistant Principal O Middle School Principal O High School Assistant Principal O High School Principal O Other School Administrator O DistrictAdministrator O specify:_________________ n n I have been in iny current position: I have been an administrator for: O 1st Year O 2-3 Years O 4-6Ycars O 7-t()Yc\nirs O ll-14Years O 15-20Years O 21-25 Years O 26+Yeiirs O pt Year O 2-3Years O 4-6 Years O7-10Years O ll-14Years O 15-20Years O 21-25 Years O 26-30Years O 31-35 Years O 36-4()Years O 41 +Years Copyright 1991-2005 Education for the Future Initiativc.Chico.CA. Pagc2()f2 Education for the Future This PDF file is for content review purposes onlynot intended for use in questionnaire administration. For more information about administering and analyzing Education for the Future questionnaires, please visit http:ileff.esuchico.edul(iueslionnaire_resourcesl. [ Strongly Agree Neutral Agree I feel: I Strongly Disagree Disagree Demographic daia, which is used for summary analysis, will not be reported if individuals can be identified. Ethnicity: (fiil in all that apply) O African-American O American Indian O Asian O Caucasian O Latino/IIispanic O Other like I belong at this school that the staff cares about me that learning can be fun that learning is fun at this school recognized for good work intrinsically rewarded for doing my job well clear about what ray job is at this school tliat others are clear about what my job is at this school I work with people who:                                   11 I am a(n): O classroom teacher O instructional assistant O certificated staff (other than aclasKTOcyni tcacitcr) O classified staff (other than an inairucttonal xssistant) treat me with respect listen if I have ideas about doing things better My administrators:     CD     Iremsfor teachers only: I teach: O pre-kindergarten O primary grades O upper elementary grades O middle school grades O high school grades 9-10 O high school grades 11-12 I have been teaching: O 1-3 years 04-6 years 07-lOyears O 11 or more years treat me with respect are effective instructional leaders facilitate communication effectively support me in my work with students support shared decision making allow me to be an effective instructional leader are effective in helping us reach our vision I have the opportunity to: develop my skills think for myself, not just carry out instructions I believe student achievement can increase through: differentiating instruction effective professional development related to our vision integrating instruction across the curriculum teaching to the state standards the use of computers the use of varied technologies providing a threat-free environment close personal relationships between students and teachers addressing student learning styles effective parent involvement using ongoing smdent assessments related to state standards student self-assessments teacher use of student achievement data /love: working at this school seeing the results of iny work with students Education for ihr Future Initiative (2tX\u0026gt;6) Chico, C A: Education For the Future                                       Continued                                                                     * K BIB i Education for the Future I j Strongly Agree 1 1 Neutral Agree 1 believe: j Strongly Disagree Disagree II M every student can leam the instructional program at this school is challenging this school provides an atmosphere where every student can succeed quality work is expected of all students at this school quality work is expected of me quality work is expected of all the adults working at this school the vision for this school is clear the vision for this school is shared we have an action plan in place which can get us to our vision this school has a good public image it is important to communicate often with parents 1 communicate with parents often about their childs progress 1 communicate with parents often about class activities the school buildings and grounds are clean I work effectively with: n II special education students English learners ethnically/racially diverse students students who live in poverty low-achieving students Morale is high on the part of: II n teachers students support staff administrators A A Items for teachers and instructional assistants only: Student outcomes for my class(es) are clear to me Student outcomes for my class(es) are clear to my students Teachers in this school communicate with each other to make student learning consistent across grades I know the state standards I teach to the state standards Learning is fun in my classroom 1 love to teach A A e Education for ihc Future Iniiiative(2006) tliico, C!A\nEducation for the Future fl                 CD             @  @                   Continued                                                                            (S\u0026gt;    \u0026gt; n Education for the Future i   What are the strengths of this school?  B B B What needs to be improved? B B B B B B B B  Education forthe Future Initiativc\u0026lt;2(\u0026gt;06) Chico.CA: Education for ibc Futurc BM Education for the Future H StudentsI Strongly Agree MH I am in: 03' Grade 04' Grade 05' Grade 06' Grade 07' Grade I am: 08*^ Grade 09'Grade O IChGrade O 11* Grade O 12' Grade I Neutral Agree I Strongly Disagree Disagree II H II AAA AAA A A O African-American O American Indiiin/ Alaskan Native O Asian O Caucasian O Hispanic/Lalino O Other I am: O Boy OGirl I am: O participating in extracurricular activities O involvedinacommunity service project O enrolletl in a service learning class When I am at school, I feel: I belong I am safe I have fun teaming I like this school This school is good 1 have freedom at school I have choices in the way 1 learn My teacher(s) treat me with respect My teacher(s) care about me My teacher(s) think I will be successful My teacher(s) listen to my ideas My principal cares about me My teacher(s) is a good teacher My teacher(s) believe I can leant I am recognized for good work I ani challenged by the work my teacher(s) a,sk me to do The work I do in class makes me think I know what I am supposed to be learning in my classes I am a good student 1 can be a better student Working hard will make me do well in school Very good work is expected at my school 1 behave well at school Students arc treated fairly by teachers Students are treated fairly by the principal Students are treated fairly by school resource officers (SRO) Students at my school treat me with respect I am safe from bullies Students at my school are friendly 1 have lots of friends I have support for learning at home My family believes\nI can do well in school My family wants me to do well in school My school building and grounds are clean Copyright  2006 EducaGon for the Future Initiative. Chico. CA.                                A                                                                                   5.                          Page 1 of2 Education for the Future Students I What do you like about this school? What do you wish was different at this school? Copyright  2006 Education f\u0026lt;r the Future Initiative, Chico, CA, Page2of2    II      M  Education for the Future H This PDF file is for eowteiit review purposes onlynot Intended for use in questionnaire administration.. For more information about administering and analyzing Education for the Future questionnaires* please visit htlp:/!cffx!iuchico.edulqiiestumnaire,_re3oiirccsi. Disagree = Strongly Disagree I feel welcome at my childs school j Stron^yAg^ Neutral Agree  H 14 14 14 14 14 14 I am informed about my childs progress I know what my childs teacher(s) expect of my child My child is safe at school My child is safe going to and from school There is adequate supervision during school There is adequate supervision before and after school Teachers show respect for the students Students show respect for other students The school meets the social needs of the students The school meets the academic needs of the students The school expects quality work of its students The school has an excellent learning environment I know how well my child is progressing in school I like the schools report cards/progress report I respect the schools teachers I respect the schools principal Overall, the school performs well academically The school succeeds at preparing children for future work The school has a good public image The schools assessment practices are fair My childs teacher(s) help me to help my child learn at home 1 support my childs learning at home I feel good about myself as a parent I feel educational opportunitie.s at my child's school are provided equitably The school buildings and grounds are clean I feel 1 am a valued parmcr in my childs education 1 have access to school materials and resources that support my childs education    CO                 14 14 14 fl Childrens grades: O Kindergancn O First Grade O Second Grade O Third Grade O Fourth Grade O Fifth Grade O Sixth Grade O Seventh Grade O Eighth Grade O Ninth Grade O Tenth Grade O Eleventh Grade O Twelfth Grade Number of children in this school: CD My native language is: O Chinese O Eastern European O English O Japanese O Koretm O Spanish O Vietnamese O Other______________ Copyright  2006 Education for die Future Initiative, Chico.CA.                                                            @                   Number of children in the household:  Ethnic background: (fill in all that apply) o Black O American Indian/Alaskan Native O Asian O White O Hispanic/Latino O Other_______________ Responding: O Mother O Father O Guardian O Other                  @ @   Page 1 oQ Education for the Future i M M What are the strengths of this school?  H What needs to be improved? K  Copyright  2006 Education for the Future Initiative, Chico, CA. Pagc2of2 H Appendix C n H H H fl CompassLeaming (CL) Evaluation by Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis Summary and Evaluation Team Prepared by Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District Quarterly Written Update March 1, 20006 Appendix C Summary: CompassLearning Evaluation Evaluation conducted by Dr. Steven Ross (CREP) Reported by PRE Department  B Summary of CompassLearning (CL) Implementation in LRSD: CL is a computer-based program for improving learning in language arts, reading, and math with personalized lessons tailored to each students needs. CL also helps teachers manage their students learning and gives administrators on-going perfonnance reports. LRSD introduced CL (initially called Jostens) ten years ago but left election to use CL to each school. During 2004-2005, 19 elementary schools used CL in grades K-5. Lab attendants and/or technology specialists assist teachers with integrating lessons into their curriculums. Students work on language arts, reading, and/or math for 30 to 60 minutes per week in computer labs with a lab attendant and classroom teacher present. Some also had CL activities in their regular classrooms.  B B Plan and Participants: The evaluation plan for CL included: (1) analyses of CL student achievement and program data, and (2) surveys and interviews with principals, CL specialists, teachers, and parents. At school faculty meetings, 356 elementary teachers returned questionnaires in which they indicated their familiarity with CL and their opinions of it\n318 indicated at least some experience with CL. At the next page are evaluation team members. Bl B B Results:  Evaluators found mixed, small CL effects in African American achievement scores.  While LRSD provided fully adequate computer equipment and personnel, teachers used CL student reports little and exposed their students to less CL than prescribed.  Teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarded CL program implementation, impacts, and strengths very highly  Parents/guardians of CL students supported CL, too, but did not fully understand it.  Principals who stopped CL still supported it. Recommended Program Modifications: \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Ensure students spend the recommended effort60 minutes each for language arts, reading, and math each week for grades K - 5, or 90 minutes in grades 3 - 5. Teachers should understand CL reports most critical for adapting lessons to needs of African American students and use the CL reports to assist lab attendants. Principals must use monthly CL class-level and school-level reports to monitor and adjust instructional interventions for African American students. Improve district coordination to ensure language and math activities align with the LRSD curriculum and follow recommended CL guidelines. B Expectations of Program Modifications \u0026lt; Progressive gains on standardized test scores over time 4 Closer adherence to CL guidelines 4 More proficiently using student perfonnance data to meet the individuals needs B B B Quarterly Written Update March 1, 20006 Appendix C4. More effective instructional leaders of schools through deeper understanding of CL 4 resources and teacher skills to address student learning deficiencies Frequent monitoring and more timely supportive interventions Evaluation Team Members for CompassLeaming H Team Leader - Dr. Karen DeJamette, PRE Department CL program specialist - Mr. Travis Taylor, Instractional Technology Department Statistician - Jim Wohlleb, PRE Department Programmer - Mr. Ken Savage, Computer Information Services Department Technical writer - Dr. Deborah Lowther, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External consultants - Dr. Deborah Lowther, Dr. Dan Strahl, Mr. Aaron McDonald, and Dr. Steve Ross, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External reviewer - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies PRE Reviewers - Ms. Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, and Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Department Parent - Ms. Amy Thompson Teachers - Ms. Amy Thompson and Ms. Thelma Watson, Fulbright Elementary School Principal - Ms. Deborah Mitchell, Fulbright Elementary School M IN IN IN IN IN IN Quarterly Written Update March 1, 20006 Appendix C Appendix D Reading Recovery (RR) Evaluation by Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis Summary and Evaluation Team      M H   Prepared by Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District a K   H Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix D riSummary: Reading Recovery Evaluation Evaluation conducted by Dr. Steven Ross, University of Memphis Summary by PRE Department Summary of Reading Recovery (RR) Implementation in LRSD: RR teachers tutor students one-on-one for 30 minutes every school day for 12 to 20 weeks. Successful completion (called discontinued) equips students to learn at grade level and lessens the need for special attention. RR teachers designate students not up to grade in less than 20 weeks as Incomplete and those not up to grade by 20 weeks as recommended for further action. LRSD has expanded RR and partnered with the UALR College of Education to train teachers and advance their skills. In the 2004-2005 school year, 28 trained RR teachers served 18 of the districts 34 elementary schools. Plan and Participants: The evaluation plan for Reading Recovery included: (1) analyses of RR student achievement and program data, (2) principal, teacher, and parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of RR tutoring sessions. H Evaluators observed 16 RR teachers and collected questionnaires from 22 and another 156 nonRR teachers in classrooms. They also interviewed 10 principals and 4 teachers in training. Evaluation team members are found on the next page. H Results: n 91 9i in iR H 9{ RR improved African-American students reading skills. There are opportunities for further improvements in RR. RR experts observed well trained teachers who applied the RR model with high fidelity. RR teachers regard RR program highly for aiding African American students. RR impressed non-RR, classroom teachers, too, as beneficial to African American students. Principals agreed that their African American students are bridging the achievement gap through RR. Parents/guardians of RR students perceived RR as benefiting their children. H [fl Recommended Program Modifications:  An expanded program with more RR teachers should monitor students more often after they discontinue RR to ensure sustaining their momentum. More LRSD students need RR than RR teachers can tutor. RR teachers might feel pressure to discontinue one group of students in order to begin another group. If true, the necessary follow-up contact can not occur\nand therefore the fl slippage in achievement that has been seen in other districts might occur in H LRSD, too. In an expanded RR program, RR teachers can more closely monitor their discontinued students and maintain their gains. In addition to expanding RR, LRSD should explore a transitional plan for students who discontinue. Such a plan could involve daily monitored reading that would also buffer against slippage. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix D fl Increased professional development of classroom (non-RR) teachers would better enable them to integrate their RR students back into the classroom once discontinued and to give them appropriate instruction and feedback so that they keep on improving. Increase LRSDs partnership with UALR to help develop the transitional plan and the professional development for classroom (non-RR) teachers. Future studies might analyze more in-depth a small number of students who kept on gaining after discontinuing RR. Many principals and RR teachers cited examples of profound student achievement and sustained, noteworthy success of former African-American RR students. Such studies could determine what factors led to successes and how teachers can better help other students.   H Expectations of Program Modifications: Reading Recovery has valuable components that, with changes, can be even more effective. With program modifications, the Little Rock School District could expect:  Progressive gains on standardized test scores over time.  Increased number of students involved in the Reading Recovery program.  Closer adherence to Reading Recovery guidelines, particularly the number of sessions required for optimum benefits.  More teachers throughout the district better able to serve at-risk students.  Sustained achievement of students upon completion of the Reading Recovery program.  A stronger relationship with experts at UALR that would continue to provide the Little Rock School District with the most up-to-date research findings and best practices for reading and literacy instruction.     Evaluation Team Members for Reading Recovery  Team Leader - Jim Wohlleb, PRE Department Reading Recovery program specialist - Ms. Pat Busbea, Early Childhood / Elementary Literacy Department, and Dr. Linda Dorn, UALR College of Education Statistician - Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Department Programmer - Mr. Ken Savage, Computer Information Services Department Technical writer - University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External consultant - Dr. Anna Grehan, Mr. Aaron McDonald, and Dr. Steve Ross, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External reviewer - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies PRE reviewer - Ms. Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, PRE Department Parent - Ms. Michelle Bonds-Hall Teacher - Ms. Michelle Dorsey, Chicot Elementary School        Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix Dfl fl fl fl fl N fl fl fl Appendix E SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Evaluation by Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis Summary and Evaluation Team n Prepared by Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District M M Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix E fl  Summary: SMART/THRIVE Evaluation Evaluation conducted by Dr. Steven Ross, University of Memphis Reported by PRE Department  Summary of SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Implementation in LRSD: SMART and THRIVE, designed by two veteran LRSD teachers, serve at-risk students. In 1999, LRSD implemented and funded them in part by the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program and NSF. w I S/T purposes are to prepare students entering Algebra I (8 to 9* grade) through supplemental lessons (SMART), prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I (THRIVE), and instill confidence. SMART meets for two consecutive weeks in the summer. THRIVE meets every other Saturday in spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor, while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. II Plan and Participants: The evaluation plan for S/T included: (1) analyses of S/T student achievement and program data\n(2) surveys, focus groups, and interviews with principals, S/T specialists, teachers, students, and parents\nand (3) observations of classes and teachers. I I Evaluators observed five O^-grade classes and collected questionnaires from S/T teachers (IOS and 18 T) and Algebra I teachers (25 S and 33 T). Evaluation team members are listed on page 2. Results: o o o O O n Eighth and ninth grade African American students in either S, T, or both more likely scored as proficient or advanced. Substantial gains on Algebra I End of Course exam, strongest among students in both S and T. African American students in both comparison and S/T groups performed the same as others on the ITBS. Students, their parent and instructors, and principals expressed satisfaction with S/T. Students and teachers noted increased self-confidence. Recommended Program Modifications: \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt;  1  Expand scope of S/T to more students. Increase frequency of classes for S/T. Train more teachers for S/T. Follow S/T students through graduation and beyond to learn long-term outcomes. Provide transportation to students.    Expectations of Program Modifications A A raising student achievement among African American students provide the district with a model that can be easily replicated, gain information about factors that set S/T apart from classroom Algebra and preAlgebra classes sustained remediation of African American students   Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix EEvaluation Team Members for SMART/THRIVE n Team leader - Ms. Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, PRE Department Smart / Thrive program specialist - Ms. Vanessa Cleaver and Ms. Marcelline Carr Statistician - Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Department Programmer - Mr. Ken Savage, Computer Information Services Department Technical writer - University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External evaluators - Dr. Lyle Davis, Mr. Aaron McDonald, and Dr. Steve Ross, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy, and Gail Weems, UALR College of Education External reviewer - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies PRE reviewer - Jim Wohlleb, PRE Department Parent - Ms. Rose Cook Teacher - Ms. Tonjuna Iverson, Parkview Magnet High School N H H H M H M Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix E Appendix F    Year Round Education (YRE) Evaluation  by  James Catterall, Ph.D. University of California at Los Angeles    Summary and Evaluation Team   Prepared by Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District      n Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix FN M Summary: Year Round Education Evaluation Conducted by Dr. James Catterall Reported by PRE Department Summary of Year Round Education (YRE) Implementation in LRSD: The YRE design is a single track 45-10 calendar in which all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. The 45-10 refers to 45 days enrolled during a quarter then 10 days of Intersession/vacation. Formal Intersession programs operate for five days within an Intersession break, and student attendance is voluntary. Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff Elementary Schools have operated on a YRE calendar since school year 2000-2001, while Cloverdale and Mitchell Elementary Schools began YRE in 2002-2003. fl Evaluation Plan and Participants: The evaluation plan for YRE included: analyses of YRE student achievement and program data, and surveys and interviews with administrators and principals, special education teachers, classroom teachers, and parents from each school. The following list shows the number of teachers included from each grade level\nPre-K, 10\nK, 9\n1 8\n2\"*, 9\n3\"*, 8\n4', 7\n5\"', 7\nself-contained, 3\nprincipal, 1\nand LRSD office, 3. fl fl Results: Conclusion III.l. YRE schools outperformed the comparison schools with respect to percentages of students proficient in literacy and mathematics over a five-year span leading up to spring 2005, an advantage measured in percentage changes in scores over the base year as well as in absolute percentage proficient point gains. fl fl Conclusion III.2. Based on analyses of test score residuals, YRE schools outperformed other schools very modestly in literacy and significantly in math on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmarks. This means that YRE schools generally performed higher than would be expected from both past performance and student demographics. It also means that comparison schools generally fell short of predicted scores, particularly in mathematics. fl fl Conclusion IV. 1. YRE schools showed significantly more progress between 2000 and 2005 than did comparison schools in five important indicatorsstudent mobility, disciplinary referrals, short-term suspensions, and African American student proficiency in both math and literacy. Attendance rates showed no meaningful change for either school group. The magnitude of these changes for YRE schools and their consistent outpacing of changes in comparison schools are significant indications of positive developments in YRE schools. fl fl Conclusion V.l. Two different analyses point to small performance advantages for students who attend YRE-school Intersessions in comparison to students who do not\nDirect comparisons of the percentages of students proficient on the 2005 Benchmark tests and correlations between Intersession attendance and academic indicators come to the same conclusion. Either in one way or in some combined way, the observed differences may reflect just which students chose to attend Intersessions and which students did not. Under either circumstance, a sound argument for attending Intersessions can be made. fl Conclusion VI. 1. Parent, student, and teacher surveys accumulated over three years provide an overall appraisal of achievement conditions in YRE- versus regular-calendar schools. With respect to academic advantages or conditions that might contribute to academic advantages, about 60-65 percent of parents and students reported higher achievement in YRE schools. Teachers Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix F fl reported better conditions for learning, but feweronly about 35 percentreported actual academic achievement differences favoring YRE schools when asked this question directly. Recommended Program Modifications:  Institute academic-enrichment and student-tutoring sessions during Intersessions, which are mainly recreational, or craft-, special interest-, or hobby-focused. Intersessions could be occasions of voluntary or urged academic assistance.  Increase the numbers of students who participate in Intersessions. Since they particularly and YRE education generally showed positive impacts on student achievement, it makes sense to help the Intersession program reach more students. About 36 percent of all students in grades 3, 4, and 5 across YRE schools had never attended an Intersession as of spring 2005. Potentially effective steps to boost participation are communications between teachers and parents (although we did not find inadequacies in this area), family assistance that might foster attendance (such as child care for very young siblings), and added incentives for teachers to create and offer attractive opportunities. H Ml Ml Ml Ml Bl Bl  Boost African American student participation in Intersessions. Participation rates among the few white and other non-African American students are extremely high. Attempts to recruit students for Intersessions will largely be greeted by African American audiences. Bl  Retain the YRE structure of four evenly spaced terms punctuated by the two-week Intersession and vacation periods. Bl Bl Expectations of Program Modifications:  The modification of Intersessions to include academic opportunities would increase instructional time and effectively shorten breaks between academic terms. This would add academic continuity. A direct expectation would be higher academic achievement levels. An indirect benefit would be improving teacher-student relationships through exposing more teachers and students to each other and additional experiences of teachers with the same students. n   Increasing participation in Intersessions would extend academic benefits to greater portion of YRE-school students and permit additional Intersession course offerings. Both of these changes would lead to higher achievement. Similar to the indirect benefit above, expanded Intersession program would greater exposure would improve teacher-student relationships. M M  Boosting Intersession enrollments of African American students would increase their academic success.  B  Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix FEvaluation Team Members for Year Round Education 4 4 Team Leader - Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Department YRE program specialists - Ms. Janice Wilson, Principal of Woodruff Elementary School, and Ms. Sophia Parchman, Assistant Principal of Mann Arts and Science Middle School Statistician - Ms. Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, PRE Department Programmer - Mr. Ken Savage, LRSD Computer Information Services Department Technical writer - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies External evaluators - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies External reviewer - Dr. Steve Ross, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy, and Gail Weems, UALR College of Education PRE reviewer - Jim Wohlleb, PRE Department Parent - Ms. Diana Layne-Jordan, parent and PT A president, Stephens Elementary School Teacher - Ms. Judy Harbour, fifth grade teacher at Stephens Elementary School N fl fl fl fl fl fl Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix F Appendix G Proposed Plan for Evaluation of the A+ Program at Woodruff Elementary School James Catterall, Ph.D. University of California at Los Angeles   II  II            Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix GProposal for the Evaluation of the A+ Program at Woodruff Elementary School 4 Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation Question'. 4 1. Has the A+ program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Proposed Design Examination of achievement test scores between 2001 and 2005for Woodruff School and for comparison schools developed for the 2005 YRE program evaluation. (Scores will include 2006 if scale scores are made available for all applicable grades 60 days in advance of the due date of the draft report.) Descriptive year-to-year test score changes will be described. A predictive model for 2006 Benchmark test scale scores will be undertaken if data are available. H H Examining performance indicators from the Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District for differences between African American and white students (2005 edition or 2006 edition if available). These data include Benchmark proficiency scores, attendance, student mobility, and student behavioral indicators. Supplemental (Qualitative/Level 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of A+ at Woodruff Elementary School in 2005-06? Proposed Design Surveys and interviews with all Woodruff teachers will assess the scope and history of teacher and staff participation in A+. Expert observation of one demonstration A + lesson of each teacher followed by expert debriefing of teachers regarding purposes and methods, and teachers appraisal of outcomes. H Assessment of the impact of A+ on the Woodruff School Culture (norms, assumptions about students and teaching and learning) based on intervie'ws, surveys, and follow-ups. H M Collection of sample student group or individual art products with brief written student comment about the objects connections to their learning. Students to decide. About 2 per classroom. Public display in school hall(s). Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix G H n 2. What is the level of participation in A+ by African American students relative to other ethnic groups? Proposed Design Assessing student participation by classroom for 2005-06 and 2004-05 using archival records and current student rosters. What are the perceptions of teachers and Art Specialists regarding A+ program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Proposed Design Assessed by surveys, interviews and observations of teachers and art specialists. 3. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Proposed Design It Assessed through a universal parent survey and by randomly selected telephone interviews of about 25 parents throughout the school, stratified K-2 versus grade 3-5. Basic school statistics 2005-06 Woodruff has 219 students in grades K-5  17 Caucasian, 2 other, and 238 African American (92% A-A) It It Summary of Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question It Evaluation Question Primary Question: 1. What are the effects of participation in A+ on the achievement of African American and other students? Participants Students at Woodruff and comparison school(s Data Sources It  ITBS Grades K-5  Arkansas Benchmarks for 3-5) It It Supplemental Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of A+ at Woodruff in 2005-06? All students  All teachers  Art Specialists  District Arts Coordinator  Grade 3-5 student surveys  Parents Student surveys  Teacher Survey (faculty meeting)  Art Specialist Phone Interview  District Art Coordinator Phone Interview  Classroom Observations It M M H Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix G4 4 4 4 4 4 2. What is the level of participation in A+ by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?_____________________ 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Art Specialists regarding A+ implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  All students  Comparison schools  All African American vs. all Caucasian  All teachers  Art Specialists Parents School records/archival data ITBS and Benchmark scores.  Teacher Survey  Art Specialist Interview  Parent Survey  In-depth parent interviews 4 Timelines September, 2005 Initial meeting with principal and lead teachers 4 January, 2006: 4 February: 4 March-April: May-June: July-August: 4 4 September 1: October 1: Planning/refinement, consultation with PRE and instrument development Review of proposed evaluation by team and any changes Begin observations. District Arts Coordinator Interview (phone)\nselect Art Specialist and Observation School Samples\nbegin Art Specialist Interviews (phone) Teacher Survey (at faculty meetings), complete Art Specialist Interviews\ncomplete observations\ncomplete Student Focus Groups. Records/Archival data analyses Achievement data analyses/complete survey and interview analyses, review of draft report by PRE and evaluation teams, feedback from PRE, and preparation of final report Submit final report to PRE. LRSD submits final report to U.S. District Court. 4 Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix GAppendix H Proposed Plan for Evaluation of 21 Century Community Learning Centers Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis p H W P P P P P P n R n n p  p p Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix HProposal for Evaluation of 21 Century Community Learning Centers in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)^ Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the 2L Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the nature and level of implementation of the CCLC programs? 2. What is the level of participation in CCLCs by African American students? 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? School and Program Descriptions fl fl Several schools in the LRSD have hosted CCLCs, which offer academic support\nmath/science activities\nmusic/arts/drama\nentrepreneurial programs\ndrug/violence prevention, counseling, and character education\ntutoring/mentoring\nparent involvement\ntechnology and communication\nfamily literacy/education\nrecreational programs\nextended library hours\nand services for truant, suspended or expelled students. Individual centers provide a subset of the possible activities. A summary of CCLC programs, based on their respective grant applications, is provided below\nfl fl Woodruff Elementary School (WES) is one of 30 elementary schools in the district. The WES program includes visual and performing arts enrichment, family services, educational technology, cultural activities, and educational and recreational field trips. Program sessions are both before- and after-school, on Saturdays, and during intersessions. Parent/family services are also provided. fl fl Henderson Health Sciences Middle Magnet School (HHSMMS) is one of eight middle schools in the district. The HHSMMS program was developed as a comprehensive out-of-school program which includes before- and after-school elements, a summer program, and a Saturday program. An after-school Tutoring Club is designed to assist students academically. Morning sessions are organized to provide homework help and extended access to the library and technology resources. Enrichment opportunities are coordinated with community partners. A summer camp focuses on mathematics, literacy, and science, with technology as a strong component. H M Mabelvale Magnet Middle School (MMMS) is another of eight middle schools in the LRSD. The CCLC at MMMS is intended to provide remediation and enrichment in the areas of mathematics and literacy, as well as social and emotional development for students. This Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H fl  program extends the schools magnet thematic programs and also builds on a previous Safe Schools/Healthy Schools grant. The program includes an after-school Tutoring Club, a Homework Club, and an Enrichment Club which provide extended learning opportunities relating to MMMSs magnet areas of Environmental Science, Medical Studies, and Technology. ri ri Southwest Middle School (SMS) is the third LRSD middle school that provides a CCLC. The grant application from this site was not available for review, but CREP presumes that its program is similar to that of the other two middle schools in the district which host a CCLC. The design ofthe program will be determined during the initial implementation of the evaluation. ri ri McClellan High School (McCHS) is one of five high schools in the district. Its program includes a drug and violence prevention program and a youth development component emphasizing counseling, service learning, mentoring and employment opportunities. Program sessions are scheduled both before- and after-school and on Saturdays. The program also operates in the summer, with a six-week Algebra 1 program and a two-week 9*** grade transition program. Parent/family sessions are also provided. ri ri Hall High School (HHS) is another of the five high schools in the district. The HHS program includes a drug and violence prevention program and a youth development component emphasizing counseling, service learning, mentoring, and employment opportunities. Program sessions are scheduled both before- and after-school and on Saturdays. The program also operates in the summer with a six-week Algebra 1 program and a two-week 9*** grade transition program. Parent/family sessions are also provided. ri ri Proposed Design ri A mixed methods design will be used to gather information about the various CCLCs in the LRSD. In addition, a case study design will be used gather information about MMMSs CCLC. The goal of the mixed methods design is to obtain broad information regarding a variety of programs with respect to stakeholder perceptions of implementation and impact. The goal of the case study design is to obtain in-depth information to assist in understanding and judging a program in the context in which it operates. The detailed program description can then lead to naturalistic generalization of the program to other contexts (Worthen, Sanders, \u0026amp; Fitzpatrick, 1997). Both quantitative and qualitative data sources will be employed to address the research questions as follows: 3 n n Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H n K H ri riH  I Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?  For the achievement analysis, the preliminary plan is to employ a quasi-experimental design which compares students participating in CCLCs activities versus matched comparison students who do not participate in CCLC activities. The actual analysis used will be the approach that is the most rigorous for the data sources available. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. What is the nature and level of implementation of the CCLC programs?  Interviews will be conducted with the school principal and site coordinator. All teachers will be surveyed. Students who participate in the program will be surveyed.  For the Mabelvale case study, observations of program components will also be conducted. A brief (20-min.) student focus group (n = 5 to 7 students) will also be conducted to ascertain students perspectives of the program components. What is the level of participation in CCLCs by African American students?  Participation records and observation data will be analyzed. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  This question will be addressed via the teacher survey and administrator interviews. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  A parent survey consisting of closed- and open-ended items will be administered to parents. A student questionnaire will be administered at all schools. A focus group will be conducted with MMMS students. Table 1 below provides a summary of the research questions and associated data collection sources. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H Table 1. Summary of Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question K Evaluation Question Primary Question: 1. Have the Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Participants Data Sources LRSD Students ITBS and Arkansas Benchmark Reading and Math Subtests Supplemental Questions: 1. What is the nature and level of implementation of the CCLC programs? CCLC Program/School administrators CCLC Teachers CCLC Students Administrator Interviews Teacher Survey Student Survey Student Focus Group (case study) CCLC Observations (case study) A ] 2. What is the level of participation in CCLCs by African American students? CCLC Students School records/participation rosters CCLC Observations (case study) i 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 2005 - 2006 Timeline September-February: Spring Semester\nMay-June: July-August: September 1: October 1: CCLC Teachers CCLC Program/School Administrators Teacher Survey Administrator Interviews K Parents of CCLC students CCLC Students Parent Survey Student Survey Student Focus Group (case study) \u0026gt;] li Planning/refmement, consultation with PRE and CCLC representatives, and instrument development\nreview by evaluation team Conduct observations, administer teacher questionnaire (at faculty meeting), conduct interviews and focus group, and administer parent and student questionnaires Analyses of records data\nanalyses of survey, observation, and interview data Analyses of achievement data\nanalyses of survey, observation, and interview data, submission of draft report of findings to PRE, review by evaluation team and feedback from PRE Delivery of final report to PRE LRSD delivers report to US District Court. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H H H H  LRSD 21\"* CCLC (Mabelvale) DRAFT Observation Tool 4 444 44 4 44 44 Date Day of Week Time in Time Out Have attendance Sheet  Yes/  No Which program was being observed? After school tutoring Homework Club Enrichment Club Summer Camp Other      Locale: Locale: Locale: Locale:  Library  other: Student composition Number: | Estimate of the number of students identified as African-American: [ Student Activity: What were the students doing? (Check all that apply and annotate briefly)  Literacy  Math  Computer use for: research, recreation, academic support/skiii development, homework  Exploring Environmental Science Medical Studies Technology  other: Were students working Alone? Purposively together? With an adult (teacher/volunteer/parent)? Adults: How many adults were present? Who were the responsible adults? What were the responsible adults doing? Were parents present?  community volunteer  CCLC staff Other: Yes No If yes, what were they doing?       I I I I ] ] [ o o ] Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H r  Describe the student/staff interaction: ID What materials were in use? n Overall Quality of Time and Social Atmosphere: How well did this slice of time represent a learning center? B Characteristic incius/Veness 4 All of the students were involved Time spent involved Students involved were involved all of the time Quality of activities: enqapement Quality of activities: academic relevance Individualized attention Activities were engaging for students Activities were relevant academically and adapted to the students needs Individualized attention was provided in a timely manner to students in need of it 3 Most of the students were involved Students who were involved were involved most of the time Activities were usually enqaqinq for students Activities were relevant to academics but less adapted to student needs Individual attention was provided when students asked 2 Some of the students were involved 1 Few to none of the students were involved B Inclusion of peers The students appeared to include all their peers in their group activities Students generally included one another in their group activities Students involved were involved some of the time Activities were marginally enqaqinq for students Academic relevance of activities was minimal or difficult to ascertain Individual attention was provided, but it was sporadic or delayed Student involvement was marginal at best Activities were not enqaqinq for students Activities were not academically relevant Students with needs for individual attention appeared to be ignored B B Interactions: social acceptability and resolution Most students were engaged effectively with others and in a socially acceptable manner Student interactions were occasionally marked by minor conflicts which were quickly and amicably resolved Social isolation appeared in a few instances (other than for disciplinary purposes) Student interactions were marked by minor conflicts which were somewhat resolved eventually Some students were clearly isolated by their peers Student interactions were contentious and adult intervention did not occur Additional Comments: Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H I F n n H H B BLRSD 2P' CCLC DRAFT Interview Items' Subjects'. Principal, Counselor, Coordinator What role(s) do you play in the operation of the 2P' CCLC at your school? 4 What is the primary purpose of your 2P CCLC program? Whom does your program serve? What type(s) of students do you believe benefited the most from the program? 4 Why? How? What do you see as the most successful aspects of the program? What challenges, if any, have there been to implementing the program? In terms of recruiting and retaining students, how successful do you think the program has been? What kinds of practices have contributed to success in recruiting and retaining students? If you do not think the program has been successful in recruitment and retention, what do you think has inhibited those efforts? How successful do you think the program has been in establishing a close partnership between the Center and your school? What kinds of practices have contributed to your success in establishing a close school/program relationship? If you do not think there is a close partnership, what do you think has hindered the relationship?  How successful do you think your program has been in engaging the parents of the students who participate in the program? What kind of practices have contributed to your success in this area? If you do not think the program has engaged the parents, what do you think has stood in the way? How successful do you think your program has been in initiating community involvement or partnerships for the program? ' Items modeled on the CEEP Evaluation of KentuckyE 21 Century Community Learning Centers. Year 2 Interim Report. P 37 ff. Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix HWhat kinds of practices have contributed to your success in this area? If you think you have not been successful, what do you think have been the barriers? Your program offers a variety of approaches (clubs) and program schedules for reaching students. Have you seen any differences in participation by students of various ethnicities in any of these programs? (sub questions to be modified dependent upon individual program design) Approaches Homework club Tutoring club Enrichment club Program schedules Saturday program Summer camp (2005\n2006) Before-school program After-school program Is there anything else that you think we should know about your programs efforts to provide students with a 2T Century Community Learning Center? Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H  I 14 14 Id   n RI   n  MLRSD 2 TCCLC DRAFT Teacher Survey Items^ We are interested in knowing what you think about the 2P Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) program at your school. Your answers will remain anonymous. What is your role in the 2P Century Community Learning Center? (Mark the best description) 4 o o o I am part of the faculty at the school and I also work with the CCLC. I am part of the faculty at the school but I do not work with the CCLC. I am not part of the faculty\nI work only with the 2P Century Community Learning Center program. What is your opinion of the following statements about 2P Century Community Learning Center program at your school? (strongly agree\nagree\ndisagree\nstrongly disagree) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The CCLC program offers students enough choice of activities. The CCLC program offers academic help to students who need it. The CCLC offers students a safe place to be after school. The CCLC program appeals to a wide variety of students. The CCLC program reaches students families. How many of the students that you know who participate in the program are exhibiting the following (Almost all of them, many of them, some of them, a few of them, almost none of them)? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Improved academic performance Increased school attendance Improvement in how they relate to classmates Improvement in how they relate to teachers Improvement in how they behave in class Greater self-worth and self-esteem Involvement in community services Development as leaders Greater awareness of health issues Greater awareness of drug and violence issues Improvement in computer skills/computer literacy Open-ended: 1. What do you think are the strengths of the current 21 Century program at your school? 2. In what ways, if any, do you think the program at your school might be improved? w T. Some items derived from the Fort Worth after-school teacher survey (program teachers, atxxjt the program) Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix HLRSD 21 CCLC Possible Student Survey Items We would like to know what you think about your schools 2T Century Community Learning Center (CLCC). We will not use your name, but we do -want to know something about you. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. What grade are you in this year? (6, 7, 8) What is your gender? {male, female) Which ethnic group best describes you? {Native American, Asian American, African American, Hispanic American, Caucasian American, Other). Do you belong to the CLCC Homework Club? (Yes/No) Do you belong to the CLCC Tutoring Club? (Yes/No) Do you belong to the CCLC Enrichment Club? (Yes/No) Do you participate in the program before school? (Yes/No) Do you participate in the program after school? (Yes/No) Do you participate in the Saturday program? (Yes/No) Do you plan to attend the Summer Camp this summer? (Yes/No) I I n Please tell us how much you agree with these statements about the programs at your schools 2L' Century Community Learning Center, (strongly agree\nagree\ndisagree\nstrongly disagree) 1. I like the programs the community learning center offers. 2. There are enough different activities from which to choose. 3. I like the teachers who work in the community learning center program. 4. Being in the after-school program is better than other things I could be doing after school. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Teachers in the program give me help when I ask for it. I feel safe in the after-school program. Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable. I would sign up again for the program. 1 would tell other kids to sign up for the community learning center activities. n Please select the answer that best describes what you think. The Center has helped me to... 1. Like school more (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 2. Come to school more often (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 3. Get better grades (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 4. Behave better at school (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 5. Work better with other students (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) b. Feel better about myself (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 7. Talk to my teachers more (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 8. Understand the importance of graduating from high school (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) n n n n  Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix HLRSD 21 CCLC (Mabelvale) DRAFT Student Focus Group Items We would like to know what you think about Mabelvale's 21' Century Community Learning Center. 1. 2. What do you think are some of the best things at the Center? Do a lot of kids participate in the program? Why do you think that is? 3. What is the best thing about the Enrichment Club?  Homework Club? 4. How could the program be improved? The Tutoring Club? 5. Does participating in the program help you with your school work? How do you know? 6. Does this program make you want to come to school? Why or why not? 7. What have you learned about working with other kids by participating in this program? 8. Does this program offer you extra opportunities that you dont have a chance to investigate during the regular school day? If so, what are some of them? 9. Do you plan to take part in the Summer Camp this year? Why? Why not? 10. Do you like being part of the schools Community Learning Center? 11. What activities offered by the Learning Center have the grown-ups in your family enjoyed? Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix HAppendix I IB HI HI w Proposed Plan for Evaluation of Pre-Kindergarten Literacy BB IB  Bl Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis n Hl Hl HI HI Hl HI Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1fl fl Proposal for the 2005-2006 Evaluation of the Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Program Little Rock School District Outline Version Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation Question 1. Has the pre-kindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of pre-kindergarten literacy programs in elementary schools with pre-kindergarten programs in the Little Rock School District in 2005-2006? 2. What is the level of participation in the pre-kindergarten program by African- American children relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 3. To what extent does the pre-kindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify African-American children who may be at-risk for academic failure and monitor progress? 4. What are the perceptions of pre-kindergarten teachers and paraprofessional teachers regarding the pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of the principal, kindergarten teachers, and first grade teachers in the school regarding the pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of pre-kindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Program Description The Little Rock School District recently developed a Curriculum System for Pre- K Literacy. The program is a comprehensive map which emphasizes communication. collaboration, and coherency. Implemented in fall 2005 in all pre-kindergarten classrooms in the district, the Map for Pre-K Literacy provides content guides with strategies and resources, concrete benchmarks for each month of the school year, and formative assessments for planning. The structure specifically addresses critical early Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 learning skills such as oral language, listening comprehension, vocabulary, phonological awareness, print awareness, and alphabet knowledge and early mathematics skills. Instructional orientations include group activities and learning centers using a variety of literature and hands-on activities which are theme-based. The curriculum map calls for recommended and required formative monthly assessments. pi PI Elementary Schools with Pre-K classrooms # of Pre-K Classrooms Bale Brady Baseline Fair Park Forest Park Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Carver Dodd Meadowcliff M. L. King Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Romine Washington Wilson Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Fulbright Otter Creek Wakefield Watson Franklin Stephens Rockefeller McDermott 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 3 4 1 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 PI  pl PI   p  n TOTAL 69  Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1Proposed Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question 1. Has the pre-kindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?  A. 2005-2006 Pre-Kindergarten Students: A treatment school, pre- and post-test design will be employed for pre-kindergarten students. All elementary schools with pre-kindergarten classrooms will be examined.  Pretests'. Posttests'. Work Sampling System by Pearson Work Sampling System by Pearson  B. 2005-2006 Pre-Kindergarten Students as Incoming Kindergarten Students in Fall 2006: In fall 2006 (when pre-kindergarten students enter kindergarten)   comparisons will be made between students who attended pre-kindergarten in the district and those students who did not. Cunently, there are approximately 12 elementary schools in the district that administer Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) to incoming kindergarten students. c. H 2004-2005 Pre-Kindergarten Students: Within each of the elementary schools in the district, kindergarten students who participated in the Little Rock district pre-kindergarten program in 2004-2005 will be identified and their achievement gains compared to other kindergarten students in the district. M Pretests'. Posttests'. DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the most usable database) administered in Kindergarten 2005-2006 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests H Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions fl 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of pre-kindergarten classroom environments and instruction at the schools implementing in 2005- 2006? fl  Observations of pre-kindergarten classrooms will be made at a sample of schools. A minimum of 15 classroom observations will be conducted. The pre-kindergarten teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Paraprofessional teachers in each pre-kindergarten classroom will also be surveyed through closed-ended and open-ended items. A random sample of 10 principals will be interviewed Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I v by phone. Kindergarten and first grade classroom teachers in schools with pre-kindergarten classrooms will also be surveyed. 2. What is the level of participation in the pre-kindergarten program by African- American children relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  Student records/archival data for 2005-2006 will be analyzed. 3. To what extent does the pre-kindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify African- American children who may be at-risk for academic failure and monitor progress?  Analysis of available pre-kindergarten screening and program assessment data, including the Early Screening Inventory. The pre-kindergarten teacher survey, paraprofessional teacher survey, principal interview, and classroom observations will also address this question. 4. What are the perceptions of pre-kindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals regarding the pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? p   The pre-kindergarten teacher survey and paraprofessional teacher survey will directly address this question. m 5. What are the perceptions of the principal, kindergarten teachers, and first grade teachers in the school regarding pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n  The kindergarten and first grade classroom teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. A random sample of principals will be interviewed by phone. w 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of pre-kindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?   The parents of pre-kindergarten children survey will be conducted to address this question via an instrument including closed- and open-ended items in schools with pre-kindergarten programs.    Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question Participants Data Sources  1. Has the pre-kindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afiican-American students? All kindergarten and first grade students at 30 pre-kindergarten schools and other elementary schools Pre-kindergarten student participants within above samples DIBELS (fall 2006 - approximately 12 schools for incoming K students) ITBS (2005-2006 kindergarten data) Pre-kindergarten student program data - Work Sampling System scores (2005-2006 data)  Supplemental Questions II 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of pre-kindergarten classroom enviromnents and instruction at the 30 schools in 2005- 2006? All pre-kindergarten teachers All kindergarten and first grade classroom teachers at schools with pre-kindergarten programs Principals at pre-kindergarten schools Pre-kindergarten teacher survey Paraprofessional teacher survey Random sample of 10 principal phone interviews Kindergarten and first grade classroom teacher survey (faculty meeting) Pre-kindergarten classroom observations (min. of 15 observations)  H II 2. What is the level of participation in pre-kindergarten by African- American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? All pre-kindergarten schools School records/archival data   3. To what extent does the pre-kindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify African-American children who may be at-risk for academic failure and monitor progress? All pre-kindergarten teachers All pre-kindergarten teachers will provide student assessment data Principals at pre-kindergarten schools  Pre-kindergarten student program and assessment data including the Early Screening Inventory.  Pre-kindergarten teacher survey, paraprofessional teacher survey, and classroom observations (min. of 15 observations in at least 10 schools)   Random sample of 10 principal phone interviews Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 4. 5. 6. Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question, Continued Evaluation Question What are the perceptions of pre-kindergarten teachers and paraprofessional teachers regarding pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of principal, kindergarten, and first grade classroom teachers regarding the pre- kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of pre- kindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Fall 2005- February 2006 February-March April May-June July-August September 1 October 1 Participants  All pre-kindergarten teachers All K-3 classroom teachers in experienced RR schools Principals at pre-kindergarten schools Parents of pre-kindergarten children in schools with programs Timelines Data Sources Pre-kindergarten teacher survey Paraprofessional teacher survey Kindergarten and first grade classroom teacher survey (disaggregated by grade) Random sample of 10 principal phone interviews Pre-kindergarten parent survey Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRE and pre-kindergarten experts\ninstrument development\nreview by evaluation team Conduct observations. Pre-Kindergarten Teacher, Paraprofessional Teacher, Kindergarten Teacher and First Grade Teacher Surveys Pre-kindergarten school Principal Phone Interviews Pre-Kindergarten student data, records/archival data analyses Achievement data analyses/complete survey and interview analyses Submit draft report of findings to PRE for review by evaluation team and feedback from PRE. Deliver final report to PRE. LRSD submits final report. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 H I I I I I I I I I n  DRAFT Principal Interview Questions Little Rock School District Pre-K Schools I. General Information Describe the implementation of your schools PRE-K program.  How does the PRE-K program fit within the broader literacy initiative in your school?  Which of the components provided by the PRE-K literacy program do you feel are most effective? Are there any components that you feel are ineffective? Describe your role in the PRE-K program implementation. How would you describe teacher support for the PRE-K program? Can you think of specific positive or negative comments made by teachers about the program? What additional resources have been needed to support your PRE-K program?  Resources include time, space, materials and personnel. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I IL Classroom Level Changes Specifically, what contributions has the PRE-K program made in terms of\n  Providing African American students with equal learning and performance opportunities? V  Reading instruction? H  Identifying those children at risk for academic failure (especially with regard to African American students V n  Teacher professional development? I  Monitoring of student progress and achievement? n How does your PRE-K program accommodate special needs children? I n HI. Results What differences in achievement have you seen in PRE-K students? Specifically, how has the program impacted the achievement of African American students? I Do you think that PRE-K program is helping to close the achievement gap between African American and white students? Explain. I How has the PRE-K program impacted classroom teachers? I Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1  RIV. Professional Development What specific training or support have you received as an administrator regarding the PRE-K program? What training or support have the PRE-K teachers received regarding the PRE-K program?  Any plans/suggestions for continuing the professional development process at your school?  V. Parental Involvement How would you describe parent support for the PRE-K program? Describe efforts to inform and involve parents. Are parents more involved now than in the past? How would you describe community support for the school in general, and the PRE-K students in particular? VI. Closure Do you have any suggestions to improve the PRE-K program? Are there any important aspects of program implementation that have not been mentioned today? Any additional comments you would like to make? Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 I DRAFT PRE-K TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE School Name:_________________ General: Please evaluate using the scale provided'. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree I have a thorough understanding of my schools PRE-K program.____________________________________ I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of the PRE-K program._____________ Professional development provided by the district has been valuable.__________________________________ The principal is an effective instructional leader. Teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement the PRE-K program.____________________ Student achievement has been positively impacted by the PRE-K program.____________________________ Overall, this program is valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students._________ I have time to collaborate with other PRE-K teachers.____________________________________________ I have adequate materials to implement the program.___________________________________________ The content areas presented in the curriculum map are appropriate for pre-k literacy instruction._______ The monthly benchmark goals are realistic for pre-k literacy programs.__________________________________ The interim and anchor assessments in the pre-K literacy curriculum are useful in assessing growth and progress._______________________________________ I have a thorough understanding of the pre-k curriculum map.___________________________________ Because of the PRE-K program, more parents are involved in the school.______________________________ Preschool teachers in the school are generally supportive of the PRE-K program._________________ Teachers in the school (not preschool teachers) are generally supportive of the PRE-K program._______ Teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constructive ideas regarding the PRE-K program.__________________________________ The PRE-K program is useful in monitoring progress of African American students.____________ The PRE-K program is useful as a screening tool for assessing at-risk African American students._______ With the PRE-K program, children are excited about learning. u I I I n H n  Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I  Effectiveness of PRE-K Literacy Components: Please rate the effectiveness of the following components: Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree The PRE-K program is valuable in preparing children for kindergarten._____________________ Instructional elements of the PRE-K program assessments, programs, materialsare based on scientifically-based reading research.___________ Because of the PRE-K program, systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, oral language, vocabulary, concepts of print, and comprehension occurs daily in our schools classrooms.______________________________ The literacy and language components are effective for reading readiness.________________ Group activities engage the students and complement instruction.______________________ Learning centers engage the students and complement instruction. DEMOGRAPHICS: How many years of experience do you have as a PRE-K teacher? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ How many years of experience do you have as an employee in any school? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? Less than one yr.___ 1-5 yrs___ 6-10 yrs____ 11-15 yrs___15 or more yrs___ What is the highest level of education you have completed? High School Diploma or less___Associates Degree/Some college Bachelors Degree____Masters Degree____ Degree beyond Masters   What best describes your cultural background? American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander African American Hispanic/Latino___Caucasian Multi-Racial Gender: Male____ Female Age range: 29 yrs. or less 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Open-Ended: What are the most effective aspects of the PRE-K program? What are the least effective? Do you think the PRE-K program should be continued? Why or Why Not? Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I DRAFT CLASSROOM TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE PRE-K SCHOOL PROGRAM School Name: Grade Level: Please describe your understanding of the PRE-K program at your school: n I have a thorough understanding of my schools PRE- K program.__________________________________________ The PRE-K program will positively impact students at the school._________________________________________ The PRE-K program will improve the overall achievement of African American students at this school._______________________________________________ Our school has a sufficient number of preschool teachers._____________________________________________ Preschool teachers are positive about the PRE-K program.____________________________________________ The PRE-K program will help prepare students for success in kindergarten.______________________________ The PRE-K program can help identify at-risk students._____________________________________________ The PRE-K program will prepare students for reading readiness.___________________________________ It is my understanding the components of the PRE-K program are based on scientifically-based research. The principal supports the PRE-K program._________ Because of the PRE-K program, systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, oral language, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension occurs daily in our schools classrooms.______________ The PRE-K program is actively engaging parents in their childs learning. Strongly Agret Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix I M M DEMOGRAPHICS: How many years of experience do you have as an employee in any school? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs____ 11-15 yrs____ 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ II How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? Less than one yr.___ 1-5 yrs___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs___15 or more yrs___ II What is the highest level of education you have completed? High School Diploma or less___ Associates Degree/Some college____ II Bachelors Degree Masters Degree____Degree beyond Masters What best describes your cultural background? II American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander African American Hispanic/Latino___Caucasian Multi-Racial II Gender: Male Female Age range: 29 yrs. or less___30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older II II Open-Ended: What are the most effective aspects of the PRE-K program? Il What are the least effective? Il Do you think the PRE-K program should be continued? Why or Why Not? II II II If Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix I  DRAFT PRE-K PARAPROFESSIONAL TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE   School Name:  General: Please evaluate using the scale provided:  Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree  I have a thorough understanding of my schools PRE-K program.________________________________ I have received training and development regarding my work with PRE-K students._______ The PRE-K teacher in my classroom is an effective leader._________________________________ The principal at this school is an effective instructional leader._____________________________ I am able to communicate concerns regarding the students with the PRE-K classroom teacher. The classroom teacher and I spend time planning instructional activities._________________ Student achievement has been positively impacted by the PRE-K program._______________ Overall, this program is valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. I have time to collaborate with other PRE-K paraprofessionals at this school._________________ I have adequate materials in the classroom to do nyjob-_________________________________________ Pre-K classroom teachers in the school are generally supportive of the program.____________ Pre-K Paraprofessionals in the school are generally supportive of the program.____________ Children in the PRE-K class are excited about learning.________________________________________ The PRE-K program is useful in monitoring progress of African-American students._________ The PRE-K program is valuable in preparing children for kindergarten.______________________ My role as a PRE-K Paraprofessional is valuable in the PRE-K classroom.________________________ Mentoring and/or coaching I receive from the Pre-K classroom teacher is helpful to me._______ Because of the Pre-K program, more parents are involved in the school.   Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I DEMOGRAPHICS: How many years experience do you have as a PRE-K Paraprofessional? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ How many years experience do you have as an employee in any school? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ How many years experience do you have as an employee in this school? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ What is the highest level of education you have completed? High School Diploma or less Associates Degree/Some college Bachelors Degree Masters Degree Degree beyond Masters What best describes your cultural background? American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander African American Hispanic/Latino___Caucasian Multi-Racial Gender: Male Female II Age Range: 29 yrs. or less 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older II OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS: H M M II What are the most effective aspects of the PRE-K program? II What are the least effective? Il II Do you think the PRE-K program should be continued? Why or Why Not? Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I DRAFT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PRE-K PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE   Dear Parent/Guardian: We would like to know what you think about your childs preschool experience. Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. All responses are completely confidential.  Ethnicity of your Child:  African American Caucasian_______ Hispanic________ Asian___________ Other   Gender: Male Age:__ Female Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree strongly Disagree My child enjoys the preschool class. I believe my childs preschool class is adequately preparing him/her for kindergarten.________________________ My child is excited about learning. I receive information from my childs teacher regarding units or themes of study.________________________________ My child is becoming reading ready due to preschool._____________ I receive feedback regarding my childs language skills. My child enjoys group activities in the preschool class.___________________ My child enjoys the learning centers in the preschool class.________________ My childs preschool teacher is an effective instructor.__________________ My child enjoys looking at books/ being read to at home._______________ My child brings home information from the school that helps me understand what he/she is learning. 1 like the school my child is attending. I believe my child can get a good education at this school. I believe African American students can achieve at this school.  Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I R  What are the best things about your childs preschool experience? What changes would you like to see in the preschool program at this school? M II II II II II II II H Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix I  Appendix J   Proposed Plan for Evaluation of Read 180 I   Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis   I Quarterly Written Update March I, 2006 Appendix J * Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width), Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered     a I  Proposal for the Evaluation of Read 180 in the Little Rock School District: Outline Version DRAFT COPY ONLY Evaluation Questions  Primary Evaluation Question-. 1. Has the Read 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions:  1. What are the quality and level of implementation of Read 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-06? 2. What is the level of participation in Read 180 by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 3. What are the perceptions of Read 180 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. M 5. What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Read 180 students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Program Description H Read 180 is a reading intervention program that is aimed at assisting struggling adolescent readers. Currently, five middle schools and all eight high schools in LRSD use this program. Students are targeted to participate in the program based on results from the Arkansas Benchmark Exam. Students that participate in the program typically spend equal portions of their 90-minute English or Language Arts class working with adaptive software, reading independently, and receiving instruction in large and small group settings. H I Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Une width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered Appendix J fl I  Proposed Design H A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question'. n 1. Has the Read 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? The preliminary plan is discussed below. The actual analysis used will be the approach that is the most rigorous for the available data sources. I A. Whole School'. A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 6-9. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. It may be decided to examine (a) all schools relative to the entire district middle and high school database or (b) a stratified random sample of Read 180 schools relative to matched control schools (this will only be possible in the middle schools). p n B. Read 180 Sub sample: Within each of the Read 180 schools, students who participated in the program will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status, student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. n Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: n 1. What is the quality and level of implementation of Read 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-06? n Read 180 teachers will be surveyed and a random sample will be interviewed. The principals will also be interviewed. Observations of Read 180 sessions will be made at a sample of schools. A minimum of 10 observations will be conducted. To the extent resources are available an attempt will be made to observe at all the sites. n 2. What is the level of participation in Read 180 by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? n Student-level Read 180 records/archival data will be analyzed. n 3. What are the perceptions of Read 180 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n All of the Read 180 teachers will be surveyed, and a random sample will be asked to participate in brief interviews to address this question. 4. What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? I Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix) * Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered -n 4i A survey will be developed and administered to non-Read 180 teachers to address this question. 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Read 180 students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  A parent survey will be administered to address this question. Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question   fl fl fl fl   fl fl Evaluation Question Primary Question: 1. Has the Read 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African- American students? Supplemental Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of Read 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-06? 2. What is the level of participation in Read 180 by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 3. What are the perceptions of Read 180 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school Participants Data Sources Read 180 students ITBS and Benchmark Exam  Read 180 teachers  Principals at Read 180 schools  Read 180 students All Read 180 schools Read 180 teachers Non-Read 180 Teachers at schools using the program I Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006  Read 180 Teacher Survey  Read 180 Teacher Interviews  Principal Interviews  Read 180 Observations (min. of 10 1-hour observations) SOM/Read 180 SCU/Quality Assessment Form  Read 180 Student Survey (all Read 180 students)  Read 180 Student Focus Group (random sample)  School level Read 280 reports  Read 180 Teacher Survey  Teacher Survey (random selection of teachers) Appendix J * Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", CenteredI  Evaluation Question regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Read 180 students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Timelines January February-April May-June July-August September 1 October 1 Participants Data Sources  v Parents of Read 180 students  Read 180 Parent Survey H W  Planning, refinement with PRE and other LRSD staff  Instrument development  Begin observations  Continue observations  Principal and teacher interviews  Administer parent and teacher questionnaires  Data analysis on non-achievement data sources  Achievement data analysis  Submit draft report of findings to PRE  Receive feedback from PRE and evaluation teams  Submit final report to PRE for Board approval the same month  LRSD submits final report to court n n n n I n n n 1 Quarterly Written Update March I, 2006 Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered Appendix J * n  I   ( Pead 180 Questionnaire For Non-Read 180 Teachers Draft Copy Only (NOTE: The Read 180 Questionnaire will be presented to teachers on a form that can be scanned) Circle the grade level(s) you teach: 6 7 8 9 Circle your ethnicity: Caucasian African American Circle your gender. Hispanic Asian Male I Multi-Ethnic Female Please let us know what you think about the effectiveness of Read 180 by rating the following items from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Arc you able to identify which students are taking or have taken the Read 180 classes? Yes No If \"yes\" please answer the flowing questions: Read 180 Items 1. I have an understanding of the Read 180 program _______goals._________________________________________ 2. I have an understanding of the Read 180 program classroom implementation (how the classes are _______structured).____________________________________ 3. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes demonstrate continuous _______improvement in literacy skills_____________________ 4. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes submit work that reflects _______improved writing._______________________________ 5. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes show more willingness to read _______aloud in class.__________________________________ 6. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes demonstrate improved _______written and orol vocabulary skills._________________ 7. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes demonstrate better test _______taking skills.___________________________________ 8. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes show increased _______comprehension of assigned reading._______________ 9. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes show increased attention and interest in learning. Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree strongly * Agree Appendix J * { Formatted Table Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line widfti), Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered10. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes have improved classroom behavior. H Open ended:  What do you think are the strengths of the Read 180 program?  What do you think are the weaknesses of the Read 180 program?  What changes do you recommend for the Read 180 program?  Should your school continue using Read 180? _Yes _No Briefly explain why_____________________________________ I V H Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix) n n n n n n I n Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered n  Survey of Computer Use for Read 180 Draft Copy Only School Observer Name Observation  Date Grade Observed 6 7 3 9  Number of Students in Read 180 Class (by ethnicity):_____African American _____Non-African American How many computers were available for Read 180? ___One ___2-4 ___5-10 ___11 or more Computer Configuration and Use How frequently did malfunctions occur on computers used for Read 180? ___Never ___Rarely ___Occasionally ___Frequently ___Extensively Most of the computers used for Read 180 were: ___Up-to-date ___Aging but adequate ___Outdated/limited capacity  Read 180 Computer Activities______________ In which subject areas did students complete Read 180 computer work (check all that were observed)? ___Reading Comprehension ___Vocabulary ___Spelling  What was the overall level of African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using the Read 180 computer program? ___Low ___Moderate ___High TALLY the types of questions students asked while using the computer Read 180. ___Content area (e.g. how to solve a problem\nthe meaning of a word) ___Software use (e.g., how to log in\nhow to move to next section, how to take a test) ___Computer use (e.g., how to get the mouse or keyboard to work properly) ___Non-Read 180 questions, (e.g.. Do 1 have to sit next to John? Can I go to the restroom?) TALLY each time the teacher provided the following types of instruction specifically for student use of Read 180 computer activities: ___Content area (e.g. reading, vocabulary) ___Software use (e.g., how to log in, find correct lesson) ___Computer use (e.g., locate software, use mouse) ___Classroom behavior rules ___No Instructions were given Observer Notes: What was the overall level of NON-African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using the Read 180 program? ___Low ___Moderate ___High What was the level of academically focused time while students were using the computer for Read 180? ___Low ___Moderate ___High I Quarterly Written Update March I, 2006 Appendix J Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width), Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered Draft Copy Only Parent/Guardian Consent Form Hl * Dear parent or guardian, As part of a study conducted by the Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, and endorsed by the Little Rock School District, we are requesting permission for your child to participate in a group interview of 5 to 7 students from your childs school. During the group interview (focus group), a trained researcher will ask your child questions regarding his/her participation in the Read 180 program (your son's/daughter's language arts/reading class). The questions are designed to help us find out how well the Read 180 program is helping to improve student reading skills and learning. IB The focus group should take approximately 20 minutes and will only pertain to the Read 180 class that your child is taking. The focus group will be conducted during a Read 180 class. Individual responses to the questions will not be seen by anyone at the school, and the identity of individuals participating in the focus group will remain confidential. The responses to the focus group will be reported together in summary form to school personnel. I n Please note that your child is not required to participate in the focus group. Your permission is required to participate. If you give permission, please have your child return the completed form to his/her teacher. n\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":7,"next_page":8,"prev_page":6,"total_pages":372,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":72,"total_count":4462,"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":4200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":387}],"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":"Little Rock School District","hits":114},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":112},{"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":893},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":640},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":629},{"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":509},{"value":"Civil rights--Arkansas","hits":464},{"value":"African Americans--Arkansas","hits":455},{"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":9},{"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":1714},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1676},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1280},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1214},{"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":1797},{"value":"Alabama","hits":573},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":569},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":503},{"value":"Florida","hits":410},{"value":"Wisconsin","hits":84},{"value":"Georgia","hits":74},{"value":"New York","hits":42},{"value":"Missouri","hits":18},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":9},{"value":"Virginia","hits":9}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1964","hits":954},{"value":"1963","hits":662},{"value":"1965","hits":510},{"value":"1962","hits":470},{"value":"1957","hits":460},{"value":"1960","hits":454},{"value":"1966","hits":441},{"value":"1961","hits":439},{"value":"1967","hits":437},{"value":"1995","hits":428},{"value":"1959","hits":418},{"value":"1994","hits":411},{"value":"1958","hits":399},{"value":"1996","hits":398},{"value":"1993","hits":387},{"value":"1969","hits":380},{"value":"1991","hits":371},{"value":"1992","hits":360},{"value":"1968","hits":356},{"value":"1997","hits":346},{"value":"1999","hits":345},{"value":"2000","hits":332},{"value":"1998","hits":330},{"value":"2001","hits":328},{"value":"1970","hits":316},{"value":"1990","hits":316},{"value":"2002","hits":297},{"value":"1971","hits":292},{"value":"1989","hits":288},{"value":"2003","hits":283},{"value":"1956","hits":276},{"value":"1972","hits":266},{"value":"2004","hits":262},{"value":"1955","hits":257},{"value":"2005","hits":238},{"value":"1954","hits":229},{"value":"1981","hits":224},{"value":"1974","hits":219},{"value":"1987","hits":216},{"value":"1988","hits":216},{"value":"1984","hits":205},{"value":"1986","hits":205},{"value":"1975","hits":203},{"value":"1985","hits":203},{"value":"2006","hits":203},{"value":"1973","hits":201},{"value":"1983","hits":197},{"value":"1982","hits":196},{"value":"1977","hits":195},{"value":"1980","hits":195},{"value":"1979","hits":193},{"value":"2007","hits":190},{"value":"1976","hits":187},{"value":"1978","hits":187},{"value":"1952","hits":156},{"value":"2010","hits":156},{"value":"1951","hits":154},{"value":"1953","hits":154},{"value":"2009","hits":152},{"value":"2008","hits":151},{"value":"2011","hits":151},{"value":"1950","hits":146},{"value":"2012","hits":142},{"value":"1948","hits":140},{"value":"2013","hits":140},{"value":"2014","hits":139},{"value":"1947","hits":137},{"value":"1945","hits":135},{"value":"1944","hits":133},{"value":"1946","hits":132},{"value":"1949","hits":131},{"value":"1943","hits":127},{"value":"1942","hits":121},{"value":"1940","hits":120},{"value":"1936","hits":119},{"value":"1937","hits":119},{"value":"1939","hits":119},{"value":"1934","hits":118},{"value":"1932","hits":117},{"value":"1935","hits":117},{"value":"1941","hits":117},{"value":"1933","hits":116},{"value":"1938","hits":116},{"value":"1930","hits":114},{"value":"1924","hits":111},{"value":"1931","hits":111},{"value":"1929","hits":97},{"value":"1921","hits":95},{"value":"1928","hits":91},{"value":"1922","hits":90},{"value":"1923","hits":90},{"value":"1926","hits":90},{"value":"1927","hits":90},{"value":"1909","hits":89},{"value":"1925","hits":89},{"value":"1908","hits":88},{"value":"1911","hits":88},{"value":"1912","hits":88},{"value":"1907","hits":87},{"value":"1910","hits":87}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1061","max":"2034","count":27042,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"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":46},{"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":2000},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":1168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":656},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":604},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":33},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":904},{"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":1353},{"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":"Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance","hits":50},{"value":"Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library","hits":49}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":4449},{"value":"Collection","hits":13}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":4456},{"value":"true","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}