{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_935","title":"'Status Report,'' 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":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Gifted persons"],"dcterms_title":["'Status Report,'' 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/935"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \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_711","title":"Student achievement","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":["1999/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Student achievement"],"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/711"],"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\nDate: June 16, 1999 To: All Associates From: Re: LRSD Collective Responsibility Proposal Attached is a draft document that Bonnie Lesley would like for us to look over. She wants our feedback, but would like for us to keep the document in-house since its only a draft at this point. Her proposal is in response to Dr. Carnines request that Bonnie develop accountability processes, standards, rewards, and sanctions for the LRSD. Hes on a value-added kick (business buzzword that the business world is about tired of but the education world is just now discovering), which youll note in the document. Bonnie tried to weave in the state accountability standards to avoid duplication or conflicts, thereby hopefully forestalling those annoying feelings of confusion and overload that are on the loose in the LRSD these days. Bonnie welcomes all comments, questions, etc. When you have a chance, just type up any comments and 111 put them all together and give them to her with no names attached. Thanks.?-i5 --1 Collective Responsibility for Student Achievement definition of \"Collective Responsibility\" \"Collective Responsibility\" means that all the adults in the district and at each school hold themselves accountable for all the students' meeting the challenging behavior and academic content standards and benchmarks established by the Board of Education, by the state for accreditation, by federally funded programs, and by external funders of reform initiatives approved by the Board of Education. District-level staff share with school-level staffs in the \"collective responsibility\" for school improvement. This critically important attitude is developed and nurtured through professional learning communities established by the District and each school. In addition, the Superintendent shall ensure that all job descriptions of appropriate District-level and building-level staff\nannual work plans\nDistrict-level processes and schoollevel parameters for decision-making\npersonnel hiring, assignment, promotion, and evaluation systems\nand the professional development programs are results-based and aligned with the improvement indicators established in the Quality Index. Reporting Responsibilities The Superintendent shall report to the Board of Education annually on progress related to the implementation of the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In addition, so that the community is also informed on the District's progress in meeting expected improvement goals, the following reports must be submitted to the Board of Education in open sessions. district Annual Performance Report The Annual Performance Report is to be submitted to the Board of Education no later than August 30 annually. It shall include data relating to each of the quality indicators, including the baseline year data so that progress can be identified. The Annual Performance Report shall also include the accreditation status and accountability status for each school, as determined by the State of Arkansas. 1Building-Level Report Cards Building-Level Report Cards shall be published and distributed to parents and other interested patrons annually. These report cards shall include the data mandated by the State of Arkansas, but also school data relating to improvement gains and to other quality indicators not included by the State. School principals shall disseminate these reports to all the staff members and parents in their school community and make them available to interested patrons. At least one parent meeting shall be conducted annually by the Campus Leadership Team and the principal to discuss the performance of the school and planned short- and long- range improvements. Accreditation and Accountability Status If a school has been identified for \"school improvement,\" as per Title I regulations and/or if the school is conditionally accredited or nonaccredited, then the designation and an explanation of its implications, as well as the accountability status of the school as defined by the State shall be included in the building-level report card. Program Evaluations The results of any internal program evaluation studies or evaluations of grant-funded projects are to be provided to the Board of Education within a month of their submission to the Superintendent and/or to the funding organization. Academic Quality Indicators The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following academic indicators based on the State's criterion-referenced tests: 2Indicator____________ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Definition)______________ 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy. The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion- referenced tests will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics. The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6,8 Performance on State- AAandated Criterion- Referenced Tests 1007o of a school's secondary students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Algebra I. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Secondary 3100% of a school's secondary students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Geometry. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in Geometry will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 100% of a school's secondary students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Literacy. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in Literacy will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. J Additional District-Selected Indicators The following additional academic indicators have been established by the Little Rock School District: Indicator Performance on bistrict-adopted kindergarten literacy test Goal (Definition)______________ 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in literacy. Grade Level(s) Kindergarten The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year, 4Performance on district-adopted grade 1 literacy test 1007o of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in literacy. Grade 1 Performance on SAT9, a norm-referenced fest The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year.________________ 1007o of a school's students shall perform at or above the 50 percentile in reading. .th Grades 5, 7,10 The percent of students performing at or above the 50 .th percentile in reading will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the bO^ percentile in mathematics. The percent of students performing at or above the 50 percentile in mathematics will |th meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 5Performance on district-adopted quarterly criterion- referenced tests 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading each quarter. Grades 2-11 The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading each quarter will meet or exceed the improvement goal. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics each quarter. The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics each quarter will meet or exceed the improvement goal. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 6Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Enrollment in Algebra I in grade 7 or 8 Enrollment in Foreign Language in Grade 8 1007o of middle and high school students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year. The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year.____________________ 1007o of a middle school's students will be enrolled in Algebra I in either grade 7 or 8. The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I in grades 7 or 8 will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year.________________ 1007o of a middle school's students will enroll in Level I or Level II of a foreign language in grade. The percent of students enrolled in Level I or Level II of a foreign language in grade 8 will meet or exceed the improvement goal I each year. Grades 6-12 Grade 7 or 8 Grade 8 7Honors Seal on High School diploma 1007o of a high school's students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas. Grades 9-12 Taking the ACT The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year.____________________ 100% of a high school's students will take the ACT. Grades 11-12 Performance on the ACT The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 1007o of a high school's students will earn a score of at least 19 on the ACT. Grades 11-12 Taking Advanced Placement Examinations The percent of students earning a score of 19 or above will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year.____________________ 100% of a high school's seniors will take at least one AP examination. The percent of students taking at least one AP examination will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Srades 11-12 8Performance on Advanced Placement Examinations Completion of Graduation Requirements 1007o of a high school's students taking AP examinations will score a \"3\" or above. The percent of students earning a score of \"3\" or above on AP examinations will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 1007o of a high school's seniors will complete all the graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony, Grades 11-12 Grade 12 The percent of seniors meeting all graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year, A school's performance on these district-selected indicators may be reflected in a local supplement to the state-mandated Building-Level Report Card or as a part of the narrative in the Tier III report that becomes a part of the state's Building-Level Report Card. Improvement Goals Every year, each school's goal for annual rate of improvement will be determined by dividing the total percent of students below the desired performance level by 10. \"Value-added\" improvement goals will be established based on statistical information provided by the testing vendor(s). Value-Added Gains The bistrict-adopted criterion-referenced tests for grades K-11 will be administered to provide pre- and post-test scores so that gains of individual students may be measured annually. Only those scores of students who were 9in the school the previous test administration will be used in calculating value-added gains. The purpose of this measure is to be able to determine the extent to which a school adds value\" through individual students' gains. In other words, regardless of whether students attain the \"proficient\" level at any given grade, the District is interested in whether the students progressed toward proficiency\" during that year. Rewards for Schools The District shall develop a system to reward (a) schools absolutely meeting all the State's performance indicators and (b) schools demonstrating improvement: meeting a preponderance of the improvement goals established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD. The District shall determine a point system and a definition of predonderance.\" Quality Schools and Improving Schools Quality Schools and Improving schools may be recognized and rewarded in the following ways, as determined by the Superintendent\na. A presentation will be made to the Board of Education on the school's achievements involving both staff and parents, a press release commending the school's performance will be issued, and schools will be featured in District publications, on cable television, and on the web page. b. The school may be designated as a mentor school and granted resources to provide technical assistance and support to another school in the District identified for improvement. c. As appropriate, the District will support a school's application for state and national recognition in the national Blue Ribbon School program. d. The District will collaborate with the community to identify other possible recognitions of the school's progress and achievement. e. Schools will receive a grant to encourage and facilitate further improvement. The amount of the grant will be determined by annual budget appropriations. Awarded funds will be used for innovative programs, to provide additional materials and supplies, to support technology enhancements, to improve meaningful parent involvement, and/or for professional development of the staff. f. Each school will receive a banner/f lag that celebrates its success. 10Rewards for Staff and Students Each Quality and each Improving School is encouraged to design, in collaboration with parents and the community, celebrations of success and recognition for contributing teachers, teacher teams, other staff, and parent/community volunteers, as well as students who meet the performance goals. 11Sanctions According to ADE and the State Board of Education, sanctions in the ACTAAP system are applied for the purpose of improving teaching and learning, not for punishing schools or the people in them. The LRSD supports this view. Each LRSD school is expected to achieve annually a minimum percentage of its total possible points assigned for the performance indicators in the ACTAAP system for accountability. Failure to do so will result in the following designations: First year: Second year: Third year: Fourth year: Fifth year: Sixth year: High Priority Status Alert Status Low Performing Status Academic Distress Phase I Status Academic Distress Phase II Status Academic Distress Phase III Status To be eligible for removal of any santion designation, leading up to, but not including. Academic Distress Phase I, a school must attain the minimum percentage of its total possible points for two consecutive years. Once classified as Academic Distress Phase I, a school must comply with the rules and regulations to be promulgated by the ADE in order to be removed from this category. Failure to do so will result in the designationof Academic Distress Phase II, and so forth. The District will not identify schools for sanctions. Rather, the District will ensure the following levels of technical assistance and/or corrective actions for schools identifed for improvement by the State. In other words, the District will form a partnership with each school in need of improvement and will assist and support that school in its improvement efforts. To that end, the District has reorganized staff in the Division of Instruction to form a multi-disciplinary School Improvement department composed of four teams: (a) Testing and Program Evaluation\n(b) Professional Development\n(c) Technical Assistance (COE and Title I)\nand (d) Planning, Development, and Accountability. These teams will be supplemented by three additional teams 12 in the Teaching and Learning department\n(a) Curriculum and Instruction\n(b) Special Programs\n(c) VIPs and Parent Involvement, A common mission for all Division of Instruction teams will be to help schools help students achieve the challenging standards established by the State of Arkansas and the LRSD and as measured by the various performance indicators. The following technical assistance and support services are established for schools requiring improvements: First Year\nHigh Priority Status A school identified by ADE as High Priority Status\" is a school that for two consecutive years has not met the expected improvement goals. The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to\n1. Inform the principal, the central office broker, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation of the school and its implications. 2. Provide appropriate levels of technical assistance to the school as it develops and implements its School Improvement Plan so that it addresses specific elements of student performance problems and includes waivers of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to educate its students. 3. Conduct a School Improvement Audit to determine the extent to which the Campus Leadership Plan is being implemented at the school (meetings conducted, participation of CLT members, quality of the School Improvement Plan, use of disaggregated data for decision-making, action research projects underway, sense of collective responsibility, quality of professional development, etc.). 4. Require that the recommendations from the School Improvement Audit be addressed in the following year's School Improvement Plan, if not immediately. 5. Monitor regularly and conduct formative evaluations of the implementation of the School Improvement Plan, reviewing with the principal and the Campus Leadership Team formative data and making suggestions for modifications and adjustments to the implementation plan. 136. Provide the principal, the broker, members of the Campus Leadership Team, and other appropriate staff opportunities to participate in professional development activities that should lead to school improvement. Year Two: Alert Status A school identifed as \"Alert Status\" is a school that failed to make necessary improvements after identification as \"High Priority Status.\" The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: 1. Inform the principal, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation and its implications. 2. Conduct a comprehensive Curriculum Audit, including interviews with most staff and representative numbers of students and parents. A written report will be compiled by the audit team, approved by the Assistant Superintendent for School Improvement and the Associate Superintendent for Teaching and Learning and provided orally and in writing to the Associate Superintendent for School Operations, the Assistant Superintendent for School Operations, the principal, the broker, and the Campus Leadership Team. Copies will be provided to the Superintendent, the Cabinet, and other appropriate central office staff who need to be involved in the school's improvement efforts. 3. The School Improvement Plan for the following year, if not immediately, must address the recommendations from the Curriculum Audit. 4. Provide appropriate technical assistance as the school develops and implements its School Improvement Plan so that it addresses specific elements of student performance and includes waivers of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to educate its students. At this stage, the District may mandate the implementation of specific actions, professional development, or programs to address needs identified in the Curriculum Audit and/or the analysis of disaggregated student performance data. 5. The District shall take corrective action during the Alert Status year through one or more of the following\na. Decrease the decision-making authority of the Campus Leadership Team\n14b. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes\nc. Reflect the school's low performance in the evaluation of the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school. Year Three: Low Performing Status A school identified as \"Low Performing Status\" is a school that failed to make necessary improvements after its identification \"Alert Status.\" If a school fails to make acceptable progress within its third year of sanctions, then the District shall apply \u0026lt; or more of the following sanctions: as one a. b. c. d. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement Plan and budget. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes. Reflect the low performance of the school in the performance evaluations of responsible staff, including the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school. Conduct follow-up audits to determine the extent to which the school has effectively implemented the recommendations of the School Improvement Audit and the Curriculum Audit conducted in years one and two. Year Four: Academic Distress Phase I Status If a school fails to make acceptable progress within its fourth year, then the District shall apply one or more of the following sanctions: a. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement Plan and budget. b. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes. c. Reflect the low performance of the school in the performance evaluations of responsible staff, including the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school. 15d. Conduct follow-up audits to determine the extent to which the school has effectively implemented the recommendations of the School Improvement Audit and the Curriculum Audit conducted in years one and two. Sanctions for Central Office Upon the Superintendent's recommendation, the performance evaluations of central office staff designated to provide leadership in human resources, teaching and learning, school improvement, school operations, administrative services, and technology, including members of the Superintendent's Cabinet, shall also reflect the schoools' low performance if it can be determined that they shared responsibility, through their decisions or actions, or lack thereof, for the low achievement of schools identified for sanctions. School Role When Identified for Sanctions Each school identified for sanctions shall: a. In consultation with central staff and the Campus Leadership Team develop or revise a School Improvement Plan in ways that have the greatest likelihood of improving the performance of all children in meeting the expected improvement goals outlined in ACTAAP and the Quality Index. b. Align all the school's systems and resources behind the effective implementation of the plan. c. Submit the plan in a timely manner to school and District-level staff for review, feedback, and approval. d. Implement the plan, conducting self-monitoring on a frequent basis to determine success and then making appropriate adjustments. e. Consult frequently with District-level staff assigned to support the school and to provide technical assistance. f. Improve the skills of its staff by providing effective professional development activities. At least ten percent of the Title I funds (if received) shall be committed over a two-year period to professional development\nor the school must otherwise demonstrate that it is effectively carrying out professional development activities from other funding sources. Decisions about how to use the professional development funds shall be made 16by teachers, principals, and other school staff in that school during the first year a school is identified for sanctions. 17C\nPage 1 of2 From: To: Date: LESLEY, BONNIE \u0026lt;BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; 'asbrown@aristotle.net' \u0026lt;asbrown@aristotle.net\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 13, 1999 2:47 PM Subject: Collective Responsibility Thanks to all of you for your feedback. You'll see much of it incorporated into the attached latest draft. We appreciate the time that everyone took to review this lengthy document. Many of your comments were very helpful and have made it stronger. One problem, it was clear, is that some of you have not seen the state ACTAAP plan, and you wrote all over the state portions without undersanding that we can't change those. The state's indicators were copied verbatum, as were the names of the levels, of sanctions. What we did was take the state system and then build around it our own local indicators and local systems of support, rewards, and sanctions. You may want to review the ACTAAP plan on the ADE web page. It will make our plan much more understandable. There have been multiple revisions to the draft that I gave to you. We received feedback from Dr. Steve Ross, from the Cabinet, from the Supt., and last Thursday from board members, in addition to your comments, so this new draft reflects all those suggestions. You all used the following words to describe our inclusive goals of 100% (some of which are from the state and cannot be changed): \"artificial, \"airheaded,\" \"diminishing the value of honors,\" \"not realistic,\" \"incongruous,\" \"premature,\" \"set up for failure,\" \"dream on,\" and so forth. Many of us are very uncomfortable with a goal statement reflecting fewer than 100%, however, for we fear that some will interpret that to mean that II tl tl II we have differentiated expectations for students. We are especially uncomfortable if anyone interprets those differentiated expectations to be racial-for we believe exactly the opposite! We feel strongly that if we do not aim high and inclusively, then we will continue to get the same poor results. We especially believe that high goals are important on CRTs. And we do not want anyone to ask, \"Whose kid are you giving up on?\" ill You will note that the new draft, nevertheless (and against my personal better judgment), changes many of the percentages to reflect those in the Strategic Plan--65% above grade level, for instance, on the SAT9, and 90% mastery of CRTs since one of the goals says 9 of 10 will meet standards. In truth, we are most interested in schools' progress toward meeting the goals, not that all the schools will absolutely perform at the goal level. See what you think. The suggestions that you all made that were the most helpful were as follows: * use a chart to display the actions to be taken each year of sanctions and to assign responsibility for each action. *clarify that the ADE, not the State of Arkansas, has done or will do certain things. define the various kinds of goals earlier in the document-before the tables rather than after them. 7/13/99*be more Page 2 of 2 specific about when sanctions will be applied to central office clarify the definitions of \"Quality Schools\" and \"Improving Schools. Again, thanks to all of you for your help. 1 am attaching a copy of the latest draft--the one that will be presented to the board next week. Collective Responsibility for Student Achievement.doc 7/13/99Collective Responsibility for Student Achievement Definition of Collective Responsibility Collective Responsibility means that all the adults in the District and at each school hold themselves accountable for all the students meeting the challenging behavior and academic content standards and benchmarks and other outcomes established by the Board of Education, by the state for accreditation, by federally funded programs, and by external funders of reform initiatives approved by the Board of Education. District-level staff share with school-level staffs in the collective responsibility for school improvement. This critically important attitude is developed and nurtured through professional learning communities established by the District and each school. In addition, the Superintendent shall ensure that all job descriptions of appropriate District-level and building-level staff\nannual work plans\nDi strict-level processes and school-level parameters for decision-making\npersonnel hiring, assignment, promotion, and evaluation systems\nand the professional development programs are results-based and aligned with the improvement indicators established in the Quality Index. Reporting Responsibilities The Superintendent shall report to the Board of Education annually on progress related to the implementation of the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In addition, so that the community is also informed on the Districts progress in meeting expected improvement goals, the following reports must be submitted to the Board of Education in open sessions. District Annual Performance Report The Annual Performance Report is to be submitted to the Board of Education no later than August 30 annually. It shall include data relating to each of the Quality Indicators, including the baseline year data so that progress can be identified. The Annual Performance Report shall also include the accreditation status and accountability status for each school, as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. School Performance Reports The state-mandated School Performance Reports shall be published and distributed to parents and other interested patrons annually. These report cards shall include the data mandated by the Arkansas Department of Education, but also school data relating to the Districts Quality Indicators. School principals shall disseminate these reports to all the staff members and parents in their school community and make them available to interested patrons. At least one parent meeting shall be conducted annually by the Campus Leadership Team and the principal to discuss the 1performance of the school and planned short- and long-range improvements. The District may disseminate school-level supplements to the School Performance Reports to include data relating to District-selected Quality Indicators. Accreditation and Accountability Status If a school has been identified for school improvement, as per Title I regulations and/or if the school is conditionally accredited or nonaccredited, then the designation and an explanation of its implications, as well as the accountability status of the school as defined by the State shall be included in the School Performance Report. Program Evaluations The results of any internal program evaluation studies or evaluations of grant-funded projects are to be provided to the Board of Education within a month of their submission to the Superintendent and/or to the funding organization. School Improvement Plans Although there are multiple state and local indicators, Campus Leadership Teams should select, based on their data analysis, three to five priority improvement goals as a focus for the School Improvement Plan. (See the Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Planning process.) 2State Quality IndicatorsTier I The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators based on performance goals for Tier I: State Indicator Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Definition)______________ 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6, 8 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics. Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra I. Secondary 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development School Safety 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Literacy. At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12* grade._________________ Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%.________________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher._______________________ 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually.__________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Grades 7-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 3State Quality Indicators^Tier II The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators for Tier II. Tier II indicators are based on trend and improvement goals. Trend goals will be established for different cohorts of students, and improvement goals will be established for the same cohort of students over time. State Indicator Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Distlrtition)______________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion- referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6, and 8 Secondary 4Tier 11School Selected Indicators (Schools Select Any 5) State indicator Drop-outs Average Daily Attendance_________ Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development School Safety Other School Selected Indicators Goal (Definition)_______________ Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12* grade. Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate.____________ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher._______________ Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts._______ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Grade Levet(s) Secondary All levels All levels All levels All levels All levels 5Additional District-Selected Indicators The following additional academic indicators (based also on both performance and trend/improvement) have been established by the Little Rock School District. Value-Added Goals or Improvement Goals The District-adopted criterion-referenced tests for grades K-11 will be administered to provide pre- and post-test scores so that gains of individual students may be measured each semester. Only those scores of students who were in the school the previous test administration will be used in calculating value-added gains (or improvement). The purpose of this measure is to be able to determine the extent to which a school adds value through individual students gains. In other words, regardless of whether students attain the proficient level at any given grade, the District is interested in whether the students progressed toward proficiency during that year. Both trend and improvement data will be tracked as well. LRSD indicator Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test Goal (Definition)______________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. Grade Level(s) Kindergarten Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. Grade 1 The percent of grade 1 students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. i 6LRSD Indicator Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Test Goal (Definition) 65% of a schools students in every Grade Level(s) Grades 5, 7, 10 sub-group of race and gender shall ,th perform at or above the 50 percentile in reading. The percent of students in every sub-group or race and gender performing at or above the 50^ percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50'^ percentile in mathematics. Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Test The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50'^ percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 7LRSD Indicator Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Test Goal (Definition) _____________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. Grade Level(s) Performance on District-Adopted Criterion-Referenced Tests The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Grades 2-11 8LRSD indicator Gc^l (Definition) ___________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester. Grade liMt(s) Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Enrollment in Algebra I by grade 8 Honors Seal on High School Diploma The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics each quarter will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._________________________ 65% of middle and high school students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year. The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a middle schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high schools students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas. The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grades 6-12 Grade 8 Grades 9-12 9IZRSD Indicator Taking the ACT Gd^i (Deflhitlon)_______________ 65% of a high schools students will take the ACT. Grade Level(s) Grades 11-12 Performance on the ACT The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each year.________________ 90% of a high schools students who take the ACT will earn a score of at least 19. Grades 11-12 Taking Advanced Placement Examinations The percent of students earning a score of 19 or above will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high schools graduates will have taken at least one AP examination. Grades 11-12 Performance on Advanced Placement Examinations The percent of students taking at least one AP examination will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a high schools students taking AP examinations will score a 3 or above. Grades 11-12 Completion of Graduation Requirements The percent of students earning a score of 3 or above on AP examinations will meet or exceed the trend goal each year._________ 100% of a high schools seniors will complete all the graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony, The percent of seniors meeting all graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grade 12 A schools performance on these District-selected indicators may be reflected in a local supplement to the state-mandated School Performance Report or as a part of the narrative in the Tier III report that becomes a part of the states School Performance Report. 10Indicators by School Level On the following pages are lists of the state and district indicators by school level. These indicators include the priorities established in the LRSD Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the National Science Foundation Project, Title I, ACTAAP, and ACSIP. Also included in the tables are the columns of data that will be used to determine a schools status. 11Quality Indicators for Elementary Schools Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1990-00 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 4 4 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 4 4 State Indicators - Tier I - Performance on State Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Literacy T est Performance on State Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Mathematics Test Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety Pedormance on State- Mandated Criterion Referenced Grade 4 Literacy Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Mathematics Test Goal (Definition) 100% of a school's students shall periorm at or above the proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy. 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%._________________________________ 100% of a school's classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 100% of a school's certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your\nScoire 12Baseline Year Grade Levels 1999-00 K-5 School-Selected Indicators Tier II (Select five.) Average Daily Attendance Goal (Deiinltion\u0026gt; ' Your Results Growth Goat Your Growth Your Score 1999-00 K-5 1999-00 K-5 Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 1999-00 K-5 School Safety 1999-00 K-5 Other School Selected Indicators Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. LRSD Elementary School Quality Indicators Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) 1999-00 K Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy T est 90% of a school's kindergarten students shall perform at or atxive the proficient level in literacy. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 1999-00 K Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test 1999-00 1 Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test The percent of kindergarten students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a school's grade 1 students shall perform at or above the \"proficient level in literacy. 13Bas^ine Year 1999-00 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 LRSD Indicators Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Goal (Definition) The percent of grade 1 students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a school's students in every subgroup of race and gender will perform at or above the 50'\" percentile in reading. The percent of a school's students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50'\" percentile will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a school's students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a school's students will perform atxjve the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a school's students shall perform al or above the 50'\" percentile in grade 5 mathematics. Your Results Growth: Goat Your , Growth Your Score 14Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade Levels 5 5 5 5 5 2-5 2-5 2-5 LRSD Indicators Goat {Definition} Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SATO, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Readinq Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test The percent of students performing at or above the SO' percentile in grade 5 mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a school's students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement qoals each year. 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient level in grades 2-5 reading each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in grades 2-5 reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement qoals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the grades 2-5 reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth ,Your Score 15Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) 1999-00 2-5 1999-00 2-5 1999-00 2-5 Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in grades 2-5 mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in grades 2-5 mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the grades 2-5 mathematics pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 16Quality Indicators for Middle Schools Baseline Year Grade teweis 2001-02 6 1999-00 8 2001-02 6 1999-00 8 2001-02 7 (Dunbar) or 8 2001-02 8 (Dunbar) 1999-00 7-8 State Indicators Tier I Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test School Dropout Goal (Definition) 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in grade 6 reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in grade 8 reading and writing literacy. 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in grade 6 mathematics. 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in grade 8 mathematics. 100% of a school's grade 7 or 8 students who complete Algebra I shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level. 100% of a school's grade 8 students who complete Geometry shall perform at or above the proficient\" level. 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12' grade. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%. 100% of a school's classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Your Results Growth Goal Your GrciWttt your 17Baseline Year Grade Levels 1999-00 6-8 State Indicators Tier I Professional Development Goal (Definition) 1999-00 6-8 School Safety 100% of a school's certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Basetine. Year Grade Levels 2001-02 6 State-Mandated Indicators .Si\n, Tier II ' Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test. Goal (Definition) Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 1999-00 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test. 2001-02 6 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. 1999-00 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 18Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 7 (Dunbar) or 8 2001-02 8 (Dunbar) State-Mandated Indicators Tier II Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. Goal (Deflnlllon) Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Baseline Year Grade Levels 1999-00 e-8 SchodhSeteMd Indicators Tier tl (Select five,) Drop-outs 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development 1999-00 6-8 School Safety 6-8 Other School Selected Indicators The percent of students completing Algebra I performing at or above the proficient\" level will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of students completing Geometry performing at or above the proficient\" level will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Goal (Oalinition) Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12'\" grade. Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 19LRSD Middle School Quality Indicators Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 LRSD Indicators Goal (Deiinition) Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test 65% of a school's students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50'\" percentile in reading. The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50'\" percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a school's students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a school's students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a school's students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50'\" percentile in mathematics. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 20Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade Levels 7 7 7 7 1 6-8 6-8 6-8 LRSD Indicators Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test Goal (Definition) The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the so'\" percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a school's students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a school's students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in reading each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Your, Results Growth, Goat Your Growth Your Score 21Baseline: Year 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 LRSD Indicators Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Enrollment in Pre-AP Courses Enrollment in Pre-AP Courses Enrollment in Algebra I by Grade 8 Enrollment in Algebra I by Grade 8 Goal {Definition) 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester._____ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the mathematics pre-test to the posttest will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._________________________ 65% of a middle school's students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course each year. The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a middle school's students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 22Quality Indicators for High Schools Baseline Year 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade levela 9-12 9-12 11 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 State Indicators TIeri Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test_______________ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Geometry Test_______________ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test_______________ School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance_________ Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development School Safety Goal (Definition) 100% of a high schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra I. 100% of a high schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. 100% of a high school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in Reading and Writing Literacy. At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12'\" grade. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%._________________________________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and I violent acts. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Sodre 23Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 11 State-Mandated indicators Tier 11 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Geometry Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test Goal (Oellnition) The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Baseline Year , Grade Levels 2001-02 9-12 SchookSetected indicators Tier II (Select live.) Drop-outs Goal (Definition) 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development High schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12\" grade. Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Your Results Your Results Growth Goal Growth Goal Your Growth Your Growth Your Score Your Score 24Baseline Year, , Grade Levels 2001-02 9-12 9-12 School-Selected Indicatora Tier II (Set^ live.) School Safety Goal {Deiinition) Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Other School Selected Indicators Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. LRSD High School Quality Indicators Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) 1998-99 10 1998-99 10 Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test 65% of a school's students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50\" percentile in reading. The percent of students performing at or above the 50 percentile in reading will meet 1998-99 10 1998-99 10 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. 1998-99 10 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a school's students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. Your Results Growth Goat Your Grdvrth Your Score 25Baseline. Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 Grade Levels 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9-11 LRSD Indicators Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Goal {Definition) The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a school's students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50'\" percentile in mathematics. The percent of students performing at or above the 50'\" percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a school's students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a school's student's will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in reading each semester. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 26Baseline Year 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1998-99 1998-99 2002-03 2002-03 Grade Levels 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-12 9-12 12 12 LRSD Indicators Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Honors Seal on High School Diploma Honors Seal on High School Diploma Goal {Definition) The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._________________________________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics each semester. 1 The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the mathematics pre-test to the posttest will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._________________________ 65% of a high school's students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year._____________________________ The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a high school's students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas._________________________ The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 27Baselirie Year 1998-99 Grade Levels 11-12 LRSD tndioators Goal (Deltnition) Taking the ACT Your Results Growth Goat' Vour Growth 1998-99 1998-99 11-12 11-12 Taking the ACT Performance on the ACT 1998-99 11-12 Performance on the ACT 1998-99 11-12 1998-99 11-12 Taking Advanced Placement Examinations Taking Advanced Placement Examinations 1998-99 11-12 1998-99 11-12 Performance on Advanced Piacement Examinations Performance on Advanced Piacement Examinations 65% of a high school's students will take the ACT._________________________________ The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a high school's students who take the ACT will earn a score of at least 19. The percent of students earning a score of 19 or above on the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high school's graduates will take at least one AP examination. The percent of students taking at least one AP examination will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a high school's students taking AP examinations will score a \"3\" or above. Your Score 1998-99 12 Completion of Graduation Requirements 1998-99 12 Completion of Graduation Requirements The percent of a high schools students earning a score of 3\" or above on AP examinations will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 100% of a high school's seniors will complete all the graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony. The percent of seniors meeting all graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 28Rewards for Schools The District shall develop a system to reward (a) Quality Schools: schools absolutely meeting all the performance indicators established by the Arkansas Department of Education and (b) Improving Schools: schools demonstrating improvement: meeting a preponderance of the trend and/or improvement goals established by the Arkansas Department of Education and LRSD. The following points are established for each indicator. They will be added to determine a schools total score. 0 1 2 3 Declined in performance from previous year or semester Maintained last years performance and/or improved but did not meet trend/improvement goal Met trend/improvement goal Exceeded trend/improvement goal A definition of preponderance and the number of minimum points required for rewards will be established. Quality Schools and Improvina Schools Quality Schools and Improving Schools may be recognized and rewarded in the following ways, as determined by the Superintendent: a. b. c. d. e. f. A presentation will be made to the Board of Education on the schools achievements involving both staff and parents, a press release commending the schools performance will be issued, and schools will be featured in District publications, on cable television, and on the web page. The school may be designated as a mentor school and granted resources to provide technical assistance and support to another school in the District identified for improvement. As appropriate, the District will support a schools application for state and national recognition in the national Blue Ribbon School program. The District will collaborate with the community to identify other possible recognitions of the schools progress and achievement. Schools will receive a grant to encourage and facilitate further improvement. The amount of the grant will be determined by annual budget appropriations. Awarded funds will be used for innovative programs, to provide additional materials and supplies, to support technology enhancements, to improve meaningful parent involvement, and/or for professional development of the staff. Each school will receive a banner/flag that celebrates its success. Rewards for Staff and Students Each Quality and each Improving School is encouraged to design, in collaboration with parents and the community, celebrations of success and recognition for contributing teachers, teacher teams, other staff, and 29 parent/community volunteers, as well as students who meet the performance goals. Sanctions According to ADE and the State Board of Education, sanctions in the ACTAAP system are applied for the purpose of improving teaching and learning, not for punishing schools or the people in them. The LRSD supports this view. Each Arkansas school is expected to achieve annually a minimum percentage of its total possible points assigned for the performance indicators in the ACTAAP system for accountability. Failure to do so will result in the following designations, as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education: First year: Second year: Third year: Fourth year: Fifth year: Sixth year: High Priority Status Alert Status Low Performing Status Academic Distress Phase I Status Academic Distress Phase II Status Academic Distress Phase III Status To be eligible for removal of any sanction designation, leading up to, but not including. Academic Distress Phase I, a school must attain the minimum percentage of its total possible points for two consecutive years. Once classified as Academic Distress Phase 1, a school must comply with the rules and regulations to be promulgated by the ADE in order to be removed from this category. Failure to do so will result in the designation of Academic Distress Phase II, and so forth. The District will not identify schools for sanctions. Rather, the District will ensure the following levels of technical assistance and/or corrective actions for schools identifed for improvement by the Arkansas Department of Education. In other words, the District will form a partnership with each school in need of improvement and will assist and support that school in its improvement efforts. To that end, the District has reorganized staff in the Division of Instruction to form a multi-disciplinary School Improvement department. A common mission for all Division of Instruction teams will be to help schools help students achieve the challenging standards established by the Arkansas Department of Education and the LRSD and as measured by the various performance, trend, and improvement indicators. The assignment of a Broker for each school is another level of support. The following technical assistance and support services are established for schools requiring improvements: 30Technical Assistance and Support for Schools Identified for Improvement Year/Status/ Definition Year One: Warned LRSD Assistance/Support Assigned Responsibility The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: 1. The first year that an LRSD school fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 2. 3. 4. 5. Inform the principal, the central office broker, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation of the school and its implications. Provide appropriate levels of technical assistance to the school as it develops and implements its School Improvement Plan so that it addresses specific elements of student performance problems and includes waivers of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to education its students. Conduct a School Improvement Audit to determine the extent to which the Campus Leadership Plan is being implemented at the school. Require the recommendations from the School Improvement Audit to be addressed in the following years School Improvement Plan, if not possible to do so immediately. Monitor regularly and conduct formative evaluations of the implementation of the School Improvement Plan, reviewing with the principal and the Campus Leadership Team formative data and making suggestions for modifications and adjustments to the implementation plan. Testing and Program Evaluation Team Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Technical Assistance Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services 31Year\nStatus/ Detlnttion LRSD Assistance/Support 6. Provide the principal, the broker, members of the Campus Leadership Team, and other appropriate staff opportunities to participate in professional development activities that should lead to school improvement. Assigned Responsibliity Professional Development Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team\nAssociate Superintendent for School Services 32Year/Status/ Definition LRSD Assistance/Support Assigned Responsibiiity Year Two: High Priority Status The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: 1. A school identified by ADE that for two consecutive years fails to meet the performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 2. 3. 4. Inform the principal, the central office broker, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation of the school and its implications. Provide appropriate levels of technical assistance to the school as it develops and implements its School Improvement Plan so that it addresses specific elements of student performance problems and includes waives of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to educate its students. Conduct a comprehensive Curriculum Audit to determine the extent to which the school is implementing the District curriculum and the quality of its interventions for students not meeting the standards. Require that the recommendations from the Curriculum Audit be addressed in the following years School Improvement Plan, if impossible to do so immediately. Possibly mandate the implementation of specific actions, professional development, or programs to address needs identified in the Curriculum Audit and/or the analysis of disaggregated student performance data. 5. The District shall take corrective action during the High Priority Status Year through one or more of the following: Testing and Program Evaluation Team Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Curriculum/ Instruction Team\nPlanning and Development Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services 33Year/StatusZ Definition LRSD Assistance/Support (a) Decrease the decision making authority of the Campus Leadership Team, (b) Require participation in remedial training or professional development, and then implementating the necessary changes, (c) Reflect the schools low performance in the evaluation of the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school, (d) Replace the school principal. Assigned Responsibility 34Year/Status/ Definition Year Three: Alert Status LRSD Assistance/Support The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: 1. Assigned Responsibility A school identified by ADE that for three consecutive years fails to meet the performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. Inform the principal, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation and its implications. Testing and Program Evaluation Team 2. Conduct follow-up or monitoring of implementation of School Improvement and Curriculum Audit recommendations. Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team 3. Mandate appropriate specific actions, professional development, and/or programs to address student needs. Associate Superintendent for School Services 4. Continue to provide appropriate technical assistance as the school develops and implements its School Improvement Plan. 5. The District shall take corrective action during the Alert Status Year through one or more of the following: (a) Decrease the decision-making authority of the Campus Leadership Team\n(b) Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes\n(c) Reflect the schools low performance in the evaluation of the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school. Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services 35Year/StatusZ Definition LRSD Assistance/Support (d) Reconstitute the school staff by replacing the principal and up to 50 percent of the teachers and other staff, as appropriate. Assigned Responsibility Year/Status/ Definition Year Four: Low Performing Status LRSD Assistance/Support The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to apply one or more of the following sanctions: 1. Assigned Responsibility A school identified by ADE that for four consecutive years fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement Plan. Associate Superintendent for School Services 2. 3. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes. Reflect the low performance of the school in the performance evaluations of responsible staff, including the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance. 4. Conduct follow-up audits to determine the extent to which the school has effectively implemented the recommendations of the School Improvement Audit and the Curriculum Audit conducted in years one and two. 5. Reconstitute the school staff by replacing the principal and up to 50 percent of the teachers and other staff, as appropriate. Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services 36Year/Status/ Definition Year Five: Academic Distress Phase I Status LRSD Assistance/Support The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to apply one or more of the following sanctions: 1. Assigned Responsibility A school identified by ADE that for five consecutive years fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 2. 3. 4. 5. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement Plan. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes. Reflect the low performance of the school in the performance evaluations of responsible staff, including the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance. Conduct follow-up audits to determine the extent to which the school has effectively implemented the recommendations of the School Improvement Audit and the Curriculum Audit conducted in years one and two. Reconstitute the school staff by replacing the principal and up to 50 percent of the teachers and other staff, as appropriate. Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Sanctions for Central Office Effective Year Two, upon the Superintendents recommendation, the performance evaluations of central office staff designated to provide leadership in human resources, teaching and learning, school improvement, school operations, administrative services, and technology, including members of the Superintendents Cabinet, shall also reflect the schoools low performance if it can be determined that they shared responsibility, through their decisions or actions, or lack thereof, for the low achievement of schools identified for sanctions. Sanctions for the Superintendent will be determined by the Board of Education. 37I School Role When Identified for Sanctions Each school identified for sanctions shall: a. In consultation with central staff and the Campus Leadership Team develop or revise a School Improvement Plan in ways that have the greatest likelihood of improving the performance of all children in meeting the expected improvement goals outlined in ACTAAP and the b. c. d. e. f. Quality Index. Align all the schools systems and resources behind the effective implementation of the plan. Submit the plan in a timely manner to school and District-level staff for review, feedback, and approval. Implement the plan, conducting self-monitoring on a frequent basis to determine success and then making appropriate adjustments. Consult frequently with District-level staff assigned to support the school and to provide technical assistance. Improve the skills of its staff by providing effective professional development activities. At least ten percent of the Title I funds (if received) shall be committed over a two-year period to professional development\nor the school must otherwise demonstrate that it is effectively carrying out professional development activities from other funding sources. Decisions about how to use the professional development funds shall be made by teachers, principals, and other school staff in that school during the first year a school is identified for sanctions. Definitions School Improvement AuditThis audit will include a review of the meeting minutes of the Campus Leadership Team, the participation level of CLT members, quality of the School Improvement Plan, use of disaggregated data for decision-making, action research projects underway, sense of collective responsibility, quality of professional development, etc. If the school receives Title I funds, the audit will include determinations of the extent to which the school is in compliance with federal regulations and expectations. The audit team will be composed of staff from both the central office and campus levels. A written report will be compiled by the audit team and then approved by the Assistant Superintendent for School Improvement and the Associate Superintendent for School Services. It shall be provided orally and in writing to the Assistant Superintendent for School Services, the principal, the broker, and the Campus Leadership Team. Copies will be provided to the Superintendent, the Cabinet, and other appropriate central office staff who need to be involved in the schools improvement efforts. 385013744187 UlfiLKER LAW FIRM 528 P02/02 JUL 21 99 11:35 John W. Walker, P.A. attorney Ai Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 R4X (601) 374-4187 JOHN W WALKER RALPH Washington MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Via Facsimile - 324*2146 July 21. 1999 Dr. Leslie Camine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr, Camine\nPlease reserve a space on tomorrows agenda before the Board for us to have a discussion about the subject of remediation of achievement disparities and about the Hall High School situation of last year. We have arrived at the tentative conclusion that Dr. Bonnie Lesleys approach to remediation has been ineffective and, with the line-up that she, with your approval, has in mind for implementing new policies is doomed to repeat past failures. We have further tentatively concluded that people like Ms. Gayle Bradford, as we have noted to you repeatedly, appear to be favored in face of if not because of, their treatment, mistreatment, or omissive treatment (newly created word by me) of African American people. As I have reminded you, when Ms. Bradford was at Cloverdale she sent black students on scores of occasions home without behavior documents. There were other complaints from her staff of a racial nature. She was promoted. Now the same scenario has repeated itself at Hall High School. She has been promoted again to be your special assistant. Something is remiss here and I bdievc that the Board should be made aware of it from my perspective as counsel for the Joshua Intervenors. You may share this letter with the Board members, Dr. Lesley and Ms. Bradford. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, / 1 John W. Walker JWW\njs CC-. Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown NOV 17 1999/^ Si- CfflCEOF \\ DESEGHEGATiONMOSITORIi The Little Rock School District Board of Education invites you to attend A Status Report: Student Achievement in Little Rock and a Design for Improved Performance. The program will be held at the Statehouse Conference Center in the back of the Excelsior. A question and answer session will follow the presentation. Monday, Nov. 22, 1999 6:30 p.m. RECEIVED i STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AUG - 4 2004 Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Examination OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsStudents Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 Target Score - 40.16 School 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002 -03 2003- 04 Change State of Arkansas LRSD Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright______ Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens_______ Terry__________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 34 22 16 11 24 6 32 10 4 19 10 52 2 29 12 49 63 31 0 23 0 4 17 35 12 36 35 4 34 6 22 6 7 48 6 12 41 30 11 12 29 22 54 6 10 27 0 55 10 42 7 49 55 30 22 43 28 9 57 44 41 34 32 0 38 3 28 8 25 45 16 24 48 30 30 35 37 14 44 11 11 10 18 57 24 53 12 46 64 37 20 46 9 6 39 42 30 32 28 0 48 9 24 9 16 52 6 21 55 38 38 50 49 12 64 26 20 28 32 65 22 66 17 48 68 41 15 53 21 20 38 69 27 45 21 17 41 21 34 17 33 66 15 24 76 49 27 40 51 27 48 19 60 60 33 71 23 59 54 77 69 54 47 78 51 17 47 69 43 37 52 17 67 38 45 19 39 75 33 30 71 54 41 78 59 16 71 57 76 58 42 73 23 72 52 79 83 54 45 63 42 19 58 78 35 43 58 24 74 59 45 23 38 67 33 29 +37 +32 +25 +67 +35 +10 +39 +47 +72 +39 +32 +21 +21 +43 +40 +30 +20 +23 +45 +40 +42 +15 +41 +43 +23 +7 +23 +20 +40 +53 +23 +17 +31 +19 +27 +17Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 Target Score - 40.16 School 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 Arkansas LRSD Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King________ Mabelvale McDemott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens_____ Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 9 8 15 13 2 0 16 4 4 13 0 18 2 9 13 6 30 12 0 11 0 4 0 11 12 25 18 0 9 0 4 6 3 33 7 4 14 15 4 11 18 15 31 0 11 23 0 18 8 25 8 15 21 13 16 32 11 10 21 17 41 25 16 0 15 3 13 8 19 29 14 20 18 16 22 32 23 12 22 12 10 6 7 20 22 10 8 15 26 20 18 20 9 6 23 27 30 4 27 0 25 9 11 9 12 36 0 19 IM 24 24 30 45 31 13 49 24 24 22 25 27 22 40 14 26 35 21 4 40 19 22 18 30 27 22 12 15 24 21 23 14 18 51 12 18 1- 2002- 03 2003- 04 Change 38 35 29 31 30 21 26 14 45 45 28 33 23 35 47 50 42 45 45 68 45 14 31 42 44 23 44 14 50 36 27 19 34 66 31 29 43 43 29 76 46 6 51 50 75 61 30 50 23 63 52 64 61 36 55 58 36 19 48 59 35 28 52 24 52 59 33 24 33 50 32 29 +34 +35 +14 +63 +44 +6 +41 +46 +71 +48 +30 +32 +21 +54 +39 +58 +31 +24 +55 +47 +36 +15 +48 +48 +13 +3 +34 +24 +43 +59 +29 +18 +30 +17 +25 +25School Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic Level^All Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 1998- 99 1999 -00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002 -03 2003- 04 Change Arkansas_____ LRSD_______ Bale________ Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright____ Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson_____ King________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens_____ Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 41 59 71 75 57 77 46 76 84 52 65 27 81 53 70 41 26 49 81 48 85 83 67 35 70 40 39 89 46 82 44 87 68 21 69 76 39 55 83 67 49 60 35 89 73 58 93 34 78 34 79 29 31 51 67 43 50 81 32 40 35 46 44 88 35 85 58 83 58 40 71 68 i 33 51 47 45 38 67 38 79 52 76 65 29 64 26 74 29 14 37 66 42 71 74 39 40 50 36 60 91 33 77 57 78 61 30 62 66 26 42 52 41 25 62 24 51 57 43 56 30 52 21 56 33 15 37 79 17 53 67 40 23 48 42 63 63 29 60 49 67 32 14 71 50 17 32 45 34 24 56 38 46 14 33 47 10 37 20 27 13 23 26 32 6 28 57 33 20 32 42 22 69 19 46 32 64 35 11 57 41 16 29 38 11 21 58 14 19 6 23 38 11 60 19 27 13 5 31 30 18 41 66 27 13 43 39 32 59 17 18 29 55 56 15 41 54 -25 -30 -33 -64 -36 -19 -32 -57 -78 -29 -27 -16 -21 -34 -43 -28 -21 -18 -51 -30 -44 -17 -40 -22 -27 -1 -7 -30 -29 -64 -15 -32 -12 -6 -28 -22School Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 Change Arkansas LRSD Bale Baseline Booker______ Brady_______ Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin_____ Fulbright_____ Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western HiUs Williams Wilson Woodruff 72 74 70 77 80 88 71 82 83 60 75 55 82 77 70 71 61 74 76 63 89 83 92 58 70 54 50 92 76 91 64 88 79 28 67 81 71 69 88 67 65 65 55 95 71 62 100 63 79 54 83 60 58 68 75 55 64 81 58 63 35 57 58 88 50 87 74 83 61 62 71 69 66 65 52 46 51 71 55 76 55 75 71 60 65 58 75 52 20 54 76 73 69 74 64 56 50 52 64 93 54 79 73 79 73 43 66 77 54 55 58 45 39 68 40 52  54 44 67 73 52 44 61 52 40 55 96 20 56 64 59 60 48 59 72 64 40 59 60 70 39 26 73 57 41 42 43 41 40 59 53 49 15 45 50 25 37 39 33 28 42 37 33 10 32 59 41 37 33 50 31 71 31 50 43 63 39 17 62 42 37 37 39 12 25 61 23 21 6 23 45 25 62 21 29 18 13 42 25 29 46 68 35 25 43 52 36 59 32 19 36 55 61 26 42 54 -35 -37 -31 -65 -55 -27 -48 -61 -77 -37 -30 -30 -20 -56 -41 -53 -48 -32 -51 -34 -43 -15 -57 -33 -27 -2 -14 -33 -44 -72 -28 -33 -18 -2 -25 -27Grade 6 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelAll Students Little Rock School District, 2000-01 through 2003-04 Target Score - 29.42 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest XI 10 2 15 8 1 13 22 2 36 16 2 32 20 6 6 29 23 6 40 20 4 35 17 11. 11 35 31 5 47 26 6 30 26 17 10 44 41 17 Change +30 +16 +4 +13 +11 +9 +9 +31 +19 +15 Grade 6 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 2000-01 through 2003-04 Target Score - 29.42 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 3 2 1 2 5 6 0 1 1 2 11 7 2 13 9 5 3 14 4 5 12 8 3 11 6 7 4 20 10 4 18 15 6 13 19 14 5 32 16 16 Change +15 +13 +5 +11 +14 +8 +5 +31 +14 +14 iGrade 6 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelAll Students Little Rock School District, 2000-01 through 2003-04 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 46 66 87 59 63 65 86 48 51 73 32 59 86 36 57 72 71 34 49 77 27 55 77 41 . 54 66 65 31 43 76 Change 20 39 67 32 36 41 59 19 31 41 -26 -27 -20 -27 -27 -24 -27 -29 -20 -32 Grade 6 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 2000-01 through 2003-04 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 76 79 87 79 82 72 87 65 81 75 64 72 87 50 75 77 77 49 75 77 61 68 80 60 68 72 72 44 67 77 45 49 66 44 43 43 69 25 52 43 Change -31 -30 -21 -35 -39 -29 -18 -40 -29 -32Grade 8 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelAll Students Little Rock School District, 1999-00 through 2003-04 Target Score - 29.42 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 16 9 1 14 14 8 5 17 10 1 21 17 2 23 18 10 3 29 32 5 24 15 1  18 22 7 9 18 30 4 26 16 3 23 22 11 2 23 32 2 Change 37 21 3 33 27 11 15 27 41 3 +21 +12 +2 +19 +13 +3 +10 +10 +31 +2 Grade 8 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1999-00 through 2003-04 Target Score - 29.42 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 3' 2 0 1 4 4 4 6 3 0 4 4 1 0 6 8 1 11 1 5 4 1 4 1 5 5 5 6 3 5 4 3 5 5 1 0 1 2 3 10 8 4 10 15 8 8 9 13 4 Change +1 +6 +4 +9 +11 +4 +4 +3 +10 +4Grade 8 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelAll Students Little Rock School District, 1999-00 through 2003-04 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Maim Pulaski Heights Southwest 37 58 83 55 56 60 60 35 53 80 37 55 77 53 54 57 69 31 42 76 30 51 74- 47 46 60 54 31 32 73 24 44 60 40 36 44 56 27 32 61 23 47 66 34 45 50 55 34 28 71 Change -14 -11 -17 -21 -11 -10 -5 -1 -25 -9 1 Grade 8 Mathematics Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1999-00 through 2003-04 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 71 72 86 73 74 67 65 51 68 81 70 72 81 83 70 63 83 46 70 79 62 64 74 72 63 61 59 45 57 74 55 55 62 56 51 50 61 37 56 63 53 59 66 50 55 56 62 53 48 72 Change -18 -13 -20 -23 -19 -11 -3 +2 -20 -9STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsAll Stndents Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 ! School 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002 -03 2003- 04 Change State of Arkansas LRSD Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright______ Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson Kins__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowchff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens_______ Terry__________ Wakefield Washington_____ Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 44 32 23 22 39 19 41 11 13 35 20 61 16 38 27 49 69 37 10 30 17 13 32 54 41 54 48 15 41 15 49 11 27 74 19 6 47 42 33 12 35 20 51 11 17 24 21 73 31 68 31 64 71 43 22 57 33 14 51 73 41 60 40 13 59 12 37 30 53 57 26 35 43 35 34 16 44 21 42 6 11 24 35 71 19 74 19 45 95 43 22 47 20 10 43 42 24 45 32 6 49 23 31 8 33 52 24 28 65 50 41 15 62 44 53 35 27 50 37 72 56 79 32 39 86 52 18 78 32 27 56 85 45 56 25 23 73 28 59 13 47 84 11 47 69 64 83 55 71 32 56 39 80 80 60 90 45 82 48 90 80 79 53 92 46 30 59 91 55 68 65 28 82 46 74 33 53 83 54 62 76 68 55 85 78 45 82 62 56 70 50 84 49 79 52 89 92 77 56 71 56 41 81 91 51 55 65 41 88 67 50 36 68 90 65 58 +32 +36 +32 +63 +39 +26 +41 +51 +43 +35 +30 +23 +33 +41 +25 +40 +23 +40 +46 +41 +39 +28 +49 +37 +10 +1 +17 +26 +47 +52 +1 +25 +41 +16 +46 +52 J I !Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 Change Arkansas LRSD Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright_____ Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine______ Stephens_____ Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 21 20 19 23 18 15 17 9 13 31 6 32 16 11 24 35 38 24 15 16 13 13 13 31 41 46 41 13 21 7 12 12 24 64 21 4 26 30 23 7 22 21 31 10 18 27 20 52 30 42 33 35 42 41 21 51 25 14 26 57 41 46 26 13 50 10 25 31 48 42 29 34 21 23 30 18 40 20 33 9 10 25 29 33 20 53 19 29 93 29 18 19 19 10 23 24 24 36 36 4 32 21 22 7 19 41 21 18 42 39 38 17 46 42 51 33 44 44 25 53 56 68 29 22 70 42 4 72 31 27 36 70 45 52 23 23 60 28 57 9 36 85 12 43 46 53 86 48 63 28 35 39 73 73 57 81 45 71 41 78 71 66 50 90 48 31 51 79 56 59 69 25 72 41 68 31 45 78 50 61 55 60 57 85 76 39 75 56 55 69 40 69 49 75 50 83 83 71 55 62 54 39 75 83 51 48 77 41 76 69 42 35 61 81 64 29 +34 +40 +38 +62 +58 +24 +58 +47 +42 +38 +34 +37 +33 +64 +26 +48 +45 +47 +40 +46 +41 +26 +62 +52 +10 +2 +36 +28 +55 +62 +30 +23 +37 +17 +43 +25Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelStudents Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 Change Arkansas LRSD Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 26 41 52 53 40 64 24 60 64 30 50 15 63 26 48 22 18 35 60 53 45 52 35 29 34 15 32 62 38 69 43 54 34 3 52 59 20 28 28 42 29 36 24 51 59 33 29 7 42 10 26 5 14 19 53 14 25 53 9 10 12 14 16 53 14 68 30 43 28 11 50 32 22 32 33 45 21 35 21 51 46 48 41 9 40 7 43 12 0 17 44 12 63 52 23 25 44 14 36 74 24 51 26 59 39 13 35 38 11 19 10 41 14 24 14 20 32 29 44 7 10 5 20 10 3 15 44 10 18 33 14 4 24 30 25 35 5 33 13 57 15 0 36 18 7 10 0 6 5 32 7 15 24 20 20 2 11 2 25 0 2 8 16 2 18 33 11 5 8 16 0 20 2 8 4 33 4 0 4 12 6 8 1 0 4 16 4 17 9 4 19 3 5 5 16 0 1 3 1 5 21 13 3 1 19 8 18 24 2 5 5 21 9 1 18 13 -20 -33 -45 -53 -36 -48 -20 -43 -55 -26 -31 -12 -58 -21 -32 -22 -16 -32 -53 -48 -24 -39 -32 -27 -15 -7 -14 -38 -36 -64 -38 -27 -25 -2 -34 -46 1 I ISchool Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 Change Arkansas LRSD_______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin_____ Fulbright_____ Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson_____ KJSS________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens_____ Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills WiUiams Wilson Woodruff 50 52 52 58 60 70 38 64 65 29 63 27 64 46 49 35 38 53 58 68 45 52 50 47 34 13 41 61 65 73 64 53 37 6 49 64 39 36 27 48 41 32 40 46 57 31 40 15 43 21 28 10 32 27 63 19 32 52 16 17 12 19 21 53 18 67 42 42 29 20 51 34 43 41 37 43 28 37 31 55 49 44 50 20 41 5 47 24 0 23 50 19 63 52 36 35 44 24 36 78 43 52 35 60 50 16 34 45 24 25 13 41 21 23 14 19 31 44 58 20 10 12 21 17 10 21 54 12 22 29 27 10 24 30 28 36 7 33 10 59 18 0 38 14 15 14 0 7 8 38 12 17 25 27 21 6 11 3 28 0 4 13 17 3 19 34 X'] 11 8 18 0 21 3 9 5 34 6 0 4 10 13 11 7 0 1 19 8 18 9 0 25 6 3 0 17 0 4 3 10 10 25 13 5 4 19 10 24 22 4 6 6 21 11 2 18 13 -21 -41 -45 -58 -53 -51 -30 -46 -56 -29 -38 -21 -61 -46 -32 -35 -34 -50 -48 -58 -20 -39 -45 -43 -15 -3 -17 -39 -61 -67 -58 -26 -26 -4__ -31 -51Grade 6 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsAll Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 2000-01 2001-02 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar________ Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 2002-03 2003-04 20 13 3 20 19 12 2 19 30 2 30 20 6 28 29 9 11 33 24 8 31 22 15 29 25 7 15 34 31 5 47 32 16 37 35 21 16 54 51 12 Change +27 +19 +13 +17 +16 +9 +14 +35 +21 +10 Grade 6 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale_____ Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 6 5 3 4 5 1 2 12 7 2 11 10 5 14 20 9 7 22 2 6 14 13 12 14 16 1 11 24 16 6 22 22 17 23 29 19 12 43 23 12 Change +16 +17 +14 +19 +24 +12 +10 +31 +16 +10Grade 6 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelAll Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 35 55 76 46 50 52 74 35 41 72 21 41 63 30 34 45 44 25 31 54 16 28 34 21 25 31 43 13 25 40 12 26 44 18 19 26 32 12 19 43 Change -23 -29 -32 -28 -31 -26 -42 -23 -22 -29 Grade 6 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 63 67 76 63 68 58 77 46 66 72 44 51 67 41 45 49 51 39 50 77 33 35 35 31 30 36 48 18 37 43 Change 29 33 46 23 22 28 40 18 32 43 -34 -34 -30 -40 -46 -30 -37 -28 -34 -29Grade 8 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsAll Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale_____ Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 24 15 8 9 17 11 8 29 19 9 37 31 9 32 48 19 29 44 45 12 37 30 22 26 48 13 21 41 46 13 48 39 31 42 44 30 25 55 53 15 Chanse 60 46 26 46 55 42 36 65 67 16 +36 +31 +18 +37 +38 +31 +28 +36 +48 +7 Grade 8 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Proficient/Advanced LevelsBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale_____ Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 2003-04 9 8 8 4 8 7 9 15 11 8 21 20 9 13 36 12 18 27 19 12 16 21 22 11 35 13 21 30 22 13 25 28 31 24 29 28 24 46 26 12 33 35 26 28 46 42 32 51 43 17 Change +24 +27 +18 +24 +38 +35 +23 +36 +32 +9 Grade 8 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelAll Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 State of Arkansas LRSD_________ Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson_____ Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 31 46 63 55 43 47 57 23 37 54 22 33 51 31 25 32 31 17 27 53 17 29 30 34 22 41 30 13 18 49 12 23 31 22 20 24 24 12 17 35 7 13 31 9 12 9 10 3 8 26 Change -24 -33 -32 -46 -31 -38 -47 -20 -29 -28Grade 8 Literacy Benchmark Examination Percent Performing at Below Basic LevelBlack Students Little Rock School District, 1998-99 through 2003-04 School 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 State of Arkansas LRSD Cloverdale_____ Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale______ Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 2003-04 56 56 65 66 55 53 60 36 48 55 43 43 54 43 29 39 38 25 44 56 36 36 31 48 30 42 37 17 30' 48 29 28 30 34 27 27 24 15 32 35 18 17 31 14 15 10 10 4 14 26 Change -38 -39 -34 -52 -40 -43 -50 -32 -34 -29LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT END-OF-COURSE ALGEBRA 1 2000-01 TO 2003-04 Algebra 1 End-of-Course General Population Percent Proficient and Advanced ___ AYP = 25.34 State District Central Hall Fair McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hghts Henderson Mabelvale Maim______ Pul Hghts Southwest ueJ 21 14 1 3______ 1 0 7 5 52 65 43 4 40_____ 77 No Class 39 21 11 9 3 4 14 1 61 68 49 32 49 77 32 47 30 13 32 5 6 17 21 87 79 25 19 72 87 33 56 33 23 25 7 8 31 19 89 97 23 42 73 92 53 +35 +19 +22 +22 +6 +8 +24 +14 +37 +32 -20 +38 +33 +15 +21 Algebra 1 End-of-Course Afidcan American Students Percent Proficient and Advanced AYP = 25.34 F\" State District Central Hall Fair McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hghts Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pul Hghts Southwest 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 3_______ 0 64 40_____ 0 9 60 No Class 13 11 7 6 1 4 12 2 40 51 54 17 40 75 29 1|I4'VVW 19 16 1 27 2 6 6 20 50 64 27 0 60 77 23 24 17 13 19 6 7 21 17 77 91 21 16 55 77 50 jti +20 +15 +13 +19 +6 +7 +20 +14 +77 +27 -19 +16 +46 +17 +21Algebra 1 End-of-Course General Population Percent Below Basic State District Central Hall JAFair McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Dunbar For Hghts Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pul Hghts Southwest 29 55 66_____ 71 83 90 44 39_____ 3_______ 3 0 36 3 1 No Class 18 40 50 48 71 67 29 41 5 0 10 10 3 0 14 12 29 40 22 59 58 17 13 0 2 11 14 1 0 20 12 30 33 29 56 47 25 16 3 0 9 15 3 0 18 Algebra 1 End-of-Course Afiican American Students Percent Below Basic State District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hghts Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pul Hghts Southwest OOE 58 72 77 77 87 90 50 38 0 0 0 63 5 0 No Class Wil 42 49 56 52 72 66 32 41 0 0 14 11 6 0 14 29 39 48 23 64 57 25 11 0 0 8 0 2 0 23 33 39 41 32 59 47 32 17 8 0 12 21 6 0 19 -17 -25 -33 -42 -27 -43 -19 -23 -0 -3 +9 -21 -0 -1 +4 ii.*' -25 -33 -36 -45 -28 -43 -18 -21 +8 0 +12 -42 +1 0 +5LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT END-OF-COURSE GEOMETRY 2000-01 TO 2003-04 Geometry End-of-Course General Population Percent Proficient and Advanced ___________________________AYP = 25.34 SchoaE State District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview ZUIIU-Q1 20 13 26 3 2 2 17 2001-02 33 17 27 20 2 3 23 41 39 67 32 24 3 26 50 33 52 19 13 5 46 -1-30 -F20 +26 +16 +11 +3 +29 Geometry End-of-Course African American Students Percent Proficient and Advanced _ AYP = 25.34 PSW State District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview 1^^ ig20C^2 3 3 5 2 1 2 17 8 6 6 11 1 3 23 2pO24agK 11 17 27 24 23 0 26 rS5Sj(*t^ 15 15 21 12 8 5 30 rfr i Geometry End-of-Course General Population Percent Below Basic State District Central Hall JAFair McClellan Parkview 33 55 37 71 77 75 34 J. 26 52 42 41 74 78 36 15 17 8 17 13 42 19 Tl i 0 11 25 15 31 40 45 11 Geometry End-of-Course African American Percent Below Basic 'SchooL State District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview 69 72 63 81 82 77 51 58 66 65 50 78 50 2002-03- 41 28 23 27 19 12 29 33 36 31 37 42 47 13 +12 +12 +16 +10 +7 -3 +13 -22 -30 -22 -40 -37 -30 -23  J f -36 -36 -32 -44 -40 -30 -38 JELEVENTH GRADE END-OF-LITERACY RESULTS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 11* Grade Literacy General Population Percent Proficient and Advanced _________________________ AYP = 32.92 State District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview 24 17 23 14 6 8 23 4.2001-02 -------- 43 32 46 22 22 12 38  47 36 49 32 17 16 53  51 42 60 27 18 19 57 +27 +25 +37 +13 +12 +11 +34 11* Grade Literacy African American Students Percent Proficient and Advanced - AYP = 32.92 I* T State District Central Hall JAFair McClellan Parkview 6 7 9 9 4 7 9 17 17 18 16 16 12 24 19 20 19 21 14 15 35 21 23 26 19 13 18 42 Jhahge' . +15 +16 +17 +10 +9 +11 +33 th 11 Grade Literacy General Population Percent Below Basic ^7 SST5 State District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview 25 39 40 41 45 47 25 14 24 18 32 34 35 12 10 23 15 19 44 31 12 11*** Grade Literacy African American Percent Below Basic I^scIitoI^:^*^ State_____ District Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview 49 48 52 50 48 49 35 \u0026gt;L\nr'7i ^2001=02^' 33 32 31 34 38 36 15 3T T\n2i2?0S3'*: 28 29 24 23 48 31 18 8 16 9 26 31 26 4 1'2003:04\" 21 22 14 26 35 27 5 JL -17 -23 -31 -15 -14 -21 -21 33 -28 -26 -38 -24 -13 -22 -30FRIDAY, JULY 9. 1999  LR board studies ways to measure school performance BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DE.MOfRAT-GAZETTE Little Rock School Board members got their first look Thursday at proposed student achievement goals by which the state could evaluate schools and ultimately reward or penalize them. \"rhe board reviewed the propousedu adccccoouunntiaaboiuliittyy system aatt a lengthy agenda meeting where it also reviewed for the first time plans for implementing recommen-the district and civic leaders S meeting the stu-trict expands on a mandatory' three-tier school evaluation system adopted last month by the Arkansas Board of Education for all 310 school districts. The state system I will not operate fully until 2003-2001. I Tier I of the state system calls for all students at a school to achieve at a proficient or advanced level on new bench-mark exams, which will be given in the fourth, sixth and eighth grades, and on specific secondary school exams in literacy, first-year algebra and geometry. The state sy-stem also sets goals for high school graduation, student at-tendance, teacher licensure, ongoing professional development for teachers, and student safety. Also, the state system establishes each district to establish goals or quality indicators of its owm, - Little Rock School District staff recommended quality indicators be based on the scores students earn on two types of tests. The first would be the Stanford .Achievement Test nniinntthh edition, which is a__ n__axti:o__n_anl?ly ' designated as troubled schools by  standardized test that most students ' the state Department of Education I take each September, The second measure would be scores students earn on the districts own tests derived from the districts own cur-riculinn and given to students four times a year in grades two through 11. Separate tests would be used for I kindergarten and first grade. The Little Rock quality indicators, for example, call for 65 percent of students in every subgroup of students, based on race and sex, to score at or above the 50th percentile in reading and math on the Stanford test The indicators further call for 30 percent of students to score above the 75th percentile, or among the top 25 percent of students nationally. No more than 10 percent of Little Rock students should score among I the bottom 25 percent nationally, ac- I cording to the proposed goals. The school district indicators also include a system for measuring each schools rate of progress toward the goals on the Stanford test and on the districts own tests. Other proposed quality indicators for Little Rock schools call for  65 percent of students at a school to be enrolled in either Advanced Place- .A ment courses or prerequisite courses for Advanced Placement classes,  65 percent of a high schools graduates to take at least one Advanced Placement exam, which can provide the student with college credit for  high school work,  100 percent of students taking the Advanced Placement exam to score 3 or better on a scale of 1 to 5,  100 percent of high school seniors to complete all graduation requirements prior to participating in a graduation ceremony. Students now can participate in a ceremony even ' if they need a credit from summer school to aget their diploma,  100 percent of middle school stu-' dents to be enrolled in algebra by  eighth grade,  65 percent of high school stu- ' dents to complete all the high school courses necess^ to earn an honors seal on their diplomas,  65 percent of high school students to take the ACT AssessmenL a college entrance exam,  100 percent of students taking the ACT to earn a score of at least 19, Each school in Little Rock and throughout the state wall publish a-school performance report for parents based on the accountabili^ system results. Schools that do not make adequate progress in meeting goals will and targeted by the Little Rock district for assistance. Schools that do make sufficient progress will be rewarded with public recognition and with nominations for national honors. Representatives from each Little  Rock school will be provided initial training on the accountability system at a workshop at the end of this month. \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_689","title":"Transition report guidelines","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":["1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Transition report guidelines"],"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/689"],"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\nLRSD 1999 Transition Report Areas Assigned to Associates School Construction - Melissa Alternative Education - Margie Equitable Allocation of Resources - Skip Extracurricular \u0026amp; Enrichment Activities - Horace Student Participation - Horace Incentive Schools - Melissa Learning Environment - Horace Magnet Schools - Gene Mathematics - Melissa Staffing - Horace Middle School Conversion - Margie Policy Compliance - Gene Program Assessment - Gene Reading and Language Arts - Horace Remediation - Gene Student Assignment - Gene/Melissa Student Discipline - Margieid, ' ti - a Guidelines for LRSD Transition Report March 3, 1999 Condense and paraphrase the language of the provisions, preserving the key words and eliminating extraneous language thats not pertinent to the findings that will follow (e.g., a plan reference to a certain ODM report). Provisions should not be quotations from the plan. Avoid the use of shall or and or\nwrite 40%, not forty percent. Organize the provisions in any way that helps you present your findings most logically and clearly. For example, you can break the provisions into segments and immediately follow that segment with the relative findings. Or, consolidate certain provisions into a related cluster that forms the basis for broader findings. Place the provisions flush with the left margin, and double the space between them. Reference the plan provision at the end of each one. For example: Implement a policy of promotion within. (Pg. 342.2.5.) E, when paraphrasing, you combine two provisions, use a semicolon between the references. Write a short paragraph of introduction to the findings (or make the first paragraph introductory or background in nature) to help set the stage for what follows and thus help readers get their bearings. Findings should be written in narrative, not outline, form. Eliminate bullets except for short lists of items. Make sure that all aspects of any provision or part of a provision are covered in the findings, and, when appropriate, note the source of the information. If a person is the source, state the position of the person instead of the name. If the source of the information is your own experience as a member of a work group, say so. When applicable, you must reference the mid-year report in your findings. Differentiate the factual findings from your own opinions, hopes, or desires and put them in the appropriate sections. Findings are to consist only of information gleaned from interviews, document review, observations, etc. Relegate your opinions, exhortations, worries, etc. to the Conclusions or Recommendations as appropriate. Dont assume that readers know more than you tell them. While our intention is to hit the high points, be sure to include enough information to paint a clear, complete picture. Dont risk sacrificing understanding for brevity. When in doubt, fill it out. Avoid introducing new information into the summaries that doesnt appear in the findings. If you use examples in the summary, make sure the examples are used in the findings. Since many of the findings are brief, the corresponding summaries will be similarly short, containing just the main points. Since they are probably the only thing many of our audience will read, the summaries must contain a condensation of the most important findings in concise language.Include a budget component or reference everywhere it could possibly be relevant. For example, budget implications are inherent in training costs, new positions, new programs, etc. What corresponding budget provisions has the district made, plans to make, has yet to make, or failed to make? Diversify language to help retain reader interest and avoid overusing certain phrases and words, especially provide, regarding, and according to. Begin each recommendation with an action verb.Date: March 19, 1999 To: All Associates From\nRe: Team edit Attached are some of the draft reports on the LRSD transition. They are ready to to through the team editing process. Polly would have distributed them yesterday, but we know why she didnt. Im aware of the schedule and deadlines on your remaining reports, and the team edit doesnt supplant that schedule. Do the editing at those times that youre not able to make headway on your remaining reports (waiting on futher interviews, information, etc.) With Polly out sick, bad bugs threatening the health of us all, and the D .C. trip imminent, please make good use of your time and fold the editing into your day as you can. i3 4 Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEV-O August 24, 1999 AUG 2  'iSa OFRCtCr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown\nThe August 11** Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division! department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided\n Overall Alternative Education Program seats for '99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student! school retention and reduced suspension ! dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD. especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 4 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented. * ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, .e^e V. amine Superintendent of SchoolsDate: August 26, 199 To: All Associates From: Re: .espouse from Gamine Attached is a copy of the letter I received from Les Gamine yesterday. As you will see, he purports to be adding information to our transition report that may not have been available at the time of report findings. Please find those points in the letter that were covered (or not) in the section of the report you wrote. Then write me a brief note telling me your comments on Dr. Gamines point. For example, he says that funding sources for Stephens were determined in the March 1999 board meeting\nhe asserts that the role of the ombudsman was clarified in early August. Do you agree' If so, is this what the report said? Who at the LRSD reviewed that finding? Did he or she agree or disagree with the way we handled that information? And so on. I may respond to Les to emphasize that his staff read our findings and had the chance to correct or update them. Your comments will help me decide how much to say to him. Thanks very much. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 September 9, 1999 Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: Thank you for your recent letter in response to our August 1999 report on the districts preparations for this school year. Im glad to hear that you and your staff have read the document, and we hope you have found it helpful. I appreciate the additional information that you provided in your letter. As for your speculation that the information may not have been available at the time of our research, I want to emphasize what our reports introduction notes: LRSD staff members who had contributed to our research (either through direct interviews or by providing documentation) received the rough draft of our findings a few days before our report was finalized and published. On August 3 we hand delivered the drafts, invited your staff to offer corrections or updated information, and picked up their written comments on August 5. We reviewed those comments, made appropriate changes in the report, and then filed the completed document less than a week later on August 11. This advance review of our findings is designed to assure the accuracy and completeness of our reports. How successfully we reach that goal depends in great part on the accuracy and completeness of the information upon which we base our reports. I believe that we afforded your staff a fair opportunity to help us get this report right. Sincerely yours, ------- Ann S. Browni S rL To: From: Subj: Ann Brown and ODM Staff Bonnie Lesley Report on LRSD Transition Activities Date: August 4, 1999 RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 omcEOh DESEGREGATION MONITORIMa The following are my comments in response to the draft document that you sent to my office on the afternoon of August 3. Program Assessment I think the findings on this section are far too nanow to reflect the work that occurred during 1998-99. We understand, of course, that it is very difficult to gather enough information to have a complete picture of a years worth of work in only a few interviews. Our staff looked, for instance, at the performance of every elementary school and the district as a whole as a part of the process of making the necessary changes in Reading and Language Arts that were other obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concluded, of course, that a big part of the problem (the problem being defined as only about 30 percent of the students are performing at the proficient level or above) was that LRSD really didnt have a reading/language arts program, that individual teachers and individual schools were making decisions based on their best information on curriculum and instruction. Part of our program evaluation was hearing from teacher after teacher and principal after principal that a big problem in the district was lack of consistency in the language arts program. This lack of focus and alignment with the state curriculum framework handicapped all students who were mobile, but especially African American children who are more likely to come from poverty in this community. Our assessment of current practice also revealed: * * * * * * * * lack of in-depth professional development for teachers too many pull-outs and other distractions from the language arts block insufficient time allotted to teach the language arts as many as twelve different phonics programs school practices such as silent cafeterias that discouraged the social use of language no written guidance for teachers on the curriculum standards and benchmarks a proliferation of programs without a clear focus of what they were supposed to achieve no congruence between Title I programs and the regular curriculum/ instruction program. Our program evaluation resulted in clear conclusions that what we were doing was not working, especially for African American children. The District plan that we constructed was totally research-based and is reflected in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan that was provided to ODM staff. We tried to model in this process and in our written plan the process of using data for decision-making, of using research to shape program design, of aligning programs with state frameworks and assessments, of constructing systemic designs, not just tinkering at the edges, and planning ahead for assessment and program evaluation. We are very proud of the fact that our PreK-3 plan included strategies for restructuring Title I programs, for instance, not just the regular program.We have since your last interviews established the formal program evaluation agenda for 1999-2000, and it will go to the board in August: 1. PreK-3 Literacy Program 2. ESL 3. Middle School Transition 4. National Science Foundation Project To the extent possible, data will be collected and analyzed relating to other programs, but our plan is to create an evaluation cycle so that over five years we can at least provide data for decision-making on the core programs. We also intend to require that all future grant proposals include a set-aside budget to fund the evaluation activities so that our district staff do not get consumed doing grant-funded evaluations and never get to the core programs of the district.Reading and Language Arts I have several corrections to make in this report. 1st paragraph: Our staff development this year in reading and language arts focused on the following: * * * * * * * * * * * * Implementation of Smart Start, the states initiative. We attended the ADE conferences, used their materials and videotapes with faculties, trained central staff and principals, etc. We obtained a state waiver to provide three restructuring days at the end of the 1998-99 school year for training to prepare for implementation of new programs in fall 1999. Elementary teachers focused on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics\nmiddle school teachers focused on transition issues\nand high school teachers focused on strategies for teaching in the block. Began training a cadre of school-level literacy coaches in ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas)~the professional development that provides teachers with training on research on teaching reading and specific strategies that are effective in teaching all children how to read. More than 100 primary-level teachers have received the first level of ELLA training (prior to starting school in August). Others will be trained at the basic level by November 1. We sent several staff members to the training of trainers for Effective Literacythe professional development for grades 3-5 teachers. This training will be provided to District teachers as quickly as possible in fall 1999. Approximately 40 grade 4 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July on reading/writing connections-specific strategies to help students perform well on the state grade 4 benchmark examination. Approximately 40 grades 6-8 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July to prepare them to teach the new Reading and Writing Workshop. On July 23 we provided a full-day of training for principals on the new curriculum/instruction/assessment programs to be implemented in fall 1999. One session for elementary principals gave them an overview of the new ELLA program and what to expect when observing teachers. We have provided several books to each elementary school on various aspects of developing high levels of literacy among primaryage children. School staffs are encouraged to establish study groups to read and discuss these materials and make decisions on ways that the ideas ctm be incorporated into their lessons. On August 9-10-11 the grades 6-8 teachers will meet with Linda Rief, author of a book called Seeking Diversity on how to implement the Reading and Writing Workshop. On August 16-17 the kindergarten teachers will receive training in the implementation of the new phonemic awareness program. Animated Literacy. On August 12, 13, and 16, high school English teachers will experience three days of training on the reading and writing connections appropriate for adolescent students. A special emphasis will be on preparing students for the end-of-level Literacy Examination in April of grade 11.* During August Preschool Inservice, elementary teachers will again focus on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics, middle school teachers on middle school transition and instructional strategies, and high school teachers on discipline-specific strategies aligned with the newly published secondary curriculum standards and benchmarks. Last paragraph on page 2 under Findings. We didnt really present to the Board a policy. We presented to the Board for their review the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, which serves as administrative regulations on the structuring of the school day. We have a draft of formal administrative regulations for elementary, middle, and high schools, but these drafts are not yet quite ready for board review. A major accomplishment during 1998-99 was the development of a curriculum map for each of the four curriculum areas. These maps include the alignment of district grade-level and course benchmarks with the state curriculum frameworks, the SAT9, and with adopted textbook materials. Teachers have in one document for each grade level all this information. ACSIP (the new name for Arkansas accreditation) requires teacher-level curriculum maps, so all the Little Rock teachers will have to do is align their lesson plans with the district documents. Also, at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year all we had was K-5 standards. Now we have K-12 standards and grade-level and core course benchmarks. Elementary teachers received their documents during the June 2-3-4 inservice, and secondary teachers will receive theirs on August 16. The report does not mention all the work we have done this year to restructure the middle school language arts programs. Regular-level students will take a two-period block called the Reading and Writing Workshop. We will begin implementation in fall 1999 of the Nanci Atwell model. Teachers will need considerably more training than the one week we could provide before school started to be able fully to implement the model, so realistically we will be phasing in this new approach to teaching language arts. Students at the Pre-AP level will have the same course, but in a one-period block. There is an optional second-hour courses called Research and Writing, which some middle schools have encouraged all Pre-AP students to take. In addition, some new language arts electives have been added to the middle level: * * * Expressions! (a speech/drama course available at all three grade levels)\nWrite On! (a journalism course available at grades 7-8) TV Writing and Production (available at grade 8) On our plate for 1999-2000 will be the restructuring of the high school language arts programs, including a new curriculum for the required Communications I course.Another major effort to improve literacy has been in the restructuring of our PreK-12 ESL program for fall 1999. Some of our actions were also in process when we under-went a compliance review from OCR in March. In fall 1999 we will implement the following changes: * * * * *  * * Begin serving PreK children in the ESL program. Added ten teachers to the elementary Newcomer Centers so that class-size could be reduced in the classrooms serving ESL students. We used our allocation from the Class-size Reduction funds from the federal government to pay the teachers this year. Brady1 Chicot3 Romine2 Terry-2 Washington-2 Added Terry as a Newcomer Center since they expect approximately 40 ESL students in fall 1999. Added new ESL courses in the core curriculum at the middle and high school levels. A full-time ESL coordinator will be employed in August to oversee the program. We have budgeted funds for a big emphasis on professional development for all teachers teaching ESL children, including a tuition-reimbursement program so that teachers can secure their ESL endorsement. Program procedures will be developed where necessary, formalized, training provided on implementation, and processes to monitored to ensure compliance with OCR guidelines. Funds have been budgeted to provide translations of critical documents into the languages of parents. Note also that the District CRTs that were administered in 1998-99 also included reading. Our assessment plan for 1999-2000 includes these changes: * * * the addition of a kindergarten literacy test, especially to test phonemic awareness, since that knowledge is the best predictor of a students learning to read in grade 1 the addition of a grade 1 literacy test the administration of new District-adopted CRTs for grades 2-11 in reading/ writing literacy and mathematics. These tests will be administered each quarter so that teachers can quickly identify students who need remediation and so that teaching strategies can be adjusted to ensure more success. I did not find mentioned anywhere in your report the work we did to enhance graduation requirements. These new standards are important in understanding the overall plan for improvement. The new expectations are outlined in the curriculum catalog, which we provided you, but please call if you need more information. Successful School Restructuring by Fred Newmann and Gary Wehlage says that one of the most important things a high school can do to improve achievement is to expose all students to a rigorous common core. That was our intent in designing the new graduation requirements.Mathematics Page 2the paragraph on math specialists: We have funded additional mathematics specialists to support the implementation of the new mathematics curricula in the following ways: * * Two specialists were funded from the professional development portion of the Class-size Reduction funds provided by the federal government\nOne specialist was funded from Title VI\nSee Dennis Glasgows responses for other details. I was not able to spend time with him today to get the details that I needed, but I know that he is going to have more assistance in 1999-2000 to accelerate the implementation, to provide classroom coaching, and to provide follow-up training for teachers who need it. Again, our regulations on the school day are drafted, but have not yet been presented to the board. The District CRTs that we administered in mathematics in 1998-99 were also administered in reading.Middle Schcxjl Transition See Linda Young Austins report on the training provided to schools during June 2-3-4, during the June Middle School Academy, and during the August Preschool Inservice.Student Participation Second paragraph under Findings\nActually, we do NOT plan to implement AVID in 1999-2000unless the GEAR Up grant is funded for the four targeted middle schools. Third paragraph: We will in spring 2000 make another attempt at the Javits grant to fund high school programs. If the funds were made available this year by the Department of Education, never saw the announcement or the RFP. we We have done much on this obligation without any funding beyond the NSF money, and we^Imow already that enrollment in upper-level courses will improve considerably in fall * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Associate Superintendent met with teachers and counselors in each school to discuss the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the NSF project, to hear from teachers what they need for support, and to plan strategies for enrolling more students for fall 1999. We re made accessible a great deal of training for teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses-in curriculum, instruction, vertical teaming, and strategies to ensure more student success. We have a new board policy on Pre-AP and AP courses and on the GT program. The High School Curriculum Catalog includes a section on the importance of these obligations and encourages the schools to ensure higher levels of enrollment. Each high school principal and each middle and high school counselor received training on this information. Some of the high schools have scheduled a tutoring period to support student success in 1999-2000. We have published this years enrollment data, and Vanessa Cleaver has met with staff at each school to make them aware of their cunent enrollment and to work with them on increasing enrollment in upper-level science and math courses. We added an AP English III courses to the curriculum for 1999-2000, so now students can take two AP English courses. We added a regular-level Calculus course to encourage a broader group of students to enroll in Calculus, not just AP Calculus. The addition of the University Studies program at Hall High has added new opportunities for enrollment in advanced courses and to earn college credit while in high school. Our new Quality Indicators in our accountability plan include a performance standard on Enrollment of Students in Pre-AP or AP Courses. This standard will apply to both middle and high schools. Another Quality Indicator measures the percent of students who complete Algebra I by grade 8. In order for students to have time in their schedule to take Calculus in high school, they need to take Algebra I in grade 8. Our new graduation requirements include Physics I, Biology I, Chemistry I, Algebra I-II, and Geometry for every student. These courses are essential to prepare students for upper-level mathematics and science courses. Our new elementary literacy and mathematics programs have also been designed with the importance in mind of preparing many more students well for the Pre-AP and AP courses.We, of course, would love to implement AVID because we think it would be ideal to address our students needs, but there is much we can do without AVID, and we are examining other program options, such as those promoted by the College Board, writing a local program design, and forming more partnerships with the universities in the area. One restructuring model that we have looked at is the Talent Development Schools promoted by Johns Hopkins University. Some of these schools are operational in Baltimore and other eastern cities, and we think there may be some interest in this model in Little Rock.Remediation Second paragraph under Findings: I remember our discussion on this, and I remember telling the team about my experience in Waco where students were ability grouped: basic, regular, advanced. Little Rock did not have those three levels-to my knowledge. The curriculum included regular-level courses. plus a variety of courses labeled gifted/talented, 99 honors, enriched, advanced, and AP. The staff was vague at all levels on how these different labels distinguished instruction, so we made the decision to have only two levels of courses at the secondary schools: regular and either Pre-AP or AP. 99 tf What I think I said was that it is apparent that the only students being exposed to the tested curriculum in many schools are those taking the Pre-AP or AP courses. Teachers tell me that in too many cases the regular level courses are rather consistently taught below-level, and the Pre-AP courses rarely go beyond what we would consider grade-level. That is why standards and grade-level benchmarks are so important, and that is why the frequent assessment of student performance through the District CRTs is so important. We have got to know whether we are teaching the tested curriculum, and we have got to know early if individual students need remediation. We do have a draft policy and regulation on the elimination of racial disparities with clear procedures laid out. Those documents will probably move forward to the Board in the next month or two. Title 1 There are big changes in Title 1 for fall 1999. All elementary schools, except the magnet schools, will be Title 1 schools in 1999-2000, including Terry. Elementary schools will receive approximately $450 per eligible student in 1999-2000, but since the schools are smaller with the movement of grade 6 to the middle schools, some schools will receive less funding in 1999-2000 than in previous years. Since a great majority of Title 1 schools failed to meet their improvement goals last year, they were identified for improvement. One of the mandates when a school is identified is that they can no longer do what they were doing. They have to construct a plan that has a better (research-based) chance of ensuring the academic success of increasing numbers of students. We have worked hard on that. Please dont forget that Success for All is the largest remedial program at the elementary level. We have that program in nine schools. Another school, Washington, uses Direct Instruction, as its intervention. Cloverdale Middle School and Southwest Middle School will receive extensive funding since they each are anticipated to have more than 75% poverty. The other five middle schools (excluding Mann since it is a magnet) will collaborate in using their funding to insure the successful implementation of the Reading and Writing Workshop and to provide teachers with strategies for ensuring more student success. All three middle school grades will be assessed: grades 6 and 8 with the state benchmark exams and grade 7 with the SAT9. Pulaski Heights will pilot in 1999-2000 a new remedial reading program based on the Shriner dyslexia strategies, and Mablevale will pilot Project Read. We will study these two approaches to determine whether we should advocate wider implementation of either or both. We are also looking at a new program for secondary students called Read Right, but we dont have much information on it as yet.The district hosted during the week of July 26 two different Institutes for the principals and Campus Leadership Teams from each school. A big part of the training emphasized the imperative to improve student achievement. Schools will now submit one School Improvement Plan that will satisfy the requirements of the district, of Title I, and of ACSIP (accreditation). Each participant received a training notebook and a copy of the Handbook for Campus Leadership Teams, which included a copy of ACTAAP (state accountability system) and the districts new system for Collective Responsibility. A new publication. Guidelines for School Improvement Planning, will be published the week of August 2 for the schools to use. An important remediation program in the district is summer school. We served more district students this year since the policy was changed to not admit out-of-district students until all district students were guaranteed access. (Sadie Mitchell has the reports on this summers programs.) We also developed a model for an after-school Reading Clinic for elementary and middle school students (recommended in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan as an appropriate intervention). Another important remediation program is the new ACC program-Accelerated Learning Center-for high school students who are overage and credit-deficient. This program graduated many students in 1998-99 who probably would not have graduated otherwise, enabled many more to earn GED certificates, and served more than 200 in the summer school program. A third ongoing remediation program is the evening high school. I know that you are familiar with it. Each schools School Improvement Plan will include a series of interventions under 3-5 priority areas. The schools have been instructed to include among their priorities the improvement of achievement in reading/writing literacy and the improvement of achievement in mathematics. The interventions under each of these areas will be the strategies that the school will design to remediate student achievement so that the school achieves its mandated improvement goals. (FII attach to this a copy of our draft document on how they are to do this for your information.) These sets of interventions will be school-level remedial programs, for the most part. Youll find the step on designing interventions to be helpful to this report, I think. Arkansas needs to fund compensatory education. Otherwise, we dont see a consistent source of revenue to fund the kinds of remedial program, K-12, that are needed for the diversity of students that we serve. The new Poverty Index funds are a start in this direction, but not all schools have access to these dollars.In General There is much more to tell-all aligned and coherent with the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We had 51 priorities in our Divisions work plan last year, and we achieved 49 of them, plus several others that we didnt know would be on our plate. The nature of education is that there is always so much more to do than we have time and resources to accomplish, but we feel that we made giant steps forward in 1998- 99. Our major focus in 1999-2000 is to ensure as much success in implementation as possible. We are so confident in the quality of our designs and in our professional development programs that we know that we will see some improvement in our test scores this year. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to react. If I can answer further questions or provide copies of other documents, please dont hesitate to ask.To: From: Subj: Ann Brown and ODM Staff Bonnie Lesley Report on LRSD Transition Activities Date: August 4, 1999 RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 OFFICE 01- DESEGREGATION MONITORIKG The following are my comments in response to the dral't document that you sent to my office on the afternoon of August 3. Program Assessment 1 think the findings on this section are far too narrow to reflect the work that occurred during 1998-99. We understand, of course, that it is very difficult to gather enough information to have a complete picture of a years worth of work in only a few interviews. Our staff looked, for instance, at the performance of every elementary school and the district as a whole as a part of the process of making the necessary changes in Reading and Language Arts that were other obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concluded, of course, that a big part of the problem (the problem being defined as only about 30 percent of the students are performing at the proficient level or above) was that LRSD really didnt have a reading/language arts program, that individual teachers and individual schools were making decisions based on their best information on curriculum and instruction. Part of our program evaluation was heanng from teacher after teacher and principal after principal that a big problem in the district was lack of consistency in the language arts program. This lack of focus and alignment with the state curriculum framework handicapped all students who were mobile, but especially African American children who are more likely to come from poverty in this community. Our assessment of current practice also revealed * * * * * * * * lack of in-depth professional development for teachers too many pull-outs and other distractions from the language arts block insufficient time allotted to teach the language arts as many as twelve different phonics programs school practices such as silent cafeterias that discouraged the social use of language no written guidance for teachers on the curriculum standards and benchmarks a proliferation of programs without a clear focus of what they were supposed to achieve no congruence between Title I programs and the regular curriculum/ instruction program. Our program evaluation resulted in clear conclusions that what we were doing was not working, especially for African American children. The District plan that we constructed was totally research-based and is reflected in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan that was provided to ODM staff. We tried to model in this process and in our written plan the process of using data for decision-making, of using research to shape program design, of aligning programs with state frameworks and assessments, of constructing systemic designs, not just tinkering at the edges, and planning ahead for assessment and program evaluation. We are very proud of the fact that our PreK-3 plan included strategies for restructuring Title I programs, for instance, not just the regular program.We have since your last interviews established the formal program evaluation agenda for 1999-2000, and it will go to the board in August: 1. PreK-3 Li teracv Program 2. ESL 3. Middle School Transition 4. National Science Foundation Project To the extent possible, data will be collected and analyzed relating to other programs, but our plan is to create an evaluation cycle so that over five years we can at least provide data for decision-making on the core programs. We also intend to require that all future grant proposals include a set-aside budget to fund the evaluation activities so that our district staff do not get consumed doing grant-funded evaluations and never get to the core programs of the district.Reading and Language Arts I have several corrections to make in this report. 1st paragraph: Our staff development this year in reading and language arts focused on the following: * * * * * * * * * * * * Implementation of Smart Start, the states initiative. We attended the ADE conferences, used their materials and videotapes with faculties, trained central staff and principals, etc. We obtained a state waiver to provide three restructuring days at the end of the 1998-99 school year for training to prepare for implementation of new programs in fall 1999. Elemental^ teachers focused on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics\nmiddle school teachers focused on transition issues\nand high school teachers focused on strategies for teaching in the block. Began training a cadre of school-level literacy coaches in ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas)-the professional development that provides teachers with training on research on teaching reading and specific strategies that are effecti\\ e in teaching all children how to read. More than KX) primary-level teachers have received the first level of ELLA training (prior to starting school in August). Others will be trained at the basic level by November 1. We sent several staff members to the training of trainers for Effective Literacy-the professional development for grades 3-5 teachers. This training will be provided to District teachers as quickly as possible in fall 1999. Approximately 40 grade 4 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July on reading/writing connections-specific strategies to help students perform well on the state grade 4 benchmark examination. Approximately 40 grades 6-8 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July to prepare them to teach the new Reading and Writing Workshop. On July 23 we provided a full-day of training for principals on the new curriculum/instruction/assessment programs to be implemented in fall 1999. One session for elementary principals gave them an overview of the new ELLA program and what to expect when observing teachers. We have provided several books to each elementary school on various aspects of developing high levels of literacy among primaryage children. School staffs are encouraged to establish study groups to read and discuss these materials and make decisions on ways that the ideas can be incorporated into their lessons. On August 9-10-11 the grades 6-8 teachers will meet with Linda Rief, author of a book called Seeking Diversity on how to implement the Reading and Writing Workshop. On August 16-17 the londergarten teachers will receive training in the implementation of the new phonemic awareness program. Animated Literacy. On August 12, 13, and 16, high school English teachers will experience three days of training on the reading and writing connections appropriate for adolescent students. A special emphasis will be on preparing students for the end-of-level Literacy Examination in April of grade 11.* During August Preschool Inservice, elementary' teachers will again focus on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics, middle school teachers on middle school transition and instructional strategies, and high school teachers on discipline-specific strategies aligned with the newly published secondary' curriculum standards and benchmarks. Last paragraph on page 2 under Findings. We didnt really present to the Board a policy. We presented to the Board for their review the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, which serves as administrative regulations on the structuring of the school day. We have a draft of formal administrative regulations for elementary, middle, and high schools, but these drafts are not yet quite ready for board review. A major accomplishment dunng 1998-99 was the development of a curriculum map for each of the four curriculum areas. These maps include the alignment of district grade-level and course benchmarks with the state curriculum frameworks, the SAT9, and with adopted te.xtbook materials. Teachers have in one document for each grade level all this information. ACSIP (the new name for Arkansas accreditation) requires teacher-level curriculum maps, so all the Little Rock teachers will have to do is align their lesson plans with the district documents. Also, at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year all we had was K-5 standards. Now we have K-12 standards and grade-level and core course benchmarks. Elementarv teachers received their documents during the June 2-3-4 inservice, and secondary teachers will receive theirs on August 16. The report does not mention all the work we have done this year to restructure the middle school language arts programs. Regular-level students will take a two-period block called the Reading and Writing Workshop. We will begin implementation in fall 1999 of the Nanci Atwell model. Teachers will need considerably more training than the one week we could provide before school started to be able fully to'implement the model, so realisticallv we will be phasing in this new approach to teaching language arts. Students at the Pre-AP level will have the same course, but in a one-period block. There is an optional second-hour courses called Research and Writing, which some middle schools have encouraged all Pre-AP students to take. In addition, some new language arts electives have been added to the middle level' *  * * Expressions! (a speech/drama course available at all three grade levels)\nWrite On! (a journalism course available at grades 7-8) TV Writing and Production (available at grade 8) On our plate for 1999-2(XX) will be the restructuring of the high school language arts programs, including a new curriculum for the required Communications I course.Another major effort to improve literacy has been in the restructuring of our PreK-12 ESL program for fall 1999. Some of our actions were also in process when we under-went a compliance review from OCR in March. In fall 1999 we will implement the following changes: * * * * * * * * Begin serving PreK children in the ESL program. Added ten teachers to the elementary' Newcomer Centers so that class-size could be reduced in the classrooms serving ESL students. We used our allocation from the Class-size Reduction funds from the federal government to pay the teachers this year. Brady-1 Chicot3 Romine-2 Terry-2 Washington-2 Added Terry as a Newcomer Center since they expect appro.ximately 40 ESL students in fall 1999. Added new ESL courses in the core curriculum at the middle and high school levels. A full-time ESL coordinator will be employed in August to o\\ ersee the program. We have budgeted funds for a big emphasis on professional development for all teachers teaching ESL children, including a tuition-reimbursement program so that teachers can secure their ESL endorsement. Program procedures will be developed where necessary', formalized, training provided on implementation, and processes to monitored to ensure compliance with OCR guidelines. Funds have been budgeted to provide translations of critical documents into the languages of parents. Note also that the District CRTs that were administered in 1998-99 also included reading. Our assessment plan for 1999-2CXX) includes these changes: * . . .. . - the addition of a kindergarten literacy test, especially to test phonemic * * awareness, since that knowledge is the best predictor of a students learning to read in grade 1 the addition of a grade 1 literacy test the administration of new District-adopted CRTs for grades 2-11 in reading/ writing literacy and mathematics. These tests will be administered each quarter so that teachers can quickly identify students who need remediation and so that teaching strategies can be adjusted to ensure more success. I did not find mentioned anywhere in your report the work we did to enhance graduation requirements. These new standards are important in understanding the overall plan for improvement. The new expectations are outlined in the curriculum catalog, which we provided you, but please call if you need more information. Successful School Restructuring by Fred Newmann and Gary Wehlage says that one of the most important things a high school can do to improve achievement is to expose all students to a rigorous common core. That was our intent in designing the new graduation requirements.Mathematics Page 2-the paragraph on math specialists: We have funded additional mathematics specialists to support the implementation of the new mathematics curricula in the following ways: * * Two specialists were funded from the professional development portion of the Class-size Reduction funds provided by the federal government\nOne specialist was funded from Title VI\nSee Dennis Glasgows responses for other details. 1 was not able to spend time with him today to get the details that 1 needed, but 1 know that he is going to have more assistance in 1999-2000 to accelerate the implementation, to provide classroom coaching, and to provide follow-up training for teachers who need it. Again, our regulations on the school day are drafted, but have not yet been presented to the board. The District CRTs that we administered in mathematics in 1998-99 were also administered in reading.Middle School Transition See Linda Young Austins report on the training provided to schools during June 2-3-4, during the June Middle School Academy, and during the August Preschool Inservice.Student Participation Second paragraph under Findings: Actually, we do NOT plan to implement AVID in 1999-2000unless the GEAR Up grant is funded for the four targeted middle schools. Third paragraph: We will in spring 2000 make another attempt at the Javits grant to fund high school programs. If the funds were made available this year by the Department of Education, we never saw the announcement or the RFP. We have done much on this obligation without any funding beyond the NSF money, and we know already that enrollment in upper-level courses will improve considerablv in fall 1999. * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Associate Superintendent met with teachers and counselors in each school to discuss the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the NSF project, to hear from teachers what they need for support, and to plan strategies for enrolling more students for fall 1999. We re made accessible a great deal of training for teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses-in curriculum, instruction, vertical teaming, and strategies to ensure more student success. We have a new board policy on Pre-AP and AP courses and on the GT program. The High School Curriculum Catalog includes a section on the importance of these obligations and encourages the schools to ensure higher levels of enrollment. Each high school principal and each middle and high school counselor received training on this information. Some of the high schools have scheduled a tutonng period to support student success in 1999-2(X)0. We have published this years enrollment data, and Vanessa Cleaver has met with staff at each school to make them aware of their current enrollment and to work with them on increasing enrollment in upper-le\\'el science and math courses. We added an AP English III courses to the curriculum for 1999-2000, so now students can take two AP English courses. We added a regular-level Calculus course to encourage a broader group of students to enroll in Calculus, not just AP Calculus. The addition of the University Studies program at Hall High has added new opportunities for enrollment in advanced courses and to earn college credit while in high school. Our new Quality Indicators in our accountability plan include a performance standard on Enrollment of Students in Pre-AP' or AP Courses. This standard will apply to both middle and high schools. Another Quality Indicator measures the percent of students who complete Algebra I by grade 8. In order for students to have time in their schedule to take Calculus in high school, they need to take Algebra I in grade 8. Our new graduation requirements include Physics I, Biology I, Chemistry I, Algebra I-Il, and Geometry for every student. These courses are essential to prepare students for upper-level mathematics and science courses. Our new elementary literacy and mathematics programs have also been designed with the importance in mind of preparing many more students well for the Pre-AP and AP courses.We, of course, would love to implement AVID because we think it would be ideal to address our students needs, but there is much we can do without AVID, and we are examining other program options, such as those promoted by the College Board, writing a local program design, and forming more partnerships with the universities in the area. One restructuring model that we have looked at is the Talent Development Schools promoted by Johns Hopkins University. Some of these schools are operational in Baltimore and other eastern cities, and we think there may be some interest in this model in Little Rock.Remediation Second paragraph under Findings: I remember our discussion on this, and 1 remember telling the team about my experience in Waco where students were ability grouped: basic, regular, advanced. Little Rock did not have those three levels-to my knowledge. The curriculum included regular-level courses. plus a variety of courses labeled gifted/talented, honors, enriched, advanced, and AP. The staff was vague at all levels on how these different labels distinguished instruction, so we made the decision to have only two levels of courses at the secondary schools: regular and either Pre-AP or AP. 'C What I think I said was that it is apparent that the only students being exposed to the tested curriculum in many schools are those taking the Pre-AP or AP courses. Teachers tell me that in too many cases the regular level courses are rather consistently taught below-level, and the Pre-AP courses rarely go beyond what we would consider grade-level. That is why standards and grade-level benchmarks are so important, and that is why the frequent assessment of student performance through the District CRTs is so important. We have got to know whether we are teaching the tested curriculum, and we have got to know early if individual students need remediation. We do have a draft policy and regulation on the elimination of racial disparities with clear procedures laid out. Those documents will probably move forward to the Board in the next month or two. Title I There are big changes in Title I for fall 1999. All elementary schools, except the magnet schools, will be Title I schools in 1999-2(X)0, including Terry. Elementary schools will receive approximately $450 per eligible student in 1999-2000, but since the schools are smaller with the movement of grade 6 to the middle schools, some schools will receive less funding in 1999-2000 than in previous years. Since a great majority of Title I schools failed to meet their improvement goals last year, they were identified for impro\\ ement. One of the mandates when a school is identified is that they can no longer do what they were doing. They have to construct a plan that has a better (research-based) chance of ensuring the academic success of increasing numbers of students. We have worked hard on that. Please dont forget that Success for All is the largest remedial program at the elementary level. We have that program in nine schools. Another school, Washington, uses Direct Instruction, as its intervention. Cloverdale Middle School and Southwest Middle School will receive extensive funding since they each are anticipated to have more than 75% poverty. The other five middle schools (excluding Mann since it is a magnet) will collaborate in using their funding to insure the successful implementation of the Reading and Writing Workshop and to provide teachers with strategies for ensuring more student success. All three middle school grades will be assessed: grades 6 and 8 with the state benchmark exams and grade 7 with the SAT9. Pulaski Heights will pilot in 1999-2000 a new remedial reading program based on the Shriner dyslexia strategies, and Mablevale will pilot Project Read. We will study these two approaches to determine whether we should advocate wider implementation of either or both. We are also looking at a new program for secondary' students called Read Right, but we dont have much information on it as yet.The district hosted during the week of July 26 two different Institutes for the principals and Campus Leadership Teams from each school. A big part of the training emphasized the imperative to improve student achievement. Schools will now submit one School Improvement Plan that will satisfy the requirements of the district, of Title I, and of ACSIP (accreditation). Each participant received a training notebook and a copy of the Handbook for Campus Leadership Teams, which included a copy of ACTAAP (state accountability system) and the districts new system for Collective Responsibility. A new publication. Guidelines for School Improvement Planning, will be published the week of August 2 for the schools to use. An important remediation program in the district is summer school. We served more district students this year since the policy was changed to not admit out-of-district students until all district students were guaranteed access. (Sadie Mitchell has the reports on this summers programs.) We also developed a model for an after-school Reading Clinic for elementary and middle school students (recommended in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan as an appropriate intervention). Another important remediation program is the new ACC program-Accelerated Learning Center-for high school students who are overage and credit-deficient. This program graduated many students in 1998-99 who probably would not have graduated otherwise, enabled many more to earn GED certificates, and served more than 200 in the summer school program. A third ongoing remediation program is the evening high school. I know that vou are familiar with it. Each schools School Improvement Plan will include a series of \"interventions under 3-5 priority areas. The schools have been instructed to include among their priorities the improvement of achievement in reading/writing literacy and the improvement of achievement in mathematics. The interventions under each of these areas will be the strategies that the school will design to remediate student achievement so that the school achieves its mandated improvement goals. (T11 attach to this a copy of our draft document on how they are to do this for your information.) These sets of interventions will be school-level remedial programs, for the most part. You 11 find the step on designing interventions to be helpful to this report, I think. Arkansas needs to fund compensatory education. Otherwise, we dont see a consistent source of revenue to fund the kinds of remedial program, K-12, that are needed for the diversity of students that we serve. The new Poverty Index funds are a start in this direction, but not all schools have access to these dollars.In General There is much more to tell-all aligned and coherent with the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We had 51 pnorities in our Divisions work plan last year, and we achieved 49 of them, plus several others that we didnt know would be on our plate. The nature of education is that there is always so much more to do than we have time and resources to accomplish, but we feel that we made giant steps forward in 1998- 99. Our major focus in 1999-2000 is to ensure as much success in implementation as possible. We are so confident in the quality of our designs and in our professional development programs that we know that we will see some improvement in our test scores this year. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to react. If I can answer further questions or provide copies of other documents, please dont hesitate to ask.RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 Division of Instruction Work Teams 1999-2000 OFRCEOI- desegregation MONITORING The Division of Instruction will be organized in 1999-2000 into several multidisciplinary work teams to which the Work Plan Priorities will be assigned. The way we work will reflect Dr. Terrence Roberts fifth level of commitment, I will do whatever it takes to help schools help children learn. There will be essentially four kinds of teams: 1. 2. 3. 4. Existing departments. Current departments will continue to carry on some of their traditional assignments. For example, the Mathematics/Science Department will continue with their work of implementing the NSF project, as well as providing leadership in curriculum development, standards implementation, discipline-specific professional development, textbook adoptions, etc. The Department of Exceptional Children will continue with their current functions in running that program. Work Teams. Six new work teams will be established, three reporting directly to the Associate Superintendent and three reporting to the Assistant Superintendent of School Improvement. School-Level Teams. Three additional teams will be formed composed of elementary, middle, and high school experts to coordinate and articulate the curriculum and other programs and to provide more specific support to schools. Audit Teams. We are committed to conducting School Improvement Audits and Curriculum Audits for schools identified for improvement. (See Handbook for Campus Leadership Team, pp. 53-54, for definitions.) Everyone in the Division will be assigned from time to time to serve on these audit teams. Training will be provided in how to conduct an audit. In addition, everyone will continue to serve as brokers and as members of assigned Campus Leadership Teams. The Division will keep its former organizational structure for now, as will other District divisions. All staff will continue to occupy their current offices and reporting relationships. This team organization is transitional. In two to three years the Division will be reorganized, shifting more and more staff to roles more directly supportive of school improvement as the curriculum is better established and as instructional strategies are more institutionalized. The following teams shall be established directly under the Associate Superintendent for Instruction:PreK-12 Teaching and Learning Team (Team Leaders to be Assigned According to Tasks) Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver, Director of NSF Project Marie McNeal, Director of Social Studies TBN, Director of Secondary Language Arts Patricia Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy TBN, Coordinator of ESL and Foreign Language Carol Green, Director of Career and Technical Education Patty Kohler, Director of Exceptional Children Mable Donaldson, Supervisor of Gifted/Talented Education Leon Adams, Director of Federal Programs Ray Gillespie, Director of Athletics and Physical Education Lucy Neal, Director of Libraries/Media Centers and Instructional Technology Barbara Barnes, Special Education Supervisor Susan Chapman, Special Education Supervisor Planning and Development Team Linda Young Austin, Director of Planning and Development, Team Leader Randy Glenn, Special Education Supervisor Parent and Community Involvement Team Debbie Milam, Director of VIPS, Team Leader TBN, Coordinator of Title I Parent Involvement Parent Involvement Liaison, Title I Elna Hasberry, Special Education Supervisor Paulette Martin, Director of Adult Education Marion Baldwin, Director of Community Education Department of School Improvement The team leader for the three teams in School Improvement will be Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent. This new department pulls together a multi-disciplinary group of people, all of whom are responsible to support school improvement and collective responsibility. Depending on the work that needs to be done, all may be working on professional development, test administration, program evaluation, or other assigned tasks, yet each team includes the necessary levels of expertise and specialization to provide leadership in the assigned areas. The School Improvement Teams will work closely with those reporting directly to the Associate Superintendent, and, as appropriate, members will be recruited from other teams to accomplish a task.Testing and Program Evaluation Team Ed Williams, Supervisor, Team Leader TBN, Program Evaluator for Title l/ESL TBN, Program Evaluator for NSF Yvette Dillingham, Testing Specialist Kathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Supervisor Professional Development Team Marion Woods, Coordinator, Team Leader Selma Hobby, Specialist Sue Walls, Specialist Gary Smith, Special Education Supervisor Eunice Smith, Special Education Supervisor Technical Assistance Team Mona Briggs, ACSIP (formerly COE) and CDP Coordinator, Team Leader Eddie McCoy, Title I Specialist Cassandra Steele, Special Education Coordinator1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority: III. B (1) Continuum of Knowledge and Skills Major Tasks/Activities 1. Review and recommend revisions of the Boards Instruction policies. 2. Complete the 7-12 curriculum standards in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Timeline April 1999 January 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Linda Young Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONlTORINfi End-of-Year Report *Reviewed existing Board policies and Administrative Directives to determine needs for revision and new policy statements. *Obtained copies of NSBA model policies for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Revised graduation policy for Board approval in December 1998. Reviewed 1991 Curriculum Audit for suggestions on necessary curriculum/instruction policies. Reviewed Arkansas Accreditation Standards. See also Priority I\nDesegregation and Education Plan/ A. Policies, #9. Drafted a new policy on Credit-by-Examination to be submitted to the Board of Education in February 1999. Drafted new regulations on elementary to middle school and from middle school to high school promotion to be submitted to the Board of Education for information at January 1999 meeting. Completed revision of 35 policies for the Boards first reading in June 1999\nremaining ones will be presented in July 1999, along with complete administrative regulations. Middle school program standards drafted, presented to the Board, and approved for use in developing core curriculum standards in October 1998. Teacher committees appointed to complete curriculum/program standards for reading/language arts and for ESL courses for grades 6- 12 (completed in June 1999). Social studies curriculum standards drafted for grades 7-12 (work completed March 1999). Standards in mathematics and science completed for grades 6-12 (work completed in March 1999). Dissemination of secondary curriculum standards/benchmarks is scheduled for August inservice.Major Tasks/Activities 3. Construct curriculum maps of LRSD standards/benchmarks with Arkansas standards, SAT9 testing objectives (plus other tests as appropriate), and instructional materials. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Timeline January 1999 Responsibility Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon End-of-Year Report *K-6 language arts curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in December 1998. *7-12 reading/language arts curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in January 1999. *K-6 social studies curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in December 1998. *7-12 social studies curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in January 1999. *CuiTiculum maps for science and mathematics, grades K-4, have been completed and submitted to the Assoc. Supt. *Curriculum maps for science and mathematics, grades 5-8, have been completed.Major Tasks/Activities 4. Review and revise middle and high school Curriculum Catalog\nconduct orientation sessions for central office staff, principals, and counselors. 5. Develop specific plan for implementation of K-6 curriculum standards in English language arts and social studies. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Strategic Plan. Strategy 2 Timeline December 1998 February 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon Carol Green Jo Evelyn Elston Gene Parker Marie McNeal Pat Price Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler End-of-Ycar Report *Notified central and school-level staff of deadline of October 16, 1998, for submitting proposed new courses. *Worked with school-level staff (teachers, counselors, registrars, principals) and with central curriculum staff in October, November, and early December to ensure accuracy of documented curriculum. Middle school curriculum committee approved proposed new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Middle School Steering Committee approved proposed new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Board approval of new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Published middle school course selection sheets for each of the eight middle schools in December 1998. Decided to publish triple-fold brochure on middle school curriculum for students and parents instead of a curriculum catalog\navailable in January 1999. Board approval of new high school courses and new high school curriculum in November 1998. Published High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) in December 1998\ndistributed to Board members at December meeting. Published high school course selection sheets in December 1998. Published High School Curriculum Catalog, 1999-2000 (for principals, counselors, registrars, and teachers) in December 1998. Submitted new course numbers for middle and high school courses to technology department. Staff orientation meetings scheduled for elementary counselors, middle school principals and counselors, and high school teams during early January 1999. K-3 reading/language arts curriculum implementation plan drafted and revised. First draft presented to Board in March 1999\nfinal draft presented in June 1999. 4-5 reading/language arts curriculum implementation plan drafted in June 1999\nwill be submitted in late summer. First dissemination and inservice for implementation of curriculum standards/benchmarks conducted in June 2-3-4 inservice for grades K- 5. Dissemination and inservice for grade 6 will occur in August 1999. Conducted one week of training for trainers of ELLA during week of June 21, Scheduled one week of training on teaching reading/writing for grade 4 teachers during week of July 11.Major Tasks/Activities 6. Pilot new science curriculum in selected classes at grades K-8. 7. Pilot new mathematics curriculum in selected classes at grades K-8. 8. Complete plan for middle school curriculum for fall 1999. 9. Publish Middle and High School StudentZParent Curriculum Handbooks. 10. Define and establish Delivery Standards. 11. Align school schedules, PreK-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/ coaching, and parent information/ education with Strategic Plan, Desegregation Plan, and Smart Start. Plan Reference NSF Project Goals 2000 NSF Project Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategics Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5.4 Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 and 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 521., 5.2.2, and 5.2.3 Timeline 1998-99 1998-99 October 1998 January 1999 January 1999 November 1998 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Linda Young Gene Parker Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacey Suellen Vann Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Gene Parker Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Leon Adams Marion Woods End-of-Year Report Science and Technology for Children kits were piloted during the school year at Rockefeller, Franklin, Wakefield, and Chicot. Investigations in Data, Time, and Space were piloted during the school year at Romine, grades K-5. Connected Math Project has been piloted as a replacement module in all grade 6 and 7 classrooms in the District. See #4 above. Board approved middle school program standards in October 1998. Board approved new middle school curriculum in November 1999. See also Priority I. Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School #4, #5, and #10. Board approved funding for curriculum development in March 1999. New curriculum guides for middle school courses completed in June 1999.______________________________________________________ See #4 above. High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) published in December 1998. Middle school curriculum brochure scheduled to be published in January 1999. Plans made to publish a Middle School booklet for students in parents in fall 1999 for 1999-2000 registration. Reviewed research syntheses on delivery standards for Far West Lab. Conducted preliminary conversations on what Delivery Standards for LRSD might look like, This project was delayed until late summer or fall 1999 and will be embedded in the Professional Development Plan.__________________ K-3 Literacy Committee met on Aug. 31, Sept. 16, Oct. 30, Dec. 17, and Jan. 8. Draft report of recommendations was completed on Dec. 18,1998. Report includes the following: Review of current District curriculum, assessment, and implementation. Review of Arkansas Smart Start Initiative to identify possible gaps between the Initiative components and the Districts curricular focus. Identification of all supplemental reading programs currently in use in primary level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the District curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative. (continued on next page)Major Tasks/Activities 12. Align school schedules, mathematics curriculum, and professional development with Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 13. Develop in collaboration with Linda Watson a list of behavior standards\nadopt a discipline/ classroom management/ character education program and curriculum for teaching the behavior standards to all students. 14. Propose for Board adoption revised Graduation Standards and revision of the core curriculum requirements to align with new state requirements. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy! Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.3, 5.3.1,5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5 NSF Project Strategic Plan: Strategy 10 Goals 2000 State law Strategy Plan: Strategy 2 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 5.4 Goals 2000 Timeline November 1998 March 1999 November 1998 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Leon Adams Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Pat Price Marion Woods Marie McNeal Jo Evelyn Elson Patty Kohler Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Kathy Lease Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacey Bonnie Lesley End-of-Year Report Comparison of District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for District benchmarking. Summary of key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. Outline of recommendations. Proposed budget for 1999-2000. Drafted administrative regulations for Elementary Schools. The mathematics curriculum has been revised by a teacher committee to include a smaller number of concepts at each grade level. Training for teachers on the revised curriculum has begun and continued training will occur as the NSF standards-based math curricula are phased in over the next few years. CRTs are being developed for use each quarter in grades 2-6 to measure student mastery of the mathematics grade-level standards and benchmarks. 'NSF grant strategies are underway to improve student performance in * Algebra I and to increase enrollment and success rate in upper-level mathematics courses. The extended-year Algebra I program will take place during summer 1999 to help students achieve better in Algebra I. *Drafted adminstrative regulations to be presented in late summer. Conducted research on model classroom management programs. Exchanged information with Linda Watson. Scheduled a representative from each school to attend the ADE conference on Character-Center Teaching and Learning on January 26, 1999. Scheduled a meeting with Dr. Terry Roberts to consult with the District on this initiative on January 26,1999. Submitted grant proposal in May 1999 to fund training for nine elementary schools to pilot the Child Development Project. Submitted grant proposal in May 1999 to fund training for all secondary staff in Fred Jones Positive Discipline program. Scheduled to participate in training of trainers sessions in July sponsored by ADE. Board approval of new graduation policy in December 1999. Published new graduation policy in High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) in December 1998. Published new graduation policy in High School Curriculum Catalog, 1999-2000 (for staff) in December 1998. Conducted orientation meetings on new graduation policy and high school curriculum for staff in early January 1999.,Major Tasks/Activities 15. Implement Year One of NSF grant project: Extended Year Algebra I\nAP examinations\nnew teacher training\nVital Link\nand Family Math/Science programs. Plan Reference NSF Project Timeline September 1999 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver End-of-Year Report *Extended Year Algebra ITimeline has been established and Algebra I teachers were invited in January to participate in planning the implementation of the Summer 1999 program. A possible collaboration with New Futures was discussed. Initial meeting was held in December 1998\nanother in late January. Students have been identified and invited to participate in the institute during July 26August 6,1999. Teachers participated in a planning session on June 15. A parent meeting was conducted on June 15* for potential SMART participants. Proposed CERTL application includes a collaboration with Philander Smith College for the Summer Readiness Program scheduled for July 19Aug. 6. Eight follow-up sessions are planned for SMART students, in collaboration with PSC, during the regular school year. They are designed to reinforce and expand algebraic skills. *AP ExamsDrafted proposed new policy in November 1998 to require all students who take AP courses to take the corresponding AP exams. Item was withdrawn for more work. *New Teacher TrainingFirst-year secondary mathematics and science teachers received four days of training on Oct. 13 and Dec. 10, 1998, and March 10-11,1999, * Vital LinkPlanning began on January 15 for recruiting additional Vital Link sites that focus on careers in the field of mathematics and science. Businesses with a math/science focus were identified. Overview of NSF grant presented uring the Vital Link teacher inservice as well as the inservice for businesses. Family Math/Science~Planning occurred for teams of teachers from seven schools to participate in the February 8-9 training. Teams of teachers from 5 schools participated in the Family Math/Science inservice on Feb. 8-9. Each team of teachers held 3 family math/science nights at their respective schools. Advisory Committee MeetingsCommittee met on Sept. 22, Oct. 27, Dec. 8, Feb, 23m Narch 23, April 27, and May 25 to review and discuss student performance data and upcoming grant activities. Plans are in progress for an advisory committee retreat. Definition of roles, as well as strategic planning, will be the focus of the retreat. Management Team MeetingsCommittee met monthly with the exception of December. Management Team will plan and implement the retreat for the advisory committee. (continued next page)Major Tasks/Activities Plan Reference Timeline Responsibility End-of-Year Report *Math/Science Vertical TeamsRegistered teachers for College Board sponsored vertical teams conference on Feb. 5-6 (mathematics) and Feb. 19-20 (science). Two mathematics vertical teams have met monthly. Mathematics Vertical Teams Steering Committee was established to set long- and short-range goals for the district. The steering committee met twice and set a time to meet monthly during the 1999-2000 school year. High School VisitsMet with principals and counselors of high schools to review and discuss first quarter data and to set improvement targets. Parent/Community InvolvementPresented an overview of the NSF project to the Christian Ministerial Alliance, Little Rock PTA Council, and the VIPS board. Year 2 plans include Brown Bag lunches at local businesses to inform working parents and the general public about this initiative. A dissemination brochure will be produced and distributed to parents, community, and business people. SECME9 teachers representing 5 schools will participate in the SECME Summer Institute June 20July 2,1999, at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa. SECME programs will be implemented in the 5 additional schools beginning fall 1999. Strategic Plan/Professional Development PlanDeveloped a five- year strategic plan along with a comprehensive professional development plan to guide the work of the LRPMSA. Standards-Based CurriculaTraining was provided for mathematics and science teachers who will be using Investigations, Science and Technology for Children, Connected Mathematics Project, and Active Physics. Follow-up sessions are planned for pre-school conference as well as during the regular school year. * Lead TeachersSubmitted a proposal to NSF to add 4 lead teachers who would work with clusters of elementary schools providing technical support for math and science teachers. Proposal also submitted to add (or assign an existing position) a high school math coordinator, middle school math specialist, a middle school science specialist, and a high school science specialist. *CERTLProposal submnitted to NSF for Centers of Excellence for Research, Teaching, and Learning. CERTL involves subcontracts with PSC, UALR, and LRSD for Active Physics training. UALR activities include a Summer Science Institute for 4* and 5* grade students\nUALR Student Research Camp will provide an opportunity for students to participate in real research projects\nPSC will offer the Summer Algebra Readiness Training which is a three-week summer institute for rising 9'* graders who show academic promise to be successful in Algebra I. LRSD will offer, in collaboration with UALR, a four-hour graduate credit course on Active Physics.Priority ill. B. (2): Personalized Education Major Tasks/Activities 16. Develop Early Childhood Education Plan for fall 1999, to include plan to implement any grant-funded early childhood initiatives. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7 and 5.1 Goals 2000 Timeline February 1999 Responsibility Pat Price Marian Shead- Jackson Patty Kohler Carol Green Aleecia Starkey End-of-Year Report Attended meetings of the collaborative partners involved in Headstart. Discussed the feasibility for expansion. Applied for and was awarded funds for continuance money from Arkansas Belter Chance. Early Childhood Task Force met on Nov. 23, 1998. Agenda items included overview of the program, quality status, and the need for expansion. District sponsored reception for representatives and senators to discuss 1999 legislative issues, such as early childhood funding, on Jan. 7,1999. Early Childhood Task Force meeting held on Jan. 25,1999. Agenda included discussion of issues which may initiate policy discussion and action by the Arkansas General Assembly, such as (1) funding for child care/ eliminating the low-income working waiting list\n(2) additional funding for the Arkansas Better Chance program.Major Tasks/Activities 17. Develop K-12 talent development plan to improve G/T, honors, and AP student enrollment and success (e.g.. Project AVID). Plan Reference Strategic Plan objectives Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.6, 2.6.1, and 2.6,2 NSF Project Timeline November 1998 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Marie McNeal Dennis Glasgow Mona Gibbs Jo Evelyn Elson Marion Woods End-of-Year Report K-23 Talent Development Committee was established in August 1998 to develop a plan\nresearch assignments were made\nand the committee moved to endorse the implementation of Project AVID as the centerpiece of this plan. Eliminated the honors/enriched layer of courses between the regular level and the Pre-AP/AP level at grades 6-12 for the 1999-2000 school year (approved by Board in November 1998). Made all AP courses (except Music Theory AP) available to all high schools for 1999-2000. Changed admission standards so that students with a grade of at least C in a prior Pre-AP or AP courses can enroll in the next level without teacher approval. Working on new policy/regulations relating to AP examinations to be submitted to the Board in summer 1999. *1 'Surveyed all honors, enriched, Pre-AP, and AP teachers to determine what training they had had so that a professional development plan could be designed. *Conducted study of current percentages by school who are performing in the top quartile\npercentages of students taking the ACT\npercentages of students enrolled in AP courses\npercentages of students passing AP courses by school\netc. Paid fee for Mable Donaldson to participate in the first year of training for Project AVID directors. Investigated two potential grants to fund the Project AVID initiative: Gear-Up and Javits federal grants. Applied for Gear-Up funds in collaboration with UALR to implement AVID in four middle schools, if funded, in fall 1999. Conducted one-half day of training on Project AVID for representatives of the curriculum staff, high school principals, high school counselors, parent representatives, and community advocates in October 1998. Conducted one evening of training for members of the Board of Education on Project AVID in October 1998. Distributed information on the Talent Development Middle School to all middle school principals for restructuring ideas. Continued research on effective strategies to close achievement gaps\nread new book on the Black-White Test Score Gap by Jencks.  Met with representative teachers and counselors at three of the five high schools to hear what they believe they need to support the goal of increasing AP enrollment. Discussed with E\u0026gt;r. Angela Sewell, Dean of Education at UALR, the possibility of a university partnership relating to Project AVID.Major Tasks/Activities 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with COE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 19. Complete planning for middle schools and smooth transitions from elementary and to high schools. Plan Reference Strategic Plan. Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7 NSF Project Strategic Plan: Strategy?. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 3.4 Goals 2000 Timeline January 1999 December 1998 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Leon Adams Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Kathy Lease Linda Young M.S. Committees End-ofYear Report Met with ODM staff to discuss Project AVID and its potential benefits to LRSD students. Scheduled a meeting with Dr. Terry Roberts to discuss Project AVID on Jan. 26, 1999, Submitted Gear-Up grant proposal during March 1999 in collaboration with UALR to fund Project AVID in four middle schools\nSouthwest, Mablevale, Henderson, and Cloverdale. Conducted a meeting with Leon Adams on August 5,1998, to discuss several proposed changes and improvements in Title I. Conducted a meeting on the morning of September 4,1998, to review Title I regulations and laws\na team approach to approve Title I plans\nways to embed Title I accountability into the Quality Index\nand ways to align Title I with Campus Leadership. Conducted a meeting on the afternoon of September 4,1998, to discuss needs for a menu of research-based and district-approved programs for Title I schools to choose from\nprocedures for District approval of Title I plans\nalignment of Title I with Smart Start. Conducted meeting on Sept. 18 to discuss proposed changes in the Title I parent program. Conducted input all fall from parents, teachers, and principals on the Title I program and ways that it could be better aligned with other District initiatives and, thus, be more productive. Reviewed with and obtained input from the Cabinet on Jan. 11, 1999, general areas for change and improvement of the Title I program. Embedded Title I changes in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Conducted meetings with principals in April 1999 to discuss changes in 1999-2000 Title I program. Summarized changes in Title I program in principals meeting during May 1999. Met several times in May-June with Cabinet members to make decisions relating to changes in Title I. Met with representative Title I parents in May 1999 to discuss proposed changes in Title I. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School, #3, #6.Major Tasks/Activities 20. Complete planning for ninth grade curriculum aligned with new graduation requirements and the districts standards. 21. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22. Review special education programs, policies, and/or procedures to ensure no racial discrimination in referral and placement. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 And Strategy 3 State laws Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Goals 2000 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.4 Timeline November 1998 June 1999 December 1998 Responsibility Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Patty Kohler End-of-Year Report *See #4 above. *Board approval of new high school curriculum, including grade 9 courses, in November 1998. *See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School, #10._______________________________________________________ *Committee chair appointed to gather data for program/needs assessment. *ESL program representative attended statewide program planning conference. Committee appointed to develop ESL program standards and to identify budget needs. Committee appointed to develop ESL curriculum standards. Met with representative of ADE on needs of LRSDs ESL program. Hosted compliance review by OCR in March 1999 relating to ESL programs and services. Proposed that Class-Size Reducation Allocation be used to hire 10 elementary ESL teachers for 1999-2000. Proposed that the District employ an ESL Coordinator to oversee and provide leadership for the K-12 program. *Tridistrict assessment committee meets regularly to review testing procedures and to make sure that they are free of bias. *Department of Exceptional Childrens strategic plan updated in Dec. 1998\nincludes procedures and equity issues. *Completed an administrative procedures manual in Dec. 1998 for all special education staff to ensure equity in administration of procedures\ncontains checklists to evaluate staffing needs\nsupervisory goals, including equity issues\nLRSD policies that address graduation, which are bias-free\nand other procedures.Major Tasks/Activities 23. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. Plan Reference Arkansas initiative Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7 Timeline January 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Leon Adams Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Patty Kohler Ann Freeman End*of-Year Report Dr. Doug Reeves presented early concepts of Smart Start standards and assessments to a small group from the Division of Instruction in September 1998. Kevin Penix from ADE presented an overview of the Smart Start Initiative to the Division of Instruction on Oct. 14,1998. Bonnie Lesley and Les Gamine attended a session with Dr. Doug Reeves at a state conference in October 1998 on Smart Start. Ann Freeman was reassigned to assist Pat Price with coordination of Smart Start programs and services for LRSD during November 1998. Eisenhower Professional Development grant application aligned with Smart Start submitted to ADE in November 1998. All elementary principals and a facilitator from each school attended two days of Smart Start training sponsored by ADE during the week of Nov. 9-12, 1998, Bonnie Lesley presented session on how Smart Start aligns with Title I, COE, and Campus Leadership at the November principals meeting. Pat Price and Ann Freeman presented an overview of the Smart Start Summit to the Division of Instruction on Nov. 24,1998. Work sessions on standards and assessments conducted by the Division of Instruction on Dec. 14,1998. Presentation of a one-day Data-Driven Decision-Making session for all elementary principals is scheduled for Jan. 19-20-21, 1999. All principals were invited to attend a one-day conference on Character-Centered Teaching and Positive Classroom Discipline Conference, sponsored by ADE, on Jan. 26,1999. Ten satellite teleconferences relating to Smart Start were held at the IRC during year. District representatives attended the NSCI conference on reading and mathematics in New Orleans during January. Frequent information regarding Smart Start implementation was provided principals and other staff through Learning Links during spring 1999.Priority III. B (3): Professional Development Major Tasks/Activities 24. Complete planning and begin implementation of middle school professional development program. 25. Conduct in collaboration with Sadie Mitchell and her staff the Year One training for Campus Leadership Plan. 26. Restructure the districts professional development program and services so that they build professional learning communities at the district and school levels. 27. Implement Year One of ASCDs UPDI project with focus on school change and improving achievement in reading and mathematics. 28. Provide training in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.12 Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 7 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.61., 2.12, 5.2.1j, 5.2.2g, 5.2.3c. 5.3.1 Campus Leadership Plan NSF ASCDs UPDI ASCDs UPDI Revised Desegregation and Education, section 2.12 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.12 and 2.12.1 Timeline January 1999 June 1999 October 1998 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Linda Young Marion Woods Mona Briggs Kathy Lease Prof. Dev. Committee Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Gene Parker Kathy Lease Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Director, Prof. Dev. Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Dir., Prof. Dev. Marion Woods Marion Woods City of Little Rock End-of-Year Report See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School, #4 and #12. The responsibility for this activity was transferred to Sadie Mitchell and her staff. Broker and principal training sessions were conducted in December 1998, January and February 1999. Principals Institute, to include representatives of Campus Leadership Teams, scheduled for week of July 26,1999. Invited by ASCD in August 1998 to apply to join the Urban Professional Development Initiative (UPDI). Presented idea to Cabinet for approval to join UPDI in August 1998. Submitted application to join UPDI to ASCD on August 20, 1998. Presented information item to Board of Education about UPDI in August 1998. Formed a special team to restructure LRSD professional development program and to oversee UPDI activities\nfirst meeting held on Sept. 3, 1998. Four people attended UPDI Network meeting in Alexandria, VA, on Nov. 12-14, 1998. Received official letter of invitation from ASCD to participate in UPDI, Nov. 20,1998. Staff meeting scheduled to begin discussion of professional development plan on Jan. 25,1999. Site visit from ASCD for UPDI conducted on Feb. 1-2,1999. End-of-Quarter Report submitted to ASCD on March 30,1999, Professional Development Plan to be completed during summer 1999.______________________________________________________ See #26 above. Five two-day workshops serving 94 teachers were presented on the following dates: Aug. 4-5\nSept. 14 and 21\nOct. 19 and 22\nNov. 16 and 19\nand Jan. 6 and 13. Scheduled a meeting with Dr. Terry Roberts on Jan. 26,199^, to discuss professional development issues. Workshop conducted for high school teachers on June 4,1999. Tri-District staff development committee and state coops met ten times during year to compile information for districts catalogs, resource guides, and professional libraries.Major Tasks/Activities 29. Consolidate COE, Campus Leadership, Title I, and Instructional Technological planning requirements in collaboration with cluster assignment\ndesign and plan training for Campus Leadership Teams. 30. Develop menus of research-based and approved schoolwide change models and instructional/ curriculum interventions to guide schools in improvement efforts. 31. Assemble a library of reference folders on a wide variety of topics related to school improvement to send to schools upon request. 32. Write and prepare for Fall 1999 distribution a Beginning Teachers Handbook. 33. Provide focused and appropriate training for certified staff in Division of Instruction to improve productivity and leadership. 34. Provide appropriate technology and general training for clerical staff of Division of Instruction to improve productivity and communication. Plan Reference COE Campus Leadership Plan Title I Instructional Technology Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Title I Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Title I Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 6 Goals 2000 Goals 2000 Campus Leadership Plan Strategic Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Smart Start Title I COE Strategic Plan Timeline January 1999 February 1999 January 1999 May 1999 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell and her cluster teams Leon Adams Lucy Lyon Director, Prof. Dev. Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Leon Adams Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Vanessa Cleaver Marion Woods Selma Hobby Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Lucy Lyon End-of-Year Report This work was assigned to one of the clusters to complete. Leadership for these tasks was assigned to Sadie Mitchell. Conducted two meetings in September 1998 to begin the discussion of criteria to identify research-based programs. Recommended best practice books which summarize research to schools through Learning Links. Approved literacy programs were included in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan, Books on research-based programs provided to principals by Division of Instruction. Approximately 75 information folders on a variety of topics related to school reform have been compiled and are available to principals and Campus Leadership Teams. Videotapes and books on middle schools were identified for middle school principals and teachers to check out. Outline for Beginning Teachers Handbook compiled in August 1998. Committee on Teacher Induction, chaired by Dr. Kathy Lease, appointed in spring 1999. Draft of Beginning Teachers Handbook completed in June 1999. 1 *ADE-sponorsed workshop on curriculum mapping by Heidi Jacobs attended by most curriculum staff members in September 1998. Presentation by Dr. Doug Reeves (the state consultant on Smart Start) to curriculum staff members in September 1998. Presentation on Smart Start by Dr. Kevin Pennick from ADE at a Division of Instruction meeting on October 14,1998. Data-Analysis Training (related to Smart Start implementation) presented at meeting of Division of Instruction in December 1998. Four people attended class on Microsoft Word on Oct. 20-22. Four people attended class on PowerPoint on Oct. 26-27. Eight people attended class on Excel on Oct. 19-26. *1 *A number of courses were scheduled for February 1999. *Summer technology classes are being offered.Major Tasks/Activities 35. Provide training for teachers and counselors to improve minority student access and success in Pre-AP and AP courses. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.6.2 NSF Project Timeline November 1998 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Marie McNeal Dennis Glasgow Mona Gibbs Jo Evelyn Elston Marion Woods End-of-Year Report *Conducted one-half session on Project AVID for high school counselors and others in September 1998. *Conducted curriculum orientation meetings for principal and counselors at each high school, including discussion of this priority, in January 1999. *Conducted curriculum orientation session for elementary counselors, including discussion of this priority, on Jan. 20,1999. *Conducted curriculum orientation session for middle school counselors, including discussion of this priority, on Jan. 20,1999. *Developed a plan to ensure that teachers of Pre-AP and AP have equal access and opportunity to participate in College Board professional development workshops during the summer.Priority III. B (4): Building Community Support Major Tasks/Activities 36. Design plan to collaborate with the business community to deliver the Arkansas Scholars program in grade 8 during spring 1999. 37. Restructure the districts parent/ community programs and services to align with the Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the Campus Leadership Plan, the NSF Project, Smart Start, and the requirements of Title I. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (sections on enriched, honors, gifted, and advanced placement courses). Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 And Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.8 and 5.7 Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Timeline December 1998 December 1998 Responsibility Debbie Milam Linda Young Gene Parker End-of-Year Report 'Meeting held on Sept. 24, 1998, with Lee Gordon, ABEA, Bonnie 1 Bonnie Lesley Debbie Milam Leon Adams Catherine Gill Linda Young Patty Kohler Pat Price Paulette Martin Marian Shead- Jackson Marian Baldwin Vanessa Cleaver Lesley, Gene Parker, Linda Young, and Debbie Milam. *Meeting held on Oct. 15,1998, at Chambers Education Committee. Lee Gordon asked for support in recruiting business volunteers to make the Arkansas Scholars presentations to all 8* graders in the three Pulaski County school districts. Meeting held on Dec. 7, 1998, between Debbie Milam and Linda Young to discuss a timeline for LRSD implementation. Meeting scheduled for Jan. 15,1999, between Debbie Milam, LRSD, and Joe Swaty and Sandy Bradley of the Chamber to discuss feasibility of implementing Arkansas Scholars in spring 1999. Arkansas Scholars program implemented in spring 1999. Discussed with Catherine Jordan of SEDL the possibility of Little Rocks participation in their Collaborative Action Team (CAT) training. Conducted a meeting including staff, some community/parent representatives, and Catherine Jordan on November 2 for initial discussion of possible partnership to assist us in restructuring our parent/community programs. Conducted second meeting of committee on November 20,1998, to discuss whether to apply to SEDL for CAT participation\nwrote mission statement for group. Sent application in December 1998 to SEDL to participate in CAT training. Conducted third meeting on January 14,1999, to discuss focus for our work\nparent education/involvement. Fourth meeting and expanded committee membership will be decided upon after conversation with Catherine Jordan about training. Two representatives attended SEDL training in late January 1999. Two SEDL representatives conducted a site visit in Little Rock on April 27 with a cross-section of staff, parents, and community members. Notifed in May 1999 of selection to participate with SEDL in Collaborative Action Team planning. Began implementation of plan to restructure and re-align Title 1 parent program.Priority III. B. (5): Communication Major Tasks/Activities 38. Communicate curriculum standards so that all parents and students understand the expected knowledge and skills by grade level and course. 39. Communicate aspects of middle school planning to students, parents, and community for fall 1999. 40. Provide second-language translations of key documents for students and parents. 41. Implement Learning Links, a weekly publication for principals from the Division of Instruction. 42. Publish at lease six issues of a newsletter for teachers from the Division of Instruction. 43. Conduct twice-a-month meetings for staff in the Division of Instruction. 44. Conduct quarterly meetings of all clerical staff in the Division of Instruction. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Student Success Model Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Student Success Model Student Success Model Student Success Model Timeline May 1999 May 1999 May 1999 September 1998 June 1999 June 1999 August 1998June 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Suellen Vann Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Linda Young Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Anita Gilliam Regina Moore Marian Baldwin Suellen Vann Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley and designated staff End-of-Year Report Committee appointed to develop action plan for communicating curriculum standards to the community. Action plan presented to Strategic Plan Steering Committee and approved in November 1998. Committee appointed to complete identified action steps in approved action plan.  ' 'Designed an audio-visual presentation to communicate the new graduation standards\nto be completed by early Feb. 1999. (This video not yet completed.) Planning established to publish curriculum standards for parents in summer 1999. Draft documents completed in June 1999. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/B. Middle School, #6, #14. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/C. Marketing and Communication, #1, #2. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ D. Student Assignment, #8, #13. State-developed computer software discs acquired with translations of key documents for ESL students and parents. Budgeted for 1999-2000 the costs of translations of key documents. Learning Links has been published weekly since the first week in October 1998 for principals\nit has also been distributed to Cabinet members, most department heads, and members of the Division of Instruction. Meetings conducted with Public Information Office to determine cost and deadlines for publishing a teacher newsletter\nproject delayed due to costs and time restraints. This project delayed until 1999-2000. Staff meetings are scheduled for the second and fourth Wednesdays each month at the IRC\nthey are attended by all the department heads in the Division of Instruction, as well as other staff as appropriate. Monthly meetings conducted in spring 1999. Two meetings were conducted with the clerical staff of the Division of Instruction.Priority III. B (6): Assessment Major Tasks/Activities 45. Design and administer CRTs for fall 1998 in reading and mathematics. 46. Design refined CRTs for reading, mathematics, science, and social studies for piloting in spring 1999 and for implementation in fall 1999. 47. Establish Performance Standards in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. 48. Reinvent PRE programs and services to support the Campus Leadership Plan. 49. Refine the Quality Index indicators and develop district and school profiles according to the proposed Quality Index. 50. Embed Title I and Smart Start accountability requirements into the Quality Index. 51. Begin transition plan for a way of reporting to parents on student progress toward meeting the standards and develop plan to redesign the student grading and reporting system to reflect the standards- based focus of the district. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Strategic Plan: Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.2.1g, 5.2.2e,5.2.3r, and 5.3.2 Campus Leadership Plan NSF Title I and Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan Title I requirements Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Timeline September 1998 December 1998 February 1999 December 1998 February 1999 February 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Kathy Lease Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Cluster B Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Cluster B Kathy Lease Leon Adams Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson End-of-Year Report CRTs have been designed, produced, disseminated, given, scored, and reported. Tests were given in reading and mathematics at all elementary schools. Instructional division staff met in January to review first semester CRT experiences and begin planning for the third and fourth quarter tests in all core subject areas with the addition of the second graders. Planning still in progress for 1999-2000 CRTs. A meeting was scheduled in February to work on this goal. This project was delayed until decisions were made about 1999-2000 CRTs. New staff hired in order to begin to refocus the work of PRE. Staff assignments made to support Campus Leadership, the Strategic Plan, and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Public relations campaign instituted to promote idea that PRE is a service department whose focus is to assist schools and central office staff to reach the goals of the Campus Leadership Plan, the Strategic Plan, and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. *1999-2000 Reorganization Plan establishes new concept for department. See Priority II: Quality Index (2) Student Achievement and Value- Added Incentives. See Priority II: Quality Index (2) Student Achievement and Value- Added Incentives. This work on a new grading system has not begun as yet. Discussions conducted during the first semester on student data management systems capacities and deficiencies. 'Primary Grades Committee established in May 1999 to make recommendations, as per PreK-3 Literacy Plan.Major Tasks/Activities 52. Design waiver form and process for schools seeking waivers from policy relating to Campus Leadership. 53. Redesign end-of-year climate survey to include items relating to measuring progress of reform. 54. Design for Board approval an agenda for evaluation of the Districts academic programs. Plan Reference Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7.1 Campus Leadership Plan Timeline October 1998 February 1999 March 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley End-of-Year Report________________________________ Waiver Application forms distributed via Learning Links in December 1998. *Work in progress with Cluster A and PRE staff. Drafts scheduled for completion in February. Two work sessions with Dr. Steven Ross (consultant) have been completed on initial planning. PRE staff researched program evaluation options. One-day planning meeting scheduled with numerous stakeholders in May 1999. Proposed Board policy developed and submitted to the Board for first reading in June 1999.Priority: Quality Index: (2) Student Achievement and Value-Added Incentives Major Tasks/Activities 1. Identify specific achievement indicators. 2. Identify specific standards/ benchmarks. 3. Identify value-added incentives. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.7,5.2.1,and 5.3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.7, 5.2, and 5.3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.8 Timeline June 1999 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Lesley/Cluster B Lesley/Cluster B Lesley/Cluster B End-of-Year Report *Conducted first meeting of Cluster B on Nov. 20,1998. Reviewed charge, draft of Campus Leadership Plan, and resource documents\ndiscussed and approved proposed work plan for completion of tasks. *Conducted Internet search and purchased other resources to determine practices in other states and districts, especially those with value-added approaches. *Drafted preliminary list of academic indicators for elementary, middle, and high schools for the Quality Index to use for discussion purposes, Jan. 1999. Met with Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis on Jan. 15, 1999, to discuss Tennessees value-added accountability system and preliminary LRSD draft of academic indicators. Second meeting of Cluster B scheduled for Feb. 15,1999. Third meeting of Cluster B conducted on May 6-7,1999. Discussed with Dr. Steve Ross (see #1 above) ways to assign weights of importance and ways to assess progress toward standards at Jan. 15, 1999, meeting. Consulted research documents on practices in other states and districts. Met with Dr. Steve Ross in May 1999 to continue discussion of academic indicators for Quality Index. Submitted Dr. Ross recommendations to Dr. Camine for feedback. Final report submitted in June 1999. Conducted preliminary research on practices in other states and districts. Final report submitted in June 1999.i RECEP' A  } Collective Responsibility for Student Achieverhent AUG 5 1999 Office OF Definition of Collective Responsibility , OESEGREGATfON MONrrOfl.NP Collective Responsibility means that all the adults in the District arfd at each school hold themselves accountable for all the students meeting the challenging behavior and academic content standards and benchmarks and other outcomes established by the Board of Education, by the state for accreditation, by federally funded programs, and by external funders of reform initiatives approved by the Board of Education. District-level staff share with school-level staffs in the collective responsibility for school improvement. This critically important attitude is developed and nurtured through professional learning communities established by the District and each school. In addition, the Superintendent shall ensure that all job descriptions of appropriate District-level and building-level staff\nannual work plans\nDistrict-level processes and school-level parameters for decision-making\npersonnel hiring, assignment, promotion, and evaluation systems\nand the professional development programs are results-based and aligned with the improvement indicators established in the Quality Index. Reporting Responsibilities The Superintendent shall report to the Board of Education annually on progress related to the implementation of the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In addition, so that the community is also informed on the Districts progress in meeting expected improvement goals, the following reports must be submitted to the Board of Education in open sessions. District Annual Performance Report The Annual Performance Report is to be submitted to the Board of Education no later than August 30 annually. It shall include data relating to each of the Quality Indicators, including the baseline year data so that progress can be identified. The Annual Performance Report shall also include the accreditation status and accountability status for each school, as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. School Performance Reports The state-mandated School Performance Reports shall be published and distributed to parents and other interested patrons annually. These report cards shall include the data mandated by the Arkansas Department of Education, but also school data relating to the Districts Quality Indicators. School principals shall disseminate these reports to all the staff members and parents in their school community and make them available to interested patrons. At least one parent meeting shall be conducted annually by the Campus Leadership Team and the principal to discuss the 1performance of the school and planned short- and long-range improvements. The District may disseminate school-level supplements to the School Performance Reports to include data relating to District-selected Quality Indicators. Accreditation and Accountability Status If a school has been identified for school improvement, as per Title I regulations and/or if the school is conditionally accredited or nonaccredited, then the designation and an explanation of its implications, as well as the accountability status of the school as defined by the State shall be included in the School Performance Report. Program Evaluations The results of any internal program evaluation studies or evaluations of grant-funded projects are to be provided to the Board of Education within a month of their submission to the Superintendent and/or to the funding organization. School Improvement Plans Although there are multiple state and local indicators, Campus Leadership Teams should select, based on their data analysis, three to five priority improvement goals as a focus for the School Improvement Plan. (See the Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Planning process.) 2State Quality IndicatorsTier I The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing. Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators based on performance goals for Tier I: State Indicator______ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Definition)_______________ 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6, 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra I. 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. Secondary School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Literacy. At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12^^ grade.__________________ Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%.________________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher._______________________ 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually.___________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Grades 7-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 3State Quality IndicatorsTier II The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators for Tier II. Tier II indicators are based on trend and improvement goals. Trend goals will be established for different cohorts of students, and improvement goals will be established for the same cohort of students over time. State Indicator Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Definition)_______________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion- referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6, and 8 Secondary 4Tier IISchool Selected Indicators (Schools Select Any 5) State Indicator Drop-outs Average Daily Attendance__________ Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development School Safety Other School Selected Indicators Goal (Definition)_______________ Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12**^ grade. Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate.____________ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher.________________ Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts.________ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Grade Level(s) Secondary All levels All levels All levels All levels All levels 5Additional District-Selected Indicators The following additional academic indicators (based also on both performance and trend/improvement) have been established by the Little Rock School District. Value-Added Goals or Improvement Goals The District-adopted criterion-referenced tests for grades K-11 will be administered to provide pre- and post-test scores so that gains of individual students may be measured each semester. Only those scores of students who were in the school the previous test administration will be used in calculating value-added gains (or improvement). The purpose of this measure is to be able to determine the extent to which a school adds value through individual students' gains. In other words, regardless of whether students attain the proficient level at any given grade, the District is interested in whether the students progressed toward proficiency during that year. Both trend and improvement data will be tracked as well. LRSD Indicator_______ Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test Goal (Definition)______________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. Grade Level(s) Kindergarten Grade 1 The percent of grade 1 students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 6LRSD Indicator_______ Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Test Goal (Definition)_______________ 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50 percentile in reading. ,th Grade Levelfs) Grades 5, 7, 10 The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50*^ percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50^ percentile in mathematics. Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Test The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50^ percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 7LRSD Indicator_______ Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Test Goal (Definition)_______________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. Grade Level(s) Performance on District-Adopted Criterion-Referenced Tests The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Grades 2-11 8LRSD Indicator Goal (Definition)_______________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. Grade Level(s) Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 65% of middle and high school students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year. Grades 6-12 Enrollment in Algebra I by grade 8 The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a middle schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. Grade 8 Honors Seal on High School Diploma The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high schools students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas. The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grades 9-12 9LRSD Indicator Taking the ACT Goal (Definition)_______________ 65% of a high schools students will take the ACT. Grade Level(s) Grades 11-12 Performance on the ACT The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each\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_1677","title":"Court filings concerning judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy and ODM report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-12"],"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--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School employees","Student assistance programs","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy and ODM report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''"],"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/1677"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["154 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion in Limine; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) joinder in LRSD's motion in Limine; District Court, joint motion for summary judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, memorandum brief in support of joint motion for summary judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, two orders; District Court, Joshua intervenors' prehearing submission on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION IN LIMINE 1-, ,ue.,,,~ . RECEIVED - DfC 4 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its motion the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This court's decision in favor of the three Pulaski County school districts on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance was affirmed by th~ ' Eight_?,. C,j,rcuit Court of Appeals on July 1, 1998. The Eighth Circuit remanded the case to this court \"to decide exactly what relief is appropriate.\" 2. Noting that the Eighth Circuit \"directed it to decide what relief is appropriate for the distric~s, this court scheduled a hearing \"on this issue\" for January 5, 1999. Order, November -3, 1998. 3. On July 20, 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and the districts filed simultaneous briefs concerning the r emedy issue. ADE submitted one method for calculating the remedy, '... -:' f' the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) submitted ,. another method ; the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and ,,.. ..:. \\ ' LRSD agreed that 11AnE,~.s submission seems to present an acceptable - method of calculating the remedy which is consistent with the decisions of this court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.\" 3. The parties filed simultaneous reply briefs on August 19, 1998. The three districts agreed \"that ADE's [July 20] submission provides (1) acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 Equalization Funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance. The districts argued, however, that because districts outside Pulaski County received one hundred seven percent (107%) of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs, the districts should be paid that same percentage of their actual costs in order to meet the requirements of the Eighth Circuit's order. PCSSD filed a II supplemental submission\" in which it reserved the right to argue its proposed methodology and outcomes \"if the court ultimately determines not to accept the proposal being made by the LRSD. 11 ADE filed a response to PCSSD's July 20 submission arguing that the method for calculating the remedy proposed by PCSSD is flawed. 4. The only issue separating ADE from LRSD and NLRSD is whether ADE should be required to pay one hundred percent (100%) or one hundred seven (107%) of the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Aside from that issue, LRSD and NLRSD have expressed their willingness to accept ADE's proposed method for calculating the remedy. The question of whether the award should be calculated on the basis of one hundred percent (100%) or one hundred seven (107%) of actual costs is a legal one, the resolution of which would not require the court to decide any disputed factual 2 issues. ADE, NLRSD and LRSD are willing to present this sole remaining issue to the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The reason that this simple and expeditious method of resolving the remedy issue among these three parties has not been presented to the court is that PCSSD suggests a different method for calculating the remedy and ADE desires a single method of calculation for all three districts. 5. On September 8, 1998, PCSSD filed a motion and brief to enforce the Settlement Agreement as regards MFPA. PCSSD's motion is based partly upon the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 decision regarding teacher retirement and health insurance but, unlike those issues, PCSSD's 11 MFPA11 claim has not been litigated and there has been no determination of ADE' s liability with respect to the 11 MFPA11 claim. PCSSD' s motion seeks to recover the entire difference between the funding it now receives under Act 917 and the funding it claims it would have received under Act 34. PCSSD's motion is not limited to the damages caused by ~he State's change in its method for distributing funds for teacher retirement and health insurance. 6. LRSD understood that the hearing scheduled for January 5, 1999 was to be for the purpose of resolving the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues remanded by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. As outlined above, there are relatively few issues separating the parties with respect to the remedy. The resolution of PCSSD's 11 MFPA11 issue requires a liability hearing, not a remedy hearing. The 11 MFPA11 issue would be more properly 3 - combined with the outstanding special education, loss funding and other issues which have yet to be tried on the merits. 7. In order to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the remedy hearing by the litigation of liability issues only marginally related to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issue, LRSD seeks an order expressly limiting the January 5 hearing to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issue and excluding the issues presented by PCSSD's \"MFPA\" claim. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order limiting the January 5, 1999 hearing to the question of the appropriate remedy for ADE's adjudicated violation of the Settlement Agreement with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance and excluding other issues, particularly those related to PCSSD' s \"MFPA\" claim. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, EDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. ----- By::-: i==h~~..I,J.'t~~LJ~~#::.( C Bar No. 81083 4 --- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion In Limine has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3rd day of December 1998. JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 5 RECEIVED DEC 8 1998 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OffiCE(f DESEGREGATION MONm1iJE ,,,. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS   '. ' WESTERN DIVISION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT N0.1, ei al. PLAINTIFF .DEFENDANTS ADE'S TOINDER IN LRSD's \"MOTION IN LIMINE\" Like the LRSD, ADE understands that the hearing currently scheduled for January 5, 1999, is for the purpose of presenting evidence and argument concerning the appropriate \"remedy\" for the teacher retirement and health insurance issues discussed in the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 opinion. For the reasons discussed below, ADE joins in LRSD's motion to exclude from the January 5 hearing any evidence or testimony concerning PCSSD' s purported \"MFP A claim.\" Following the Eighth Circuit's decision, this Court set a briefing schedule for the ' parties to submit their arguments concerning the remedy on the teacher retirement and health insurance issues. Pursuant to the Court's briefing schedule, as amended, the parties filed briefs on Jly 20 and August 19, 1998. None of those briefs submitted by PCS.SD on those dates argued or even suggested that the appropriate remedy on the retirement/health insurance issues ~ould require a comparison of total state aid - outcomes between what the Act 917 system produced and what the Act 34 system 1 -- ---  \"would have produced\" if it would not have been eliminated in the 1995 legislative session. However, on September 8, 1998, well outside the established briefing schedule for the teacher retirement/health insurance \"remedy\" issue, PCS5D filed a pleading it styled as a \"Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA.\" In that motion PCSSD purports to compare the total amount of state funding it received under the Act 917 system and the total an\\ount of sta!e fonding it claims it would have - received if the Act 34 system would not have been changed. PCS5D' s motion does not -i~entify any provision of the Settlement Agreement it contends has been breached. Rather, PCSSD's motion is based exclusively upon the \"remedy\" language in the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 decision regarding teacher retirement and health insurance.1 Like the LRSD, ADE believes that PCSSD may attempt to introduce evidence at the January 5 hearing regarding purported total state aid outcomes under the Act 917 system and what PCSSD and the other Districts allegedly \"would have received\" if the Act 34 system had not been repealed. Such evidence and argument should be excluded from the January 5, 1999 hearing for two reasons. First, evidence and argument concerning an alleged Act 34/917 comparison should be excluded because this method of calculating a remedy was not presented to this \u003c;~urt in any of the briefs PCSSD submitted pursuant to this Court's briefing 1 In its motion in limine, LRSD states that PCSSD's motion .. is based partly on\" the remedy language in the Eighth Circuit's July I, 1998 opinion. ADE disagrees with LRSD_on this point. An examination of PCSSD's motion  makes cJear that PCSSD's bases its claims exclusWe(y upon the remedy language of the Eighth Circuit's opinion. PCSSD's motion does not cite_t9 ariy .provision of the Settlement Agreement  2  - schedule on the remedy issue. Had PCSSD wished for this Court to consider such a comparison as the appropriate rei:nedy on the retirement .and health insurance issues, PCS.SD should have advanced this theory in its opening remedy brief on July 20, or in its reply brief on August 19. Second~ PCSSD's proposed Act 34/917 comparison is not an appropriate \"remedy\" on the retirement and health insurance issues as a matter of law, and any ' evidence or argument concerning such a compa.Iison would therefore be L.-;:elevant. The appeal which resulted in the Eighth Circuit's July 1 opinion dealt only with the changes in the manner in which teacher retirement and health insurance matching obligations of school districts were paid by the State. Neither this Court nor the Eighth Circuit has found that the State is in violation of the Settlement Agreement in any other respect, yet PCSSD's Act 34/917 comparison plainly seeks relief beyond those damages  that might have been caused by the State's change in its method of distributing funds for teacher retirement and health insurance. Nothing in the Eighth Circuit's opinion authorizes such a comparison as an appropriate method for calculating the damages on the narrow retirement and health insurance issues. Permitting  PCSSD to. present clearly irrelevant evidence and argument concerning its . purported Act 34/917 comparison. at the January 5 hearing would unnecessarily prolong and complicate the resolution of the remedy issue. Accordingly, ADE joins in LRSD's request for an order excluding from the January 5 hearing any evidence or argument concerning PCSSD's purported Act 34/917 comparison. 3 Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General  Assistant Attorn y General ; . ~23 Center Street, Suite 200  Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, T~othy Gauger, certify that _on D~ember 7, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing qocument to be served by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell . 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller . i'.riday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark . 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol  Little Rock, AR72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDY PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") for their Joint Motion for Summary - Judgment With Regard to the Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Remedy state: 1. No material fact remains to be resolved with regard to the appropriate methodology for determining the three Pulaski County districts' (the \"districts\") damages with regard to teacher retirement and heal th insurance. All parties agree that ADE's proposed methodology is acceptable. 2. The only dispute concerning ADE's methodology is whether the districts damages' should be based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. The parties have already submitted br.iefs on this issue. This dispute presents a legal question which can be resolved as a matter of law. 3. LRSD and ADE's memorandum brief submitted in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, LRSD and ADE pray that the Court adopt ADE Is proposed methodology and decide as a matter of law whether the ---- -- districts' damages should be calculated based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. Respectfully Submitted, Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. John c. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for LRSD and, Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Attorneys for ADE By: John c. Fendley, Jr,. I V I. 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United states mail on this 9th day of December, 1998. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 - --- -- 3   , RECEIVE,:, //411..f-/\"l./1 I Y'GflJ, f!ye_ ~ DEC 1 0 1998 \" ' t. 2. .., ...,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/Nr, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL I. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDY Introduction. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS This Court has scheduled a hearing for January 5, 1999 on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy. Two issues stand to be resolved. 1 First, this Court must determine the appropriate methodology to be used in determining the amount of teacher retirement and health insurance funding received by the three Pulaski ~ounty districts under Act 917. Second, this Court must determine whether the three Pulaski County districts' damages should be based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. No material fact remains to be resolved with regard to either of the above issues. Accordingly, the moving 1 See Joint Motion in Limine filed December 3, 1998. Docket No. 3223. parties pray that this Court resolve these issues as a matter of law. II. The Methodology. On August 19, 1998, the three Pulaski County school districts -- --- . (the \"districts\") agreed that the Arkansas Department of Education's (\"ADE\") Submission Concerning Remedies on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Heal th Insurance provided an acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance. Docket No. 3187. Only the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") proposed an alternative to ADE's methodology. Docket No. 3186. However, PCSSD's pleading simply reserved the right to argue for its methodology should the Court reject ADE's methodology. Docket No. 3186. 2 Under ADE's proposed methodology, all three Pulaski County districts recover more damages than under PCS SD' s methodology. Districts' Brief filed August 19, 1998. See Exhibit 1 to the Therefore, since all parties agree that ADE's proposed methodology is acceptable and since that methodology provides the greatest benefit for the students of each district, LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court adopt ADE's proposed methodology as a matter of law. 2The three Pulaski County districts do not agree at this time that ADE's methodology would be applicable to possible future pending claims regarding MFPA, special education and loss funding. F: \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-bri-sju .tea 2 or III. Actual Costs Versus Percentage of Costs. While the three Pulaski County school districts agree that ADE's methodology is acceptable, the districts contend that ADE has stopped short of granting the districts complete relief. ADE's proposed remedy provides the districts with 100% of their actual costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. The districts contend that this remedy falls short of complete relief because other districts in the state received more than 100% of their actual costs for teacher retirement and heal th insurance. The districts seek to recover the same percentage of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. ADE denies that the districts should receive more than their actual costs. Whether the districts should receive their actual costs or the same percentage of their costs as other districts in the state presents a legal issue which can be resolved by this Court on summary judgment. No material fact needs to be resolved for the Court to decide this issue. Resolution of this issue simply requires an interpretation of Eighth Circuit's decisions in this case. The districts and ADE have already submitted briefs stating their respective positions on the issue. Accordingly, LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court decide the issue as a matter of law. IV. Conclusion. LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court adopt ADE's proposed methodology and decide whether the districts' damages F: \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\ LRSD\\de 3-bri -3 ju. t ea 3 should be calculated based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. If the Court resolves these two issues, LRSD and ADE are confident that the remaining details can be settled and that the January 5, 1999 hearing will be unnecessary. f : \\HOME\\fENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-bri-sju.tea Respectfully Submitted, Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for LRSD and, Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Attorneys for ADE 4 . ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United states mail on this 9th day of December, 1998. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 J F: \\HOME\\FENOLEY\\LRSO\\des-bri-sju. tea 5 ', ~ECEIVED DEC 15 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEC 14 1998 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.JAMES ','i ;\\ :cCOR,'lir\\CK, Cl..ErK WESTERN DIVISION By: 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GcP. CLEi,K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO LRSD'S MOTION IN LIMINE INTRODUCTION The PCSSD understands that the hearings scheduled for next January are for the purpose of resolving the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues. However, the PCSSD disagrees with LRSD's analysis concerning the MFPA issue. For reasons which will be fully explained below, the PCSSD submits that the MFPA analysis it has submitted to the Court is, on the one hand, an independent claim being pursued by the PCSSO. However, and most importantly, on the other hand, the PCSSD MFPA analysis resides at the heart of the remedial tasks directed by the Court of Appeals as regards teacher retirement and health insurance. INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS As an initial matter,' the Court of Appeals has directed the District Court: \"On  remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what . ' . . ' : . . . . ' . . , . .  relief is appropriate.\" 97-1794 EA, Slip Opinion at p. 30 72098 1 t This the parties have done by their submitted calculations regarding their claimed teacher retirement and _health insurance shortfalls. In this respect, the submissions of the PCS SD differ from those submitted by the State_ and embraced by the LRSD.1 However, the submissions of the other parties ignore the remain.der of the Court of Appeals instructions. The Court of Appeals went on to direct that: The three Pulaski County Districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be a double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFPA plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. 97-1794 EA, Slip Opinion at pp. 30-31 This directive of the Court of Appeals cannot be ignored. While the other parties have paid lip service to this requirement, only the PCSSD has submitted an analysis comparing the effects of the old system to the new as required by the Court of Appeals. Whether this be currently characterized as an independent claim by the PCSSD or as simply its effort to assist the Court in complying with the instructions of the Court of Appeals is of no practicable 1 To the extent it ever agreed, the PCSSD can no longer support the calculations of the State. This will be more fully explained in PCSSD's Response to the Joint Motion for Summary Judgment served upon the PCSSD on December 11, 1998. 72098 2 moment for hearing purposes, since whatever description is given the analysis, it is the same for either purpose.2 THE RULES AND CASE LAW REQUIRE THE PARTIES AND THIS COURT TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS' INSTRUCTIONS Twenty-eight USC 2106 requires in pertinent part that: The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm ... any judgment...and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment...or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances. The case law from this Circuit supports this proposition. In Bethea v. Levi Strauss \u0026 Co., 916 F.2d 453 (8th Cir. 1990) the court of appeals had occasion to explain what is required of a district court after remand. On remand, a district court is bound to obey strictly an appellate mandate. (citation omitted) If the district court fails to comply with an appellate mandate, the appellate court has authority to review the district court's actions and order it to comply with the original mandate. llL at 456 See also Chambers v. Armantrout, 16 F .3rd 257 (8 th Cir. 1994) and West v. United States of America, 1995 US Appellate Lexis 5294 (8th Cir. 1995). CONCLUSION As its resubmitted analysis will demonstrate, the PCSSD is entitled to a full recovery for its teacher retirement and health insurance shortfalls since its losses under the new funding system far exceed its claims for teacher retirement and health insurance. A full award of its current claim will thus neither result in a 2 Because the labeling issues obviously concern the LRSD and the State, the PCSSD is separately submitting its own funding analysis which it believes complies with that required by the Court of Appeals. (Please see attached Exhibit A, three pages) 72098 3 r .I , - double recovery nor a windfall and, as explained above, this analysis must be performed by this Court whether or not any other party assists by submissions to this Court. 72098 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By-~::;__---:+------=~-:-:-:----- y Special School \\ 4 1' ,. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December /J , 1998 a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following.  Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 72098 M. ( Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger .A.ssistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ones, Ill / I 5 NA I c ... r :.. I NOS\u0026v !MFPA CA1.C. ESTIMATES: ACT 3\"' FOR H-97. 97-91 \u0026 91-N ACT J.4171. ww.. I OISTIUCT L.RSD UWJ LRSO LASO I UHE SCHOOL YEA11 199 .. 11111-el 11117-M 19a.. NO. CHNIGIMTa 0.0271 0.0315 0.031M 0.1131M 1 WAOIIOATA 2 REG. 3 QNJM 22.JM.as 22.231.54 22,439.31 23,133.39 l SPEDWNJM' 1,700.72 1,7'00.72 1,700.72 1,700.72 , VOCWNJM' 825.81 529.61 8.28.61 !21l.61 5 VOCCWN)M  TT.9/5 TT.9/5 n,ge n .9tJ 6 GITWAOM 2.53.7S 253.75 253.75 253.75 71 LOSS FD WAOII 533.51 311..20 0.00 0.00 I TOT. WAOII am ... 25.401.M K ..... 29.H2A ----OUT 10 s1EJ1- ,.,. \"TION8 11 ST ATE l'\\JN0S $Q63.200.2,41 $983,.200,24' $1,\"8.684.101 S1, 111,111,171 12Nit0..M'(AOJEJ SQ ... g....,,;: . ... ' iiiiii 13 TOTAL ST. SSIII.U00.241 $1,!Ma, .. , 101 $1,111,717,171 S1, 147.290,11111 14 AVNIT. $11,015.9118.ffl $11.371.121. s1u1e. 1M.511 $20,alXJ.232,515 150iMGERATI: 0.0271 OJXl15 0.03111 0.0319 19 TOTAL AV OiO $473,044,7 S571.-.m SG2.929.253 $M4,455.2,47 17 TOTAL MISC. FOS. S!.215..3311 15.171 70Z '-A 739, 1111 S7 209247 11 TOTAi. Rl!SOURSU $1441-~ s1.a:n..1112.m s1m~ $1 11 ut25.355 11 TOT. WADII 171112'  SZ1 7l1 11,~ 1:111..a1 !lX.1IO 20 saa tt7S4.IO tt 14\u0026..21 '3.331.ff S3,\"5UI 21 DIFfUEHC2 U91.II $1- SUUI 22 AV!. LOC. RES. SN7 11111 Sf.:21111 $1..:za:I 2l IIIIFIIA CAL.CtJLAT10N 24 TOTAL AV. $1 ,So\u0026e,039.71'1 S1 ,712,311.Z20 $1,947,375,174 S1 ,9\u0026l,n7,1547 25 XCHG. 145.7~.101 SSJ. 837. 803 SG.1111,1115 sa2,753,401 291 MISC. REV. 75\" $102. 158 S1-47,11M S132.386 27/LOCAL RES. $,45,834,284 $53,i:37,803 $82.3'4.37'9 $62,M5,7S7 28 NO. M. D. 29 M.O. CR. 30 NET LOC. RES. $45,834.26' $53,937,803 $82.l4e.379 SS2,885,787 31 LOC. RES. RATE s1.ns.oe $2.123.37 $2.42:ll.07 $2,419.38 32 SaeR $2.75U0 $3, 1-4e.2S $3,331.97 $3,456.e.5 JJiTABlE RATE $978.54 S1 022.90 $905.90 $1 037.47 341 TOT. MFPA 'l:ll 172..1%1 ~11\u00261.74 $23 2IO 152 $:21 9M.3TT 3SiMfPACHAHGe $110121 (ll.701.!M $3 SN.22.S 31/ADDmOHAL. FUNDING 37 TEACHER RET. \u0026 HEAL.TH INS. COST $11 ,511.5111.00 S 13,802,731.00 $1-4,481 ,9'2.00 $15,933,618.50 38 AT RISK S 1,228.252. OIi $1.229~00 S 1.2:Ze.252.00 $1.229.252.00 39 TRANS $1 ,653 753.00 S1 . 653. 753.00 $1553753.00 $1 653 753.00 40 TOT. ADO. STAn FUNDI 114.lU.. ... $11.112.741 $17 341.M7 $1111312.4 41 TOT. STATE fUfjDI $31571 417 $G ll\u0026L.tlllll $40.122.0N $45 710.000 42 TOT Al. CHAHGI $3.~ , .. ., ..... - S! 157.101 431 S.EQA/GWTHIGWT. FCJD.SJINC. $4350,510 $43.233.011 t.\u00265.941~ 44/TOTAL MOR OR (LESS) THAH ACT 34 I u.u.0211 12110 NZ $161,313 EXHIBIT I A ; ... ~c - , 2 ,,. ' MFPA CAL.C. ESTIMATES: ACT 34 FOR N-e7 97-81 \u0026 91-81 A.CT3,q71.-. OISTlaCT NUt\"2 NUSD NLASD ~ LINE ............. Y!AII 1~ 199M1 1917-tl 1 ..... NO. CHNtG! IIATI!   0.0271 0.0315 IJ.Ol1M 0.03114 1 WADMDATA 2 REG. 3QAOM 9,079.25 ll.9C.111 9,094.2' 9,231 .07 3 SPEDWNJM  1,111l.78 1,11ua 1,119.78 1,1111.78 4 VOCWNJM' 310.71 310.71 310.71  310.71 5 VOCCWN)M 8.15 8.15 6.15 8.15 S GATWMlM 0 107.75 107.75 107.75 107.75 7 LOSS FU W.ADII 140.13 11~ 0.00 4.00 I TOT.WAOII 10 7M.l5 10.131.71 10,131.G 10.nSM ,....,..our 10 ~ CM.CULAnoNa 11 ST A Tl! l'U.\"C\u003eS S983..200.241 S883,200.241 St,048.1594,101 St .111 ,717,171 12AMOlMTADOED so) , . .,,..,!I,:,!: 13 TOTA\u0026. ST. $803..200.241 11 ,IMl,e\u0026M, 101 11,111,717,171 11,1-47.280,8111 14AVMr. S17,015,ll11U75 S11.l71.721. 119,111. 194,517 120 1113 232 515 15 CHARGE RATE 0.0271 0.0315 0.0318 0.0319 111 TOTM.AVCHG $-473,044,7N $571,a\u0026l,953 $832,i29,l5J SilM,465,247 17 TOTAL MISC. FDS. S5.215 335 $5 171 702 U739111 S72011-.247 11 TOTAL RESCIUltlEI 11 ~1.--.:i\u0026.I S1 ICD. 7n.n1 $1751..-..- SU11~ 11 TOT. WAOII m- 521731 518.2.111 ~a1 521,1 saa S2.7S\u0026.IO Sl.1\"\"-21 S2.331.ff H ,,.  .,. 21 DIFFRENC2 mi.II S1ISJI 112'.II Z2 AW. L0C. IIU. SI01' 11111 11.2111 $1-2EI 2l IIFPA CALCUUTION 24 TOT M.A. V. $-41,,333.275 $-4:ZS,'11.491 $-471 ,402.- $-475.a:!4.,220 25 XCHG. $11 ,511,485 $13,400,C s1s,cee.111 $15.201 ,020 215 MISC. R\u0026. 75\" S12.8511 12.m $0 27 LOCM.RES. $11,531,120 $13,400,462 S15.0S.311D $15..201,020 2S NO.M.O. 211 M.D.CR. 30 NET LOC. RES. $11,531 ,120 $13,400,462 115.09,390 $15.201,020 31 LOC.. RES. RA TE $1,071.24 $1.2~.47 $1,415.54 $1,410.71 32 S8ER $2,754.80 SJ,1-44.28 S3,l31.J7 $3,456.85 33 TASLS RATE $1 613.38 $1 588.11 $1918.'3 S2 048.t, 3' TOT.WPA S1L120 Ga ~079.2117 S203U14'1 !22 !ML 071 35 IIIFPAatAHGe $1H.l..124 $312-.lla $159.nt 3' .ADOfflONAL FUNDING 37 TEAC\u003eER RET. 6 HEM.TH INS. COST \"' 107,741.00 $4.'53,571 .00 $-4,681, 1 !M.00 $4,937,917.00 JI AT RISK $-478. 197.00 $478,197.00 $478,197.00 $478.197.00 39 TR.AHS S5 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1675","title":"Court filings: District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to PCSSD's motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, report of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) assessment of the equitable allocation of resources; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-10"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School improvement programs","School employees","Student assistance programs","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to PCSSD's motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, report of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) assessment of the equitable allocation of resources; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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/1675"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["21 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  RECEn,eo RECEJVE,:, - OCT 8 1998 JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 8 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ~\\ EASTERN I\u003eISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING  .  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v.   No~ LR-C-82-866 : PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  .... . . .. l .  DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. -DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S   .. ; ... _ - . _. . . . . . . \" 'MOTIO. N T. .O . EN-F.O RC.E T. HE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT   - AS REGARDS MFPA\" . On September 8, PCSSD filed a \"Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement As - Regards MFPA.\"'  Attached to PCSSD's motion is an-unauthenticated exhibit that . purports to demonstrate that PCSSD received less state aid during fiscal years 1997 through 1999 than PCSSD \"would have received\" if the States' public school funding system had not been changed during the l995 legislative session and thereafter.1 In the purported motion, PCSSD does not cite to a single provision of the Settlement Agreement th~t has allegedly bee:. violated.  Instead, PCSSD -relies exclusively on language in the Eighth Circuit's July l, 1998 opinion concerning the . narrow issues of teacher retirement and health insurance funding and argues that, \"to . '. PCSSD~s \"motion~.does not contain any affidavit o~ declaration explai~ing who created the exhibit, explaining the ,- -~urce ~ta'or method6logy used, or explaining ~hat assuritptioris were made.in arriving at the alleged\" Act 34 . :     . , ~t~orri~~ for fiscaryears 1_997 through'. i999: f.s: such, even if P\u003c;Ssps m~tioii were in the nature of a motion for . ..  summary judgmen~ ~ibit A to PCSSD's motion could not~ con~idered ~ evidence and could not be relied upon ... , ~to support any)t~ding ofliability on ih~ part of ADE . See Wright, ~1iller \u0026 Kime, .Federal Practice and Procedure:  Civil 3d 2723; -.,~-390 ( 1998) (\"{T]he court may riot take cognizance of positions regarding the facts based on 1  ,' comply with the holdings of the Court of Appeals,\" PCSSD must be held harmless from any alleged adverse effect of the overall change in the funding system. Thus, although it is styled as a \"motion,\" PCSSD's latest filing is in fact a thinly-veiled attempt to file yet another brief on the \"teacher retirement\" and \"health insurance\" remedy issue currently . pending before this Court, in contravention of this Court's established briefing schedule. PCSSD's \"motion\" should therefore be stricken as untimely and not considered by the Court. In its earlier submissions to this Court, ADE has presented its arguments as to the appropriate method for calculating the \"remedy\" on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance. However, in the event.this Court accepts PCSSD's latest filing as an additional submission on the teacher retirement and health insurance \"remedy\" issue, ADE requests that it be given the opportunity to submit evidence and argument concerning the accuracy and appropriateness of PCSSD' s \"Act 34\" calculations for fiscal years 1997 through 1999, and concerning the appropriateness of PCSSD's suggested method for calculating an appropriate teacher retirement and health insurance \"'remedy.\"  Finally, even if the Court were to treatPCSSD's submission.as a motion separate and apart from the pending . proceedings on the retirement and health insurance remedy, . PCSSD's motion should be summarily denied. As noted earlier, PCSSD's motion does not identify a single provision of the Settlement Agreement that has :exJ.tibits that arc merely part of the brief and have not been otherwise verified or supported.\").; see also Fed. R. Evid. 801,802 and 901. 2 allegedly been violated, and therefore the motion fails to state a claim upon which relief niy be granted as against ADE. Further, PCSSD's latest motion appears to be a rehash of the unsuccessful motion for summary_ judgment PCSSD filed late last year. See PC5.5P's \"Separate Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of the State Funding Formula,\" filed September 2, 1997. This Court denied that motion on January 12, 1998, because 1'there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the state funding fon;nula\" (see Docket Entry No. 3104), and PCSSD's most recent motion should be denied for the same reason.  Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General TIMOT Assistant Attorney General : 323- Center Street, Suite 200 ,_, - Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for  :Arkansas Department of Education 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . I, Timothy qauger, . certify that on October -6, 1998, I caused a copy of the .. foregoing . document to be  served by first class U.S. Mail~ postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated:  M. Samuel Jones, III . Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings ~-\\ . .\" 2000 NationsBank Plaz.a .  200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. . 1723 Broadway     Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell    401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock; AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg . . 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown -; _ Office of.Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 I .OCT 7 Fil r.:p IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .. L-: --' -~~Glr llB8WireBAllomMIDI~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANsAs9n OCT - 7 PN L. WESTERNDMSION J.t'.f;'~-.:: l, , ,.. \" I  19 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATIIBRINE KNIGHT, ET AL REPORT OF LRSD'S ASSESSMENT U ::  .. , . I ,!,t. n ~r' 1 ~., . .). u;-; , ,. c\" .  '.!,/, , r, ;\",, [( v , ~, f C -'1 -r \"'\"- L. l \\ f\\ BY .J ,1 I , AR. ---s~-U' 1 7:~~~IFF '\" '  l, Lt.RK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS OF THE EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Report ofLRSD's Assessment of the Equitable Allocation of Resources states: 1. LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") requires that LRSD assess the equitable allocation of resources in the district and report the results of this assessment within 180 days of the district court's approval of the Revised Plan. Revised Plan 2.9.2. The district court approved the Revised Plan on April 10, 1998. Docket No. 3144. Accordingly, LRSD's report of the assessment of the allocation of resources was to be completed on or before October 7, 1998. LRSD files this report in compliance with the Revised Plan. 2. LRSD assessed the allocation of its resources by way of a committee composed of district administrators and staff persons and representatives of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\").1 The committee first worked to determine what \"resources\" should be assessed. In this regard, the committee looked to available research in the area of school resources. Based on the available research and the committee's collective education and experience, the committee decided to assess the equitable allocation of resources in the district by examination often factors: (1) pupil/teacher ratio; (2) pupil/staff ratio; (3) square feet per pupil; ( 4) percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; (5) the turnover rate of certified staff; (6) school size; (7) the computer/pupil ratio; (8) per pupil expenditure; (9) volunteer hours per pupil; and, (10) donations per pupil. 3. Pupil/Teacher Ratio. Research indicates that smaller class sizes (15 or less to 1 ) may improve achievement of minority students. See,~ Nye, B.A, Achilles, C.M., Zaharias, J.B., Fulton, B.D., Wallenhorst, M.P., Small Is Far Better, Paper presented at Mid-South Educ. Res. Ass'n, Knoxville, Tenn. (Nov. 13, 1992). The committee measured its pupil/teacher ratio using October 1, 1997 enrollment and certified staff at the school excluding administrators, counselors and librarians. The committee decided to exclude four-year-old classes, which have a smaller pupil/teacher ratio, because not all LRSD schools have four-year-old classes. 4. Pupil/Staff Ratio. The committee also wanted to include a measure which would recognize the importance of school administrators and other support staff at a school. In addition to certified teachers, this factor includes all other school based personnel with the exception of 1The committee members were as follows: Dr. Victor Anderson, Associate Superintendent for Operations; Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instructional Services; Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services; Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services; Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services; Brady Gadberry, Special Assistant to the Superintendent; Dr. Ed Williams, Research Specialist and Statistician; Ann Brown, Federal Desegregation Monitor; Skip Marshall, Associate Federal Desegregati9n Monitor; and, Gene Jones, Associate Federal Desegregation Monitor. 2 federal and food service employees. As with teachers, a lower pupil/staff ratio is considered more favorable with the goal being equity in the staffing formula. 5. Sguare Feet Per Pupil. The committee found that the school overcrowding can have a negative impact on student achievement. The Council of Education Facility Planning standards recommends 90 sq. ft. per pupil for elementary schools, 120 sq. ft. per pupil for middle schools and 145 sq. ft. per pupil for high schools. Using 3D International's 1995 Facilities Master Plan Study, the committee assessed schools based on the number of square feet per pupil with the assumption that the more space the better. Students in schools below the standard may not have adequate instructional space. 6. Percentage of staff with a masters degree plus and nine. In a 1990 study, researchers found that African-American student performance improved when teachers had strong language skills, nine or more years of experience and a master's degree or higher. Ferguson, R, Racial patterns in how school and teacher quality affect achievement and learning, In Challenge: A Journal of Research on Black Men (1990). Based on this study, the committee decided to measure the allocation of quality teachers by considering the percentage of teachers at a school with at least a masters degree plus nine years of experience. A higher percentage of being more favorable. 7. Turnover Rate of Certified Staff. Low turnover among certified staff plays an important role in building a strong and committed teaching staff and a strong base of parental and community support. High turnover, on the other hand, often results in an inexperienced teaching staff. See,~ Newmann, F.M. and Wehlage, G.G., Successful School Restructuring (1995). The committee calculated the turnover rate by comparing the number of new teachers at a school 3 (both new hires and transfers) to the total number of teachers at a school. The schools were then ranked based on the percentage of new teachers with the assumption that low turnover was most favorable. 8. School size. Recent studies indicate that school size, like class size, may impact student achievement. See,~ Howley, C.B., Synthesis of the effects of school and district size, What research says about achievement in small school and school districts, 41 Journal of Rural and Small Schools 2 (1989). Small schools promote better personal relationships between staff, students, parents and the community. Student morale tends to be higher because of a feeling of belonging. Teachers communicate better with each other and know students better allowing them to teach in a more individualized way. In assessing school size, the committee simply looked at the each school's enrollment and ranked the schools under the assumption that smaller was better. 9. Computer/Pupil Ratio. The committee developed the computer/pupil ratio as a proxy for assessing technological resources as provided for in the Revised Plan. LRSD has already begun implementation of its technology plan designed to bring the district in line with state and national technology standards. The ratio includes only network compatible computers in schools by September 22, 1998. A higher computer/student ratio was considered more favorable. 10. Per Pupil Expenditure. Pouring money into a school provides no guarantee of improving improved achievement. Even so, per pupil expenditure is perhaps the most commonly used factor for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. The committee calculated each school's per pupil expenditures based on the school's discretionary funds. This excluded expenditures for salaries, benefits, utilities and federal funding provided under Title I and for food 4 service. To prevent outliers based on extraordinary expenditures, the committee used a three year moving average for expenditures. 11. Volunteer Hours Per Pupil. Volunteer hours per pupil indicate the degree of parental and community involvement at a school. Authorities recognize the importance of parental and community involvement in school success. See. u., Graue. M.E . Weinstein, T., and Walberg, H.J., School Based Home Reinforcement Programs: A Quantitative Synthesis, 76 Journal Educ. Res. 351 (1983). Volunteer hours by school were obtained from the LRSD VIPS department. 12. Donations Per Pupil. Like volunteer hours. donations indicate the degree of parental and community involvement at a school. Donations may also fill in gaps left due to inadequate discretionary funding provided to a school by the district. Only donations accepted by the LRSD Board of Directors were considered. 13. Exhibit 1 contains the results of the committee's assessment of each of these factors for each school in the district. 14. The committee also undertook to determine whether any relationship existed between the resources allocated to a school and the percentage of African-American students attending a school. The committee enlisted Dr. Ed Williams ofLRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department to determine if such a relationship existed. Using statistical measures, Dr. Williams combined the ten factors in order to assign each school a composite score. See Exhibit 2, \"Equitable Allocation Worksheet\" and \"Composite School Scores.\" Dr. Williams then compared each school's composite score to the school's percentage of African-American students. See Exhibit 2. \"Correlations.\" Dr. Williams concluded that there was no significant 5 relationship between the racial makeup of a school and the amount of resources allocated to the school. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 6 stopher Heller (#81083) C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 7th day of October, 1998. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Banlc Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A 425 W. Capito~ Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-07-98 EQUITY INDICATORS 1. Pupil/ Teacher Ratio Less Than 15 2. Pupil/ Starr Ratio Less Than 9 3. Sq. Ft./ Pupil : Elem 90, Jr 120, Sr 145 4. % or Starr w/ 9 yrs \u0026 Masters Degree 5. Turnover Rate or Certified Stafr 6. School Size 7. Computer/ Pupil Ratio 8. Per Pupil Expenditure 9. Volunteer Hours / Pupil 10. Donations / Pupil -... 1 ,I.D.. I  ::z: X Ill 1-.-.... .,,.... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ... - . ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES   - - . 10-07-98  -  -.  OCTOBER 1, 1997 ENROLLMENT . TOTAL TEACH PUP-PIK PUP-PIK -   -  PIK  K  T 12 tor TOT-PIK sL  WH 0TH roT 0/4BL % WH o,,;;OTH F.T.I~:- F.T.E. i STAFF \"{TEACH HIGHSCHOC\u003eLS .  - -   .. .. .. -    . ........ .  -  -     -- -.. ---- - -- ... - ---            - -  -  -- -       --- --- -- -- . .  - - -- . . - - - -- - - ....    --- --  -- -- - - - . CENTRAL 34 1821 1855 1855 1101 705 49 1855 59% 38% 3% 147.94 100.14 HALL ...  . .... . .. -  --  - 7  783 790 790 561 179 - -so ... 790 . 'h0io -23/~ --- .6io --- .. g-,fgQ 62.70    - - - - - - -  ---   .    --   - --  - - -------- - .. - - .. - - - --- . FAIR 757 757 757 612 137 8 757 81% 18% 1% 82.50 53.20 9.18 McCLELLAN -----  -- -  .. -  935 ___ _ 935 935 790 121 ... 24 -  g35 84i~ --faiii., ____ .. 3% ____ ___ 98.'fo _ .. __ 65.90 - .  9.53 PARKVIEW ... ... -... . ...... - - - 9f1 .... 'gd 911 464 403 44  911 51% 44/~ --- s0/o ---ag~io. - S!'i.40 10.21 12.54 8.32 18.52 12.60 14.23 14.19 TOTAL   ... .. . -- - ---  - o 41 5207 -524.8 5248 3528 1545 175 \"52,ia 6ii'lo - 29%  ' \"310 - sh64 341 .34 10.24 15.34 jiJNioR HIGH-sdfo'6U,-- -- -.. _.. ---.. .. - . - .   -- -   ---- -- -   - ..  -  -...  - .. ___ 15. 37 DUNBAR -  -- - .. --        - 771 771  .,_771 442 ... 282 - 47 771 57% 37% 6o/o .... . 70.io- FOREST HEIGHTS . .. . .... _  648 648 648 452 178 18 648 70% 27% 3% 73.90 PULASKfHEIGHTS - -    - -- - - - -  -767 --757 --  i67 - 437 315 - 15  - 757 . 57/~ -41% -- 2/4 .. _. 76.80 soui'i-lWEst  -  - ---.. -- - -- -- -- -- - --- -5fo .... sfo --s10 --- ,i2i5 -.... 65 ----19 - .. . 5fo . 84% 13% - 4/0 -- 6Ci.o6 HENDERSON-- --- ... __________ ___ -   - . 724 --124 .  - 724 624 83 11 . ---724 . 86% . 11% 2% . --1tf i:m CLOVERDALE   . . .. .. . .. - ..... -- -  622 622  -  622  - 552 36 34 622 89% .. .... i3/4  - ... 5% . ... 53jm- MABELVALE .. . . - _,. - .. -  .. 506 506 506 380 119 7 506 75% 24% 1% .. . . 61.36 MANN .  ....  - . .. ... ... - -    - - 85a - a58 858 446 375 37 858 .. sioj~ ---44% 4/0 . - . iff!i.1f totAL ... ...  - -     -   - -- a --o 5406 5406  -- s,foi3 3159 1453 rn4 5406 10% 21% 4% 564.90 ELEMENTARY SCHoocs -.. -   -- - . - .. - . - -- . - -- - - --- . .. . . ...... - . --- .. - .. .. .. 48.80 51 .30 56.30 42.40 53.30 44.80 41 .90 58.30 397.10 BALE ..  --   - 35  s1 . -216 362 327 265  11  26 362 73% 20% . . 1% .. 42.20 23.30 BRADY .. .. . ........ ----- -- - - - ---;a --56 - 298 .372 ....... .. 354 \"\"235 ....... 94 .. 43 - 372 \"tbii/4 - -25/o --f2% --- 35~io 20.30 BADGETT - . . ....... --  ---- ---- -31 ---jg ---163 233 -- -202  -214 -Tg ..... - i:33 \".92% -- --a;~ -- ---c:i'0/4 --- - 2O.io  15.30 McDER.MOTT ...... ... .. ...... ...    54 423 ,iii  \"\"4f7 .... 273 181 ... 23 ---- 4ii -s1io -- 380/o - .... s0;; .. .. 43.30 26.90 BASELINE :: : :~::;: -.-~:.::::~: -~::.~_: -~~5 ::-:~~ _=_2_~4 .: - -323  2aa -267  38 -  10  - Jij  83/o ---120,,~ ---- 5io . .. 3cf96 . 18) 0 FAIR .. PARK 36 36 176 248 -- -i12  ---188 50 10 248 75iij.  -20% 4% 27.00 1:i:ifo . FOREST PARK  -  .... ...    .. .. Si  373 430 430 205 219 6 430 48% 51% . . 1/~ 38.00 23.00 CHIC6T - .. . . ...... -- -- --.. - js -sg ---,i43 5j7 ------ --soi 370 . T21 46 537 -69% ---23i~ .... 9% ---- s9-:fo .. -29:40 WESTERNHILLS ...  - - .. -- - -jg --216 .... jfa --- 315 ... 222 91 2 315 70% 29% 1% -- 29~30  - 1 i:1O JEFFEl'fsoN ,   - --    --   Ka  --455 - sfa ....  ... 5f3  221 219 1 54% 1% 44 .oo 21.10 CLOVERDALE . .. . .... .. -35   ii 404 512 476   469  3ci 13 6% 3% 41 .10 .. 24 .30 6'600 -   -- .. _.   - ......  - 2.; :2oci  224 ----- 224 145 14 5 \"J3i~ -  iii. --- 30:cio 11.30   -  --    -   -    --- . - ........ .. - - -  . . . . . . - - -  [,~~:~:!:::$ r ~! i ;i I~: :~ mm 2 ~: H ~;m :~ !;!i ~rn 513 44% 512 92% 224 65% 332 79% 658 54% 316 75% . .1..0 .98 8.77 9.99 8.50 9.41 9.73 8.25 10.48 9.57 7.75 9.78 7.14 - --1-1 .02 7.80 7.05 ...1.. 1 .32 8.48 10.75 11 .66 .1.1. .58 7.47 10.18 8.36 8.26 15.80 12.63 13.62 12.03 13.58 13.88 12.08 14.72 13.61 14.03 17.44 . . - ~ . . .. - 13.20 17.73 15.40 15.25 18.70 17.07 18.42 18.93 19.59 12.95 17.95 14.68 16.73 LITTLE ROC. . K.. ..S CHOOL DISTRICT  - . ... -..   -  ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-07-98   - .. OCTOBER 1, 1997 ENROLiMEt-ii'         TOTAL TEACH PUP-P/K PUP-P/K   -     PIK K 1-12 TOT TOT-PiK al wH 0TH TOT % BL % WH 0;{ 0TH F.T.E. F:t.i:. I STAFF /TEACH PULASKI HEIGHTS     -   ... 4.0 424   464 464 254 193   17 464 55%  42io  - 4io  . 39.20 22.90 11.84 20.'26 ROMINE - - -    35  6i - 230 --328  . 292 206 ... 78  ~f4  328 .. fa% ... i4% 13% .. . jgjij 23.00 7.47 . - 12.70 WASHINGTON      - - - - --5j --83 --s24 --fiifo -- 607 --352 -2fa 95 660 53% 32% 14% 80.10 46.60 7.58 ... -1io3 wiLsoN --     -- -- :;a  --s4 - -fgo - Ji32  - 344 -297  s3 12 - 362 a2io -1s0i; - ':loio - -ja.Jo 23.10 8.98 14.89 woobihiFF     - - -- . 34  40 -2fo   284  i5o  201   15 8   20-1. 71 i~ --26/o 3% 32.40 17.80 7. 72 . . .. 1fci4 MABEL.VALE. -    - -  15 - .. s-1 h1 -  407 . - 391 299  92   fo  407 1:Wo -~i:3,i.; ---~f -- 4cY.i3if --23~9if - -- g:53 16.36 TERRY    -    -    - ys 435 -sf1 - Kf1 2j5  243 .. 33 511 46% 48% 6% 47.20 28.20 10.03 10.12 FUCBRIGHT        69 426 495 495 240 246 9 495 480/o 50i~ -- 2i~ . . 51.90 28.80 9.54 17.19 OTTER CRE.Ek'          J6 -2~i\"2 -Ji8 . -  320 -1s1 167 10  320  46% s1% - - - 3% .... 30.10 16.60 .10.90 19.76 WAKEFiELt\u003e\"      ---  - - -52 - - j21 -373 373 -322 . 32  19  373 . a50io  gcy~ -siii~ . - :foji .. 2cf5ci 10.26 ..  1a .2ff WATSON    - ... - -- - 36 73 384 493 457 - 441 40  12 -- - 493 - 89/o ---8/o  . 2%. - 43)5 - 25.90. F.RANKLIN-     72 77 3f5 --464 - 392 --427  -24  13 -464 g2i~ - -5% - 3   73_-96 .. jif5O GARLAND     --  fa  -34 -219 --2if  -- 253 -253  -3 ... 15 ... 271 . g:foj. .. - 1o/~ - -6)~ ..... 47:30 I1 .ao MITC.HELC      -  ~1a -37 ---1ai -- i42   2i4 223  -- g ... fo  242 .!)2/o .... 4/4  4 . .. 4{:fo .. 21 .90. RocKEFELLER. --  -   - s3 ..... 53  299 -- 405  -3s2 :fai na   3o  ;:fris 59% 34%  - 1o;;.   19.90 32.90 R1i3Hri;ELi:.      --     fa 39 - fai -- 249    -231 234 9 6  2-19  94% 4%  2% 39.50 21 .00 EJOOKER        -- -     16 --s21 sg1  --597 Joa 251 . ia - 597 si0i~  44oj~ - so,,; ... 5:ffo .... 44 .50 CARVER  -  -    -  -- -   60 536  595  - sg5  --:i12 ... 259 25 .... 596 52/o 43%  4% - 63.90 39.20 Gies-s  -       -   --   - 39 -212  311  \"jfl - 161 133 17 .. . 511 -52o/o 43% 5% 40.30 . 25.30 WILLIAMS       -     - .. .. cio --419 479 -  479  240 214 17 479 52% 45% 4% 52.30 31 .10 TOTAL --    704 fiia4 11583 14171 13467 9335 4151 685 .14171  66% -29%    s 0io f.575j4 ai33.4O     -    0  0 -  o O --- - - ---   - - 0   ---  --  -   -  . .. .. . .. . --  -  0 0 0 0 0 -  - - H o --    0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0  00 0 00 00 0,0  --H o   - -    - 00  -     .. ,o , o 0  0 0  o o o   0 0000 -0 0  --- .. ---- .. .. 10.45 17.64 . ....   - 5.30 - 10.74 .. - 5.35 11 .61 5.07 10.23 - -- - - .. . 4.41 10.70 5.85 11 .00 9.37 13.42 9.33 15.20 7.72 12.29 9.16 15.40 8.54 15.24      -       ----- ------ -- - ---- - - - - ------ ---- ------ -- ----- -      - -  -- - - .. -- . - . . -  - ----------- --- -  --- -- - - ----. - . - . - -   .... - . - ... -      704 1925 22196 24825 24121 16622 7149 1054 24825 67% 29% 4% 2653.88 1621 .84 9.09 14.87 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT  -  --ALLocATION OF RESOlJRcEs----- - ..   -- .. . ... .. . ..... -- - ... . 10-07-90 ENROL[ . s60ARE SITE -   --. 10-1-97 -- FOOTAGE. AtREAGE CENTRAL   -  ----    1:oss   - 266,023  16.50 i-ii\\LC  --  --. --- .... . .. .. 'foci . - - 1s2,:i4ff  - -- \":if:10 FAIR   151   fai;ioo ----so.oo McCLELLAN 935 129,000 29.60 PARKVIEW - -  911 166,477 30.00 rnTAL - --  ------ -sj4a   --o-i 'i:cioa  -fs'(20 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS  - --   .. - ---- ---  SOFT/ .ENRoi..C 174.75 130.05 102.74 161.40 DUNBAR  771  --gfj97 - --  --5.\"cio\" 1 :z8~92 FOREST HEIGHTS 640 70,207 26.00 -------1-.0 8.47- i\u003eDLAsi\u003ci Heie,Rrs - - --- -    - 16i.    fa.ifo  - ----,foo =-=:y.s~jI SOUTHWEST 510 02,960 30.00 162.60 HENDERSON 724 103,212 46.36 142.56  CLOVERDALE 622  0 1--,-0--9--7  --- --- ------8.-0 0- - ---- -1--3-1--.6--7-- - ------- ------ --- ----- -- -- MABEL VALE 506 62,030 12.00 122.60 MANN  050 113,013 . - 12.29 - --fafii TOTAL 5,406 ao6,o2o   ..143.65 -126:oci ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS -  -   --- - -- -  BALE  - 362    33,626 - - - -:10.\"{iff -----g:fj39 BRADY -  372     _35,259 .  . ....... . tiio 97.47 BADGETT  233 23,404 .  -- \"f\u003cfoO. - - -- ffio:45 McDERMOTT 477 -  ,fo.02() --10:ifo --100:57 BASELINE 323 50,455 4.00 156.21 FAIR PARK 240 20,067 4.20 116.40 FOREST PARK 430 31,914 2.10 74.22 CHICOT   537  - ifo:Goi - --1 0:4\"6 ---f1Ll5 WESTERN HILLS 315   -- -10,iiTf    - -14:00  - 34.64 JEFFERSON -.  - 513 43,546 12.00 -- 04.00 crovi:RoAT.E - -   - --   - 512 33,263 a.oo - --134:01 DODD  224 46,71i  ----!Qfo . --208~54 MEADOWCLIFF 332 36,931 9.60 - 111.24 l\u003cING -- - - -  -  --  :-553  - -15,ooo - - 4:so -  113.98 GEYER SPRINGS 316 41,700 4.30 132.22 PULASKI HEIGHTS    - -  -464  -- s11.2si ---soo - ---125.54. ROMINE    --- ----- - ---320  -- 4i;j14 . 20:00 ---faifo1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT  ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES . . . . . - .. .... - . 10.07.90 sciLiARE wASHINGTON .. .. . ... . .. - - . . ... 660 o!i,ifoo WILSON . . .. . .... . . .. - ..... --   36i 37,075 WOODRUFF - 204 -- - :30,000 MABEL.VALi~- --  -   - 407 55,568 rEFfRv-------------------- ----------  -s11 -- --- ---- - 4!;:312 FULBRIGHT  495 . ........ 66:892 OTTER CREEK 320 36,551 WAKEFIELb - -  - . .. . . . ..........  373 Ji,395 WATSON   -  493 - - - ifa:ii,fo SITE --- so FT/ ACREAGE -  -ENROLL. 5:!io  ....... faifos -   s.ai'i' --10f4i 2.10 10.00 15.00 19.00 8.90  1f.:io 133.00 136.53 08.67 135.14 111:;i\"4 100.25 --- - ----  ... --- ------- . - .. -- -. FRAN1\u003ci..1~.;- - - ----      464 - so.soo 12.20 109.22 GARLAND  211 30,632 --- f :fo MITCHELL 242    .:i9,ioo 4.20 10.00 147.63 142.55 161 .98 159.41 1sf12 124.04 103.52 119.73 ROCKEFELLER 405     .6{ Sih RiGi-h'sECC - -         .  ... . -  .. 2,iri - -- 37 ,630 BOOKER 597 74,530 CARVER . --  -- -       - .. 596 - .. .. 61 ,695 GIBBS  311  :i7,237 wid:.1AMs     ..  479 47,200 6.30 2.10 12.00 s:oo 15.00 ....  gifs-1 TOTAL .    \" 1{ 171  1,GJ0,5i55  ---- -------- -.. . _ - - - - - - -- . . --  - ....... - ...     - . -- --- . . . . . - ......3 -0.5.. .90- . - ... -1- .1. .5.. .-0--6. -- - -- -.. ..... ________ ----. - .   .. . GRAND TOTAL 24 ,025 3, 163.siff 606.75 127.44 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT   -  - - --ALLocAfi6t.f6F RESOURCES - - - -- -  - . - - -.  -  ---- - -  . --- -. -- .. . . - -- . -- ... . -- - .. ----- -- -- --- ....... ------- - - --- 100798 ENROLL MASTERS + 9 TEACH % --   ---- -- - . - --- ----       - - - ---  - ........ --- - ---HIGH SCHOOLS  --- - -- ------- ----- - ------- 10197 F.T.E. CENTRAL 1,855 56 107.14 52% HALL 790 32 66.70 48% FAIR  - --------- -- - - --- - - ---------  - -t---- McCLELLAN 935 29 70.90 41 % 757 30 57.20 52% PARKVIEW - 911  35 ---5:f4()- -------553/0 TOTAL   ..... - -5.2~;-8 .. --- - - .. 182 -355_34 50% JUt-ii6rf\"i;i\"GHScHo6Ui .. ...... .  .. .......... . ...... - .  - -- DUNBAR 771 23 52.80 44% FOREST HEIGHTS 648 23 54 .30 42% PULAsi\u003cfl-iEiGHts  - .    --;67      22  si:fo 31o;o SOUTHWEST   510.  ---  19  -4s:40  --,f2 HENDERSON - - -    - 12,f - 20 57.30 35% -- --- - -- - -- -- --------- -- ----- ....... __ -- -    --------------- . . -- - -- - -- -- -  - . CLOVERDALE 622 14 47.80 29% MABEL VALE 506 13 44.90 29% MANN 858  30 62.30   - -~18/o TOTAL 5,406 164 424.10 39%  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS --   ---- - -  - .. - . - - -- BALE -- - - - - -  -- ----35i --------14 --2s-:-30 ---55)0 BRADY-  - ---- -  - . J'i2 . . - --- 1s -2i30  ---- Bi% BADGETT - -  -  - -  - . faj 8 17.30 46% McDERMOTT 477 9 29.40 31% BASELi~iE - 323  11 20. 10  53% FAIR PARK 248 10 15.90 63% FOREST.PARK 430 .  -- -- - ---11 - is:oo --44o/o CHICOT - -   537     --- 14 31 .90 - 44/o WESTERN HILLS 315  - ---- --- ------1- 0 - - 1-9.1-0- - --  -- 5--2--%- JEFFERSON 513 20 29.60 68% CLOVERDALE 512 13 26.80 49%   -- - - -- --  ------------  -- -   - - - .. - - ... -- ... . - -- -- --~  . DODD 224 9 19.30 47% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT   ALlOCATibN OF RESOUFfCES - - . --  ........     -- - -- ---- -- .. . . 10-07-98  ---  -   --- -- ... -- --- -  - -- - ENROLL MASTERS + 9  TEACH % - ---- ----  - - -- .. - --- - -- -  ... - - .. . ..   10-1-97 F.T.E. MEAi56WCLi\"FF---------- ------- -332 11 20.so 54% Ki NG - --- -- -  -  . .. . - 658 ..... ......... 17 . \" - -,b.oo -- -40%    - GEYER SPRINGS 316 - -----------10- ----- --1--8- .--8---0- 53% PULASKI HEIGHTS 464 12 25.40 47%  --- --- -----. ---------- -- - - .. - --- - --- ------- -    . -- -  - _ ,. __ ... . . . - ---- ------- ROMINE 328 10 25.00 40% WASHINGTON-- - -- -    -iiicf - - 11 - -50:16 -- ----3-4iij~ WILSON 362 19 25.10 76%  WOODRUFF - -- - . 284 . -- - . 5 ...... 1ti:ao .  ---30io MABELVALE 407  - -    6 --  25~90.  -  -23.0/o T-E R-R--Y--- -- ---- --- ------- -------- -- - -- ---- -- ------  .. - - "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1674","title":"Court filings concerning motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA), petition for award of attorneys' fees and costs, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the PCSSD,","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Lawyers","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA), petition for award of attorneys' fees and costs, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the PCSSD,"],"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/1674"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in support of its motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) petition for award of attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendant; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fee petition; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, Joshua intervenors' comments on the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Joshua proposed finds of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to defer consideration of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motions for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to defer consideration of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motions for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.   ' .. .. ... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS SEP 9 1998 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS OfflCE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ~CGATimHtiOi11TORING INTERVENORS PCSSD'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS REGARDS MFPA The PCSSD for its Motion states: 1. The PCSSD has previously acquainted this Court with the negative impact Act 917 had, and is having, upon the PCSSD. 2. Exhibit A to this Motion is an updated calculation utilizing the same methodology reviewed and approved by this Court on February 18, 1997. 3. This exhibit demonstrates that the PCSSD lost three million, six hundred and fifty-seven thousand, six hundred and sixty-nine dollars ($3,657,669) in 1996-97 as compared to Act 34, two million, forty-seven thousand, six hundred and seventy-six dollars ($2,047,676) in 1997-98 and that Act 917 will cost the District four million, one hundred and twenty-two thousand, four hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($4, 122,457) during the current school year. 4. The Court of Appeals has ordered that the three Pulaski districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system (Act 34) of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. 5. To comply with the holdings of the Court of Appeals, the PCSSD should be awarded the sums set forth in Exhibit A to this Motion. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 060) aunty Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September __i_, 1998 a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg. , Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 53481 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 MFPA CALC: ESTIMATES: DISTRICT LINE SCHOOL YEAR NO. CHARGE RATE 1 WADM DATA 2 REG. 3QADM 3 SPEDWADM  4 VOCWADM  5 VOCCWADM* 6 G\u0026 TWADM  7 MAGADM 8 LOSS FD WADM 9 TOT. WADM 10 M-to-M OUT 11 SBER CALCULATIONS 12 STATE FUNDS 13 AMOUNT ADDED 14 TOTAL ST. 15 AV AMT. 16 CHARGE RA TE 17 TOTAL AV CHG 18 TOTAL MISC. FDS. 19 TOTAL RESOURSES 20 TOT. WADM (73,892)  21 SBER 22 DIFFERENCE 23 AVE. LOC. RES. 24 MFPA CALCULATION 25 TOTAL A. V. 26 X CHG. 31 MISC. REV. 75% 32 LOCAL RES. 33 NO. M. D. 34 M.D. CR. 35 NET LOC. RES. 36 LOC. RES. RATE 37 SBER 38 TABLE RATE 39 TOT. MFPA 40 MFPA CHANGE 41 ADDITIONAL FUNDING 42 TEACHER RET. \u0026 HEAL TH INS. COST 43 AT RISK 44 TRANS 45 TOT. ADD. STATE FUNDS 46 TOT. STATE FUNDS 47 TOTAL CHANGE 48 ACT 917 FUNDING + DEBT SERV. 49 TOTAL MORE OR (LESS) THAN ACT 34  NUMBERS REMAIN AT 1995-96 LEVELS CHG. INC= (AMT. ADD./2500000)/1000 ACT 34 FOR 96-97 97-98 \u0026 98-99 ACT34978.WK PCSSD PCSSD PCSSD PCSSD 1995-96 , 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 0.0278 0.0315 0.0334 0.0358 19,070.30 19,074.36 18,801 .98 18,339.84 1,950.70 1,950.70 1,950.70 1,950.70 712.45 712.45 712.45 712.45 26.01 26.01 26.01 26.01 246.00 246.00 246.00 246.00 963.41 951 .41 978.17 978.17 539.39 159.12 166.49 389.97 23,508.26 23,120.05 22,881.80 22,643.14 402.66 394.01 581.14 581 .14 $963,200,241 $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1 ,104,528,360 $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1,104,528,360 $1, 164,528,360 $17,015,999,575 $18,376,728,665 $19,816,194,517 $20,410,680,353 0.0278 0.0315 $473,044,788 $578,866,953 $5,215,335 $5,171,702 $1 ,441 ,460,364 $1,640,938,394 521 ,731 519,249 $2,762.84 $3,160.21 $397.37 $907 $1,115 $737,033,624 $786,594,811 $20,489,535 $24,777,737 $73,473 $73,473 $20,563,008 $24,851 ,210 669.47 669.47 ($217,769 ($83,766 $20,345,239 $24,767,443 $865.45 $1 ,071 .25 S2,762.84 $3,160.21 S1,897.39 $2,088.96 $44,604,310 $48,296,823 $3,692,512 S8,701 ,196 $9,564,451 S809,914 $809,914 S2,005,448 $2,005,448 $11 ,516,558 $12,379,813 $56, 120,868 $60,676,636 $4 555,767 $57,018,967 ($3,657,669 EXHIBIT I A 0.0334 $661,860,897 $6,739,116 $1,773,128,373 I 525,631 I $3,373.331 $213.121  $1 2591 $917,639,068 $30,649,1451 $41,1861 $30,690,331 I 669.471 $30,690,331 I $1,341 .261 $3,373.33 ! $2,032.08i $46,497,592 I ($1 ,799,231) $9,753,8661 $809,9141 $2,005,448 i $12,569,228 I $59,066,8201 $31,116,1931 $57,019,1441  ($2,047,6761 0.0358 $730,702,357 $6,739.116 $1,901 ,969,833 525,631 $3,618.45 $245.12 $1,390 $949,708,069 $33,999,549 $56,981 $34,056,530 669.47 $0 $34,056,530 $1 ,504.06 $3,618.45 $2,1 14.40 $47,876,547 $1,378,955 $10,280 ,201 .18 $809,914 $2,005,448 $13,095,563 $60,972,110 $4,851 ,242 $56,849,653 ($4, 122,457 MFPA CALC. ESTIMATES: ACT 34 FOR 96-97 97-98 \u0026 98-99 ACT34978.WK~ DISTRICT LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LINE SCHOOL YEAR 1995-96 ' 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 NO. CHARGE RATE 0.0278 0.0315 0.0334 0.0358 1 WADMDATA 2 REG. 3QADM 22.384.95 22,231 .64 22,839.39 23,133.39 3 SPED WADM  1,700.72 1,700.72 1,700.72 1,700.72 4 VOCWADM  826.68 826.68 826.68 826.68 5 VOCCWADM  77.95 77.95 77.95 77.95 6 G \u0026 TWADM  253.75 253.75 253.75 253.75 7 MAG ADM 8 LOSS FD WADM 533.59 311 .20 0.00 0.00 9 TOT. WADM 25,777.64 25,401.94 25 698.49 25,992.49 10 M-to-M OUT 11 SBER CALCULATIONS 12 STATE FUNDS $963.200,241 $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1 ,104,528,360 13 AMOUNT ADDED $0 %1M}tf~t~~  %if-tt{U:t~~ ii.i.i:d:li~J 14 TOTAL ST. $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1 ,104,528,360 $1 ,164,528,360 15 AV AMT. $17,015,999,575 $18,376,728,665 $19,816,194,517 $20,410,680,353 16 CHARGE RATE 0.0278 0.0315 0.0334 0.0358 17 TOTAL AV CHG $473,044,788 $578,866,953 $661 ,860,897 $730,702,357 18 TOTAL MISC. FOS. $5,215,335 $5,171 ,702 $6,739,116 $6,739,116 19 TOTAL RESOURSES $1,441,460,364 $1,640,938,394 $1 ,773,128,373 $1 ,901,969,833 20 TOT. WADM 173,892) * 521,731 519,249 525,631 525,631 21 SBER $2,762.84 $3,160.21 $3,373.33 $3,618.45 22 DIFFERENCE $397.37 $213.12 $245.12  23 AVE. LOC. RES. $907 $1115 $1 ,259 $1,390 24 MFPA CALCULATION 25 TOTAL A. V. $1 ,645,039,791 $1 ,712,31 1,220 $1,947,375,874 $1 ,964,727,647 26 X CHG. $45,732,106 $53,937,803 $65,042,354 $70,337,250 31 MISC. REV. 75% $102,1 58 $1 47,194 $132,386 32 LOCAL RES. $45,834,264 $53,937,803 $65,189,548 $70,469,636 33 NO. M. 0 . 34 M.D. CR. 35 NET LOC. RES. $45,834,264 $53,937,803 $65,189,548 $70,469,636 36 LOG. RES. RATE $1,778.06 $2,123.37 $2,536.71 $2,7 11 .15 37 SBER $2,762.84 $3,160.21 $3,373.33 $3,6 18.45 38 TABLE RATE $984.78 $1 ,036.84 $836.63 $907.301 39 TOT.MFPA $25,385,218 $26,337,719 $21,500,007 $23,582,898 40 MFPACHANGE $952,502 ($4,837,713 $2,082,891 41 ADDITIONAL FUNDING 42 TEACHER RET. \u0026 HEAL TH INS. COST $11 ,518,589.00 $13,802,736.00 $14,461 ,942.00 $15,933,618.50 43 AT RISK  $1 ,226,252.00 $1 ,226,252.00 $1 ,226,252.00 $1 ,226,252.00 44 TRANS  $1 ,653,753.00 $1 ,653,753.00 $1 ,653,753.00 $1 ,653,753.00 45 TOT. ADD. STATE FUNDS $14,398,594 $16,682,741 $17,341,947 $18,813,624 46 TOT. STATE FUNDS $39,783,812 $43,020,460 $38,841,954 $42,396,521 47 TOTAL CHANGE $3 236,649 $38,841,954 $2,612,709 48 ACT 917 FUNDING + DEBT SERV. $43,350,510 $43,233,081 $45,946,383 49 TOTAL MORE OR (LESS) THAN ACT 34 $330,050 $4 391,127 $3,549,862  NUMBERS REMAIN AT 1995-96 LEVELS -  CHG. INC= (AMT. ADD./2500000)/1000 - - ----- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 93 ~Fp _ o P\"' S WESTERN DIVISION .. - '-' 1  06 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECElllED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE-fr !ffSEGREGATION MONITORlNm INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS REGARDS MFPA In its latest decision regarding the Districts' financial claims against the State, the Court of Appeals held in part that: [t)he districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFPA plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. 97-1794 E.A. Slip Opinion at p. 31 . The PCSSD has previously acquainted this Court with the negative impact Act 917 had and is having upon the PCSSD. Indeed, in its Order dated February 18, 1997 this Court stated: The Court finds persuasive the figures submitted by the PCSSD which show that its total State funding in 1996-97 will be less under the new formula than it would have been under the old. See PCSSD MFPA Calculation Estimate with Act 34 of 1996-97, Ex. A, PCSSD Prehearing Brief (doc. #2854). In response to the State's figures that indicate that the PCSSD does better under the new formula, _ see Green Deel., State's Resp. to M. Summ. J., the PCSSD points out that the State's figures are not adjusted for the increases in teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the PCSSD is experiencing this year and instead rely on data from the previous school year. Exhibit A to the Motion is an updated calculation utilizing the same methodology reviewed and approved by this Court on February 18, 1997. The outcomes for 1996-97 are slightly different because additional updated information has been received. As contemplated by the Court of Appeals in its most recent decision, these calculations cannot be made with precision, but they are more reliable than \"a reasonable and informed estimate.\" kl The outcome in this case is that as compared to Act 34, Act 917 cost the PCSSD three million, six hundred and fifty-seven thou,sand, six hundred and sixty-nine dollars ($3,657,669) in 1996-97, two million, forty-seven thousand, six hundred and seventy-six dollars ($2 ,047,676) in 1997-98 and will cost the District four million, one hundred and - twenty-two thousand, four hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($4,122,457) during 1998-99 using the current projections of the Arkansas Department of Education. The same methodology demonstrates that for 1996-97 the North Little Rock School District lost one million, five hundred and thirty-four thousand, five hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($1,534,557) under Act 917, that it gained slightly at forty-three thousand, fifty-one dollars ($43 ,051) in the last school year under Act 917 but that it will lose an additional one million, three hundred and forty-four thousand, eight hundred and fifty dollars ($1,344,850) this year under Act 917. The same methodology demonstrates that for 1996-97 the LRSD gained three hundred and thirty thousand and fifty dollars ($330,050) under Act 917, gained four million, three hundred ninety-one thousand, one hundred and twenty-seven dollars - (4,391 ,127) last year under Act 917 and will gain three million, five hundred and forty- 53101 2 ' nine thousand, eight hundred and fifty-two dollars ($3,549,852) this year utilizing current State projections. The Court of Appeals ordered that: \"the three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed.\" ~ at 30- 31 . The system that changed the distribution for teacher retirement and health insurance is Act 917. To comply with the holdings of the Court of Appeals, the PCSSD should be awarded the sums set forth in Exhibit A to its Motion. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 60) nty Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September _i, 1998 a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 53 101 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm  401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 53101 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 4 ,,,, J.-1\\C K, lLYON \u0026 J O'.~ES, P ... -1\\ . ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 7 2201 3472 (501 ) 375 1 1 22 TELECOPI ER (501 ) 375 1 027 ~,-~/ \"~ ,, .. (.It:. lii: Ur f\u0026GREW'!ON MONiTORING Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John M. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al September 11 , 1998 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Nashville Office 111 MUSIC Circle South Surte 202 Nashville. Tennessee 37203 (6151259-4664 Telecopier (615) 259-4668 Enclosed please find North Little Rock School District's Petition for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs as to State Defendant. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, (-- i ~ Stephen W. Jones U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARK ANSllc: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 11 1998 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ________ _ nEP.CLERI\u003c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. SEP 1 ~~ 1998 OFF/GE Cf DEISafGATION MONIT'JR/NG DEFENDAt-v.IS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT; et al. INIERVENORS INIERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PETITION FOR AW ARD OF. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AS TO STATE DEFENDANT Comes now the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"), by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., and for its Petition for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs as to State Defendant, states as follows : 1. On or about July 1, 1998, this Court issued an Opinion affirming the district court's decision that the State of Arkansas had violated the terms of its Settlement Agr~ement with the three Pulaski County school districts with respect to the adverse effect on teacher retirement and health insurance caused by changes to the method of school funding. 2. Consistent with this Court's previous decision in this matter, see 127 F.3d 693 , 695 (8 th Cir. 1997), NLRSD qualifies as a prevailing party and is entitled to recover attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. Alternatively, NLRSD is entitled to recover fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308. 3. NLRSD incurred fees and costs in the amount of $31,081.15 (Stephen W. Jones - 130.25 hours x $185.00 = $24,096.25;]. Allen Carney- 24.50 hours x $125.00 = $3 ,062.50; Melissa Glover - 23 .5 x $115.00 = $2,702.50; and $1 ,219.90 in costs). The hourly fees charged by Jack, Lyon and Jones, P.A. are consistent with those charged by attorneys of like skill and experience in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 4. The fees and costs are supported by the attached Affidavit of Stephen W. Jones, attorney ofNLRSD. See Exhibit A. 5. As a service to the NLRSD and the community at large, the fees charged by Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. to NLRSD were at substantial discounts from those rates typically charged to other clients. See attachedExhibit B, Affidavit of James Smith. However, Defendant ADE is not entitled to benefit from those discounts. To do so would reward it for its violation of the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, for purposes of this fee petition, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. is entitled to receive its typical hourly fees. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, NLRSD respectfully requests this Court award it attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $31,081.15, and for all other ~elief to which it may be entitled. By: 2 Respectfully submitted JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 Stephen W. Jones, ' 083 J. Allen Carney, #9. 122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 11 th day of September, 1998 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDqE \u0026 CLARK, 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Builcti.m r ~ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John M. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas .72206 3 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 $L\u003c-W~ Stephen W. Jones U IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTER.~ DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT,.et al. AFFIDAVIT I, Stephen W. Jones, after being duly sworn, state under oath: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INilRVE~-ORS INilRVEJ\\-ORS 1. The billing statements attached as Exhibit A to this Affidavit reflect the hours worked and costs incurred on this matter before this Court as recorded in contemporaneous time records. All of the time shown on these billing statements have been billed to NLRSD and those bills have been paid or will be paid. 2. I have been engaged in the private practice of law for twenty (20) years and am the managing partner of Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. I have practiced and lectured extensively in the areas of civil rights, employment, and school law. I am a contributing author to Employment Discrimination Law, Schlei and Grossman, 2Ed., 1983, co-editor of the Arkansas Employment Law Bulletin, and co-author of the Arkansas Employment Law Deskbook. My normal hourly billing rate is $185.00. That rate is consistent with rates charged by lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas. EXHIBIT I A 3. J. Allen Camey is an associate with Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. with approximately four ( 4) years of experience. His normal hourly billing rate is $125 .00. This rate is consistent with billing rates for lawyers of similar ability and experience in Pulaski CoW1ty, Arkansas. 4. Melissa Glover is an !associate with Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. with approximately two (2) years of experience. Her normal hourly billing rate is $115.00. This rate is consistent with billing rates for lawyers of similar ability and experience in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 5. The attached billing statements relate exclusively to proceedings before this Court involving the funding of teacher retirement and health insurance benefits. Moreover, the time entries have been reviewed to eli!I}inate duplicative and other non-billable time. Designated for internal accoW1ting purposes as matter No. 1-2 0, time records with respe~t-to proceedings before this Coun were kept separate from other desegregation matters. ~ . ' -- '(I STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI) By: x~ LJ ?FJ~ Stephen W. Jones U ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this the l f tiJ d~y of September, 1998, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, personally appeared Stephen W. Jones, known to me to be the p~rson whose name is subscribed to the attestation and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purpose therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. r-, \\- -~~-\\-'! ::.\\ cQ-Jt. K 0 Notary Public 2 DATE ATTORNEY DESCRIPTION Tl~IE 10/20/95 JAC Conference with Mr. Jones regarding State Funding 0.50 issues, recovery of payment shortfalls, etc. 10/20/95 SWJ Meeting with Messrs. Smith, K.ince and Watkins to 5.75 review financial projections and analyze legal rami~cations; Telephone conference with Mr. Jones and Dr. Stewart 11/8/95 JAC Conference with Mr. Jones regarding state funding 0.75 issues and his previous meetings with NL RSD officials 11 /9/95 JAC Conference regarding state funding; review 0.50 Desegregation Plan provisions 11 /14/95 JAC .. Conference regarding teacher retirement and state 1.00 funding 12/ 1/95 JAC Conference regarding funding formula and potential 0 .. 25 litigation 12/11/95 SWJ Telephone conference with l'v1r. Smith regarding 0.75 .. ADE response to funding concerns; Telephone conference with Ms. Boyter .. 1/2/96 SWJ Meeting with Mr. Smith and Dr. New, etc. regarding 2.75 funding issues 1/26/96 SWJ Telephone conference -with Mr. Smith regarding state 0\".75 funding and plan, etc. 2/7/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 2.75 funding issues; Research regarding same and possibility of recovery 2/8/96 SWJ Review ADE's pleadings regarding Worker's 3.25 Compensation to determine if any admission; Research regarding funding issues 2/12/96 JAC Conference regarding potential action against state 0.50 2/13/96 JAC Attend meeting regarding state funding issues 2.50 2/13/96 SWJ Meeting with Mr. Smith and staff regarding funding 4.25 issues; Review current analysis .. \" . . 4/24/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 0.50 PCSSD and ADE meeting 4/29/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 0.50 meeting with ADE; Telephone conference with tvlr. Jones' secretary regarding ADE meeting 5/2/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 0.50 meeting with ADE 5/16/96 SWJ Meeti,ng '.vith ADE regarding funding issues; Meet 5.25 with Messrs. Smith and Kince, et al. 5/ 17/96 JAC Interoffice conference with tvlr. Jones regarding ' 1.00 funding meeting 5/17/96 SWJ Prepare and attend meeting with ADE and district 7.50 personnel regarding funding issues; Meet with Messrs. Smith, et al.; Review various reports 5/23/96 SWJ .. Review ADE offer regarding M-toM adjustment for 0.50 1996 5/24/96 SWJ Telepho~e conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding 0.75 issues and ADE position 5/28/96 SWJ Review PCS SD letter regarding 1996 M-toM 0.75 adjustments; Review tvlr. Jones' letter regarding hearing on June 7 5/29/96 SWJ Review PCSSD Motion to Enforce Settlement; 0.75 Review letter from tvlr. Walker regarding deposit~ons; Review PCS SD FOI request 5/30/96 JAC Conference regarding meeting with Judge Wright; 1.00 Litigation strategy 5/31 /96 JAC Prepare for and attend hearing regarding State 2.00 funding issues; Conference with Messrs. Jones and Heller. 5/31/96 SWJ Conference with Judge Wright and other counsel 3.50 regarding schedule of proceedings for Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement; Conferences with Messrs. Heller, Jones, Smith and Watkins regarding same; Review ADE FOI request to PCS SD; Review Order regarding funding hearing; Review LRSD, PCSSD Petition for rehearing 6/4/96 JAC Review.County's Motion to Enforce Settlement 1.25 ... Agreement 6/5/96 JAC Review County's Motion; Research funding issues 1.50 6/6/96 JAC Review 8th Circuit Slip Opinion; Review LRSD 1.25 6/6/96 SWJ Review LRSD Motion to Enforce Settlement 3.75 Agreement; Review PCSSD Second Motion to Enforce; Work on NLRSD Motion 617196 JAC Rese' arch and draft NLRSD's Motion to Enforce 3.50 Settlement Agreement 617/96 SWJ Review PCSSD and LRSD Motions; Review and edit 3.25 NLRSD Motion Brief; Telephone conference with Mr. Smith 6/12/96 SWJ Telephone conference regarding NLRSD motion; 0.75 Prepare letter regarding same 6/17/96 SWJ . . Review ADE response to petition for rehearing 0.75 6/27/96 SWJ Review letter from ADE rega~ding extension to 0.25 respond 6/28/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Messrs. Jones and Heller 2.75 regarding amicus and other issues; Review ADE Motion for Extension to Respond; Review status report materials 7/1 /96 SWJ Review Motion to Extend Time filed by Joshua, 1.00 PCSSD and LRSD; Review 1:,RSD June planning and budgeting tool 7/2/96 SWJ . Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding 0.50 need for amicus and demand status of rehearing 7/3/96 SWJ Review discovery requests and ADE pleadings 0.75 7/8/96 SWJ Review letter from ADE describing documents 1.00 responsive to PCSSD discovery 7/15/96 SWJ Review documents in preparation for Lakeview 0.75 hearing 7/ 16/96 JAC Conference regarding state funding issues 0.50 7/16/96 SWJ Attend status conference on Lakeview case; 2.00 Conference with Mr. Wilson 7/17/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding 0.50 meeting on Lakeview; Telephone conference \\.vi th tvlr. Smith 7/ 18/96 JAC Prepare for and attend meeting with Messrs. Jones, 2.50 Heller, etc. regarding state funding challenge 7/1 8/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Wooldridge 4.50 regarding Mr. Smith's schedule; Telephone conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding going ahead with meeting; Telephone conference with Mr. Kince; Telephone conference with Ms. Wooldridge; Telephone conference with Mr. Watkins; Attend meeting with other counsel and parties regarding Lakeview 7/23/96 SWJ Telephone conference with l\\llr. Sam Jones 0.50 . 7/24/96 SWJ Briefly review ADE and Lakeview Plaintiffs 1.00 Motions and Responses; Telephone conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding same; Telephone conference with Mr: Roachell regarding same 7/26/96 JAC Conference with Mr. Jones; review brief 1.00 .. 7/26/96 SWJ Conference with Mr. Carney, review brief 1.00 8/2/96 SWJ Review ADE request for extension 0.25 8/21/96 SWJ Review accumulated PCS SD and intervener's 2.50 pleadings 8/23/96 SWJ Review ADE Motion to Dismiss and Intervener 1.25 Motion; Review PCSSD response; Interoffice conference regarding response; Review and edit same 8/25/96 SWJ Review Motions/Memorandum; telephone 1.00 conference with Mr. Smith 8/29/96 SWJ Review Intervener's reply to LRSD and PCSSD 1.50 response 9/3/96 SWJ Review ADE pleadings 0.50 9/6/96 JLJ Copy Charges 1.50 9/6/96 .. . JLJ Telecopy Charges .. 1.75  , 9/ 10/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding class 1.00 certification motion in Lakeview case; Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding LRSD position on motion 9/26/96 JLJ Copy Charges 4.25 10/3/96 SWJ Meet with Messrs. Smith, Jones, Heller, Kincl, Lester 2.75 and Stewart regarding strategy in Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement against ADE; Conference with Messrs. Smith and Kincl regarding same 10/8/96 MBG . Telephone conference with Mr. Hoskins at 0.50 Department of Education about depositions; Conference with Mr. Jones and Mr. Bowman about depositions 10/9/96 MBG .. Telephone conference with Mr. Hoskins at 6.00 Department of Education; Review ofletters for file; Prepare deposition list; Conference with Mr. Jones  on facts of case; Organize file; Attend deposition of . Dr. Robert Shaver 10/10/96 MBG Attend Dr. Robert Shaver's deposition; Conference 9.00  --with Mr. Jones on issues in depositions 10/11/96 MBG Attend depositions of Tristan Greene and Dr. Bobbie 8.00 Davis 10/14/96 JLJ  Parking Charge 17.40 11/11 /96 SWJ Review and comment on draft of pretrial brief of the 2.00 three Pulaski districts regarding loss of teachers retirement and employee health insurance payments from state; Telephone conferences with Messrs. Heller and S. Jones regarding brief and preparation for hearing on November 19 11 /13/96 SWJ Review order from Judge Wright ordering status 1.75 conference to consider various motions regarding motion to enforce settlement agreement; Reivew PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South; Telephone conferences with other counsel regarding hearing and strategy 11/18/96 SWJ Review new motions to enforce settlement agreement 6.00 and ADE responses; Telephone conference with :vfr. Smith regarding hearing; Telephone conference with Messrs. Heller and S. Jones regarding November 19 hearing; Review original motions to enforce settlement agreement against ADE prepare for status conference with Judge Wright; Review pre-trial brief;  ! Review PCSSD pre-trial brief 11 /21/96 SWJ Review draft of Motion for Summary Judgment, 1.50 Briefin Support and Statement of Undisputed Facts; Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding same; Review letter from Mr. Walker regarding request for fees for November 19 hearing 11/25/96 SWJ Review filed version of Districts ' Motion for 1.75 .. Summary Judgment against ADE, Brief in Support and Statement of Undisputed Facts; Review letter from ADE attorney requested e~tension to respond to Motion for Summary Judgment on teacher retirement issue 12/13/96 SWJ Review ADE pleadings; Telephone conferences 2.25 regarding depositions needed and schedule for sa.rne 12/18/96 SWJ Review ADE pleadings; Telephone conference with 1.50 other counsel regarding analysis and suggestions 12/19/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr: Heller regarding 0.50 additional filings 12/23/96 SWJ Review ADE response to LRSD, NLRSD and 2.75 PCSSD Statement of Undisputed Facts, ADE opposition to ODM budget, arid Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 12/26/96 SWJ Review Districts ' reply to ADE Response to Motion 1.25 for Summary Judgment; Review Amicus Curiae Response on Summary Judgment; Review deposition schedule for Mr. Wilhoit and Dr. Sydoriak 1/2/97 SWJ Prepare for and attend deposition of Mr. Wilhoit; 3.75 Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding hearing 1/3/97 SWJ Review documents related to school funding issues; 2.50 Interoffice conference with other counsel regarding hearing and evidence needed 1/6/97 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Reed regarding 3.25 impact of Act 917 on special education funding; Research regarding Act 91 7; Prepare for and attend deposition of Diane Sydoriak 1/6/97 SWJ Conferences with Messrs. Heller and Jones regarding 1.25 preparation for hearing 1/13/97 SWJ Review ADE and Districts' pleadings; Review 2.00 amicus filed by Mr. Llewelyn 1/14/97 SWJ Review and organize files with paralegal 1.25 1/14/97 SWJ . . Review motion and brief regarding summary 1.00 judgment on special education and other issues 1/1 5/97. SWJ Review Districts' motion regarding health insunice , 1.75 special educ "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1699","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law","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":["1998-09-01"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School integration","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School facilities","School employees","Students","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law"],"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/1699"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["79 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1903 - 1977) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1913 - 1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR. JOHN G. LILf GORDON S. RATHER , JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR. PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON EDGAR J. TYLER CHARLES C. PRICE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 RECEBl\\'J~CK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 . ~ ~ ~u (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 SEP 2 1998 WEBSITE : www.wlj .com ;::~;E/ ~L.5~i!MAN OFFICE OF OF COUNSEL ~~:~~E\\ t0 ~l~c~ .. ~:RGER DESEGREGAJION MONITORINGA~1TNOA~~:tNJ~~s SAMMYE L. TAYLOR M. TOCO WOOD WALTER E . MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E . BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., ~e. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Writer's Direct Olal No . 501-2121273 mjones@wlj .com September 1, 1998 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ., NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR. HARRY S . HURST, JR. TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATHRYN A PRYOR J . MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . SARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM AINSLEY H. LANG KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DONS. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS AL LGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES Re: Little Rock School Distrie:t v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC Docket No.: LR-C-82-866 Dear Counsel: Enclosed is The PCSSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which was filed today with the Court Clerk. Cordially yours, WRIG T, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP muelJ~/ckJ Enclosure IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS SEP 2 1998 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS OFFICE OF - DESEGREGATION MONITORING THE PCSSD'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BACKGROUND This action was filed on November 30, 1982 by the LRSD against the PCSSD and others.1 Liability was adjudicated against the PCSSD and others on April 10, 1984 and a consolidation of the three school districts in Pulaski County was ordered. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (hereafter the Court of Appeals), en bane, affirmed most of the findings of liability of the District Court, but reversed the court ordered consolidation and prescribed a different remedy. The Court of Appeals ordered that the boundaries of the LRSD would become those of the city of Little Rock as they then existed. The Court of Appeals also ordered the transfer of the Granite Mountain community from the LRSD to the PCSSD. As a result of these transfers, the PCSSD lost 36% of its tax base, one-third of its schools, and 25% of its students. 1 The LRSD supports the PCSSD in its petition for unitary status. 1 In the same opinion, the Court of f,ppeals ordered all three districts to develop desegregation plans that would distribute students in a way such that each school would have approximately the same racial balance as each district had as a whole. Significantly, the Court of Appeals specifically held that the remedy it then ordered was a complete remedy for the constitutional violations of which the PCSSD had been found guilty; specifically those violations relating to annexations and deannexations, segregated housing, school siting, student assignments, special education, transportation, employment of faculty and administrators, and black participation in school affairs. Thereafter, other proceedings occurred,_ both before the District Court and the _,., Court of Appeals, culminating in 1989 in the Settlement Agreement and the agreed upon Desegregation Plan for each school district. While the present PCSSD Plan was not finalized in all of its particulars until April, 1992, the PCSSD has operated since 1989 under substantially the same plan. It is significant to note that many features of the PCSSD Plan, the lnterdistrict Plan, and the Plans of the other school districts were not specifically mandated as remedial devices by the Court of Appeals. For instance, the six interdistrict schools, while subsequently embraced by the Court of Appeals, were never mandated as part of any prescribed remedy. For that matter, the Court of Appeals never specifically mandated that the PCSSD pursue affirmative action in hiring and in staffing its schools and other operations. Indeed, it held in 1985 that the territorial transfer was the remedy for, among other things, violations in the areas of special education, transportation, and 51781 2 employment of faculty and administrators,. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 434-435 (8th Cir. 1985). Counseling. The PCSSD was released from federal court supervision as regards counseling and guidance programs by order dated March 27, 1996 (Docket #2648). INTRODUCTION 1. The Release of All Claims Against the PCSSD provides: \"In consideration of commitments set forth in the Plans, Joshua forever .discharge[s] the PCSSD of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans.\" [Court Exhibit No. CX 417, Pages 1 and 2 of Release of All Claims Against the PCSSD.] 2. The District Court withdrew its monitoring and supervision of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) in the area of student assignments in an Order dated September 18, 1995. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 1.] Since 1989, there have been no allegations of new constitutional violations made against the PCSSD. (UHi 20) 3. The plan has had a marked impact in the way the PCSSD does business with regard to the way it looks at test scores and analyzes that data with regard to the way that kids are placed or not placed. It has impacted the way the PCSSD delivers staff development and its goals in its search for instructional strategies that it hopes would either mediate the affects of the problems that come associated with 51781 3 socioeconomic status, in particular in the.,PCSSD as in others the black population is 9 more heavily impacted because as a group, its income level is poorer. A search for strategies to try to remove any disparity that exists and that would at the same time advance achievement as a whole has had a dramatic impact on the way the PCSSD does business. [Court Exhibit No. CX 439, Pages 8 and 9.] 4. The PCSSD foresees no significant change as to its commitments concerning the interdistrict and magnet schools. [Court Exhibit No. CX 438, Page 22.] 5.  Mr. Bill Bowles, the PCSSD Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation is an African American who has been employed by the District for 28 years. He has served as a teacher, assistant principal, principal and central office administrator. (UHi 23) He was able to assess from whence the Distrl~t started to today and thinks the District has made a lot of progress. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Pages 15 and 16.] 6. Mr. Bowles has been Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation for 13 years.. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 4.] 7. Mr. Bowles has been involved with the current desegregation plan from its inception and it is his opinion that the PCSSD has fully implemented its desegregation plan and implemented it in good faith. (UHi 24, 92-93) He further believes that the PCSSD has earned unitary status. 19.:. 8. Some of his job responsibilities are to coordinate the implementation of the District's desegregation plan. He is a liaison person to all other departments for the District's desegregation plan, and is a consultant with each assistant superintendent for the implementation of the desegregation plan. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 5:] 51781 4 9. Mr. Bowles consulted with the superintendent and their attorney, Mr. Sam - Jones; and looked at other cases throughout the country. They did some comparative analysis on those cases and this one, considered the fact that they felt their implementation was in good faith and to the point where they felt that they had implemented it with a commitment and to the point where they felt they had done practically all that was required of them. After that consultation, Mr. Lester issued a memo to the other department heads to look at their individual divisions. Each department head felt his department had in good faith implemented the plan as it was written so the go ahead to actually file for un.itary status was given. [Court Exhibit No. ex 441, Pages 8 and 9.] 10. Mr. Jones, Mr. Bowles and the superintendent met individually with each interested board member to explain what they were pursuing. Only one of the African-American board members expressed some concerns. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 9.] 11. Mr. Bowles believes federal court jurisdiction has been a good thing for the school District because it has opened some eyes, it has opened the book so-to-speak for everybody to look at and make changes that were obviously necessary within the District. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Pages 18 and 19.] 12. Each month Mr. Bowles looks at the school board agenda and if there is a problem on the school board agenda that might negatively impact desegregation, he is required to submit in writing what that problem is. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 20.] 13. In Mr. Bowles' opinion, unitary is not based on the end result. It's based on effort and implementation. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 60.] 51781 5 14. This court has never been r~quired to order the PCSSD to implement something from its plan that it had failed to implement. 15. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation has time reserved at each Board meeting to report whether or not there is anything on the Board agenda that might negatively impact the desegregation plan. (UHII 406) 16. If that Assistant Superintendent feels there is anything on the tentative agenda which has a negative impact on the desegregation plan, it is removed from the agenda. (UHII 407) 17. While Joshua also has time reserved on each board agenda, it is hardly ever used . .!.Q.,_ 18. There has not been a single incident during the history of this case in which Joshua has initiated, pursed and filed a proposed amendment to the PCSSD plan. (UHi 413) STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 1. Or. Armor advocates a racial balance range of 20 percentage points. For example, if a school district were 65% black, the range would be between 45% and 85% black. (Armor 64) 2. Whatever the range, some schools are going to fall outside of the range because the districts, even if they assign appropriately, could not control who shows up from year to year. Such a failing is not a measure of the intent or of the plan. (Armor 65-66) 3. Even districts that have been declared unitary have some schools that vary from the standard, many times by just a few percentage points. There are schools 51781 6 - - - -- - - ------ - ------------------- in many school districts that for a variety 9f reasons cannot be integrated according to the applicable standard because of geography or distance or hazards or isolation. (Armor 66) 4. For instances, in Savannah, 11 of 44 schools were outside the range of 20 percentage points, yet Dr. Armor testified, and the District Court agreed, that Savannah was unitary with respect to student assignment. (Armor 69-70) 5. At the time the PCSSD was 20% minority, application of its current student assignment test would have permitted a variance of only 5 percentage points in either direction, and is one of the narrowest variances in the history of school desecration. (Armor 86) 6. Dr. Armor did not know of a single school district in the country operating with the narrow rage utilized by the PCSSD in the decade of the 1990s. (Armor 87) 7. Savannah was declared unitary even while it still had three schools that were 80% black and one that was only 31 % black. (Armor 89-90, Ex. 395) 8. Savannah, like the PCSSD, is a geographically very large school district ; and it was difficult to 'disperse students to some of the remoter schools. (Armor 90-91) 9. In the Wilmington case, Dr. Armor testified that the Wilmington schools were racially balanced because in any given year 80% of the schools would be within the court prescribed range. That view was adopted by the court. The Wilmington range is slightly more expansive than the PCSSD range. (Armor 95) 10. The same percentage for the Savannah schools was approximately 75%. (Armor 96) 51781 7 11 . Dr. Armor explained that there would probably be no unitary decision whatsoever if every school had to meet a standard, whatever that standard was, every year or most years. (Armor 105) 12. Dr. Armor says it is virtually impossible to recruit white students to schools that are 90% African-American through an m-m program. (Armor 202-203) 13. Savannah had 11 court ordered magnet schools in 1990 and the district added to that total. (Armor 211) 14. For 1990, Savannah had a target to recruit 1,025 students to the magnets and they were able to recruit 950. (Armor 212) 15. Or. Armor described this as being_ the most successful magnet program in the country. (Armor 213) 16. Dr. Armor determined that out of all of the schools in Pulaski County, that - is, all three districts, only two schools were outside of his racial balance standard, and those two only by a few percentage points. (Armor 219) 17. Dr. Armo.r does not think it is fair in a national sense to have districts subject to widely different concepts of racial balance. He tries to bring a single standard to bear on all cases. (Armor 221) 18. Under Dr. Armor's test, a test accepted by the Wilmington, Savannah, and other courts, the PCSSD is unitary as to racial balance. 19. Pursuant to the racial balance tests applicable pursuant to the Joshua Agreement, as endorsed by the Court of Appeals, the PCSSD schools could range from 20 percent black to approximately 67 percent black, the latter being the black student 51781 8 population which has largely pertained frqm year to year in the LRSD. Pursuant to this test, only Lawson Elementary School remains consistently outside this range. 20. Under the test articulated originally by the en bane court in 1985, the schools in the PCSSD could range plus or minus 25 percent from the then prevailing percentage of either race. For instance, last year at the elementary level the PCSSD was 67 percent other. Twenty-five percent of 67 percent is 17 percent. Accordingly, pursuant to this test, the PCSSD schools could legally array from 16 percent black to 50 percent black. Under this Scenario, only the following would have failed to meet the statistical range: Fuller Emergency for the years 1989 through 1995, Bates Elementary for the years 1994 and 1995, Arnold Drive Elen:entary for the year 1991, Lawson Elementary for the years 1990 and 1992, Oak Grove ele\"mentary for the years 1989 and 1990, and 1991, Pine Forest Elementary for the years 1989 and 1990, and Tolleson for - the year 1989. 21. Statistically, the PCSSD has enjoyed racial balance outcomes superior to every other district declared unitary during this decade. It should be released from court supervision as regards student assignment and racial balance. 22. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring issued its 1997-98 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County School Districts Report on January 30, 1998. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Title Page.] 23. Enrollment information dating back to 1988-89 is included in this report. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 1.] Information reported is current through 1997-98. 24. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan recognizes only two racial designations, black students and white students. The plan includes provisions that set goals for 51781 9 balancing the enrollment of these two ractal groups within each school. Except for - interdistrict schools, which have plan-specified guidelines that are static, these goals are based on the percentage of black students enrolled district-wide by organizational levels. Every year racial balance is assessed for each school based on the District's racial balance at each organizational level for that year. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 2.] 25. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan includes guidelines that set racial balance goals for individual schools. The plan set 20% as the minimum black enrollment for PCSSD schools. The maximum black enrollment at all organizational levels is based on a variance of 25% from the annual percentage of black enrollment at ,/ each of the two organizational levels (elementary and secondary). (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 2.] 26. For the 1997-98 school year, the PCS SD had a districtwide elementary student population that was 33% black. The allowable variance in racial balance is calculated by multiplying that 33% by 25% (.33 X .25 = .0825), then adding the product (rounded to 8%) to the total elementary black proportion of 33% (33% + 8% = 41 %) to establish the maximum black enrollment of 41 % in elementary schools. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 2.] 27. Because the plan-prescribed formula used to calculate the targeted racial balance is tied to the District's black enrollment for that particular year, it is not possible to uniformly compare racial balance compliance from year to year without linking a given year's enrollment to that year's acceptable range. Since the target range for racial balance may vary somewhat from one year to the next as district-wide black 51781 10 enrollment fluctuates, it is possible that, due to a change in the District's overall racial ' - balance, a school that was out of compliance one year could have an identical enrollment the following year and yet be within an acceptable range. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 2.] 28. Although the desegregation plan specifies a minimum black enrollment for PCSSD schools, certain provisions of an agreement among the parties (called the Joshua Agreement) can raise the PCSSD minimum and potentially alter the maximum as well. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 3.] 29. The 1997-98 elementary enrollment of 10,832 is the lowest number recorded for the PCSSD in ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 30. Between 1996-97 and 1997-98, the PCSSD has lost 445 (4%) of its elementary students. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 31. Some of the decrease in elementary enrollment that occurred between 1996-97 and 1997-98 was due to the District's reorganization of the Jacksonville junior highs. Jacksonville Junior High South (which previously held grades 7-9) was reconfigured to house grades 8 and 9; Jacksonville Junior High North (which also previously held grades 7-9) was renamed Jacksonville Middle School and began serving grades 6 and 7. Sixth graders were moved from Adkins, Bayou Meto, Dupree, Harris, Jacksonville Elementary, Pinewood, and Taylor to Jacksonville Middle School. This movement resulted in a population shift from the elementary level to the secondary level because some sixth graders, who had previously been counted as elementary students, were counted as secondary students beginning in 1997-98. According to the District, Jacksonville Middle School had 351 sixth graders in 1997-98. Calculations 51781 11 show that the 351 students that were mayed out of the elementary school category for 1997-98 account for 79% of the 445- student decline in elementary population from the previous year. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 32. The number of black elementary students has declined by 72 (2%). [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 5.] 33. The number of white elementary students has decreased by 373 (5% ). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 34. Between 1996-97 and 1997-98, 16 of the 25 elementary schools experienced a decrease in their total enrollment: Adkins has lost 29 students (9%); Baker 2 (1 %); Bayou Meta 14 (2%); Cato 13 (2%); College Station 34 (11 %); Crystal Hill 29 (4%); Dupree 68 (16%); Harris 27 (9%); Jacksonvill(;-139 (19%); Landmark 42 (8%); Lawson 13 (4%); Pinewood 83 (15%); Scott 10 (8%); Sherwood 35 (8%); Sylvan Hills - 9 (2%); and Tolleson 36 (7%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 35. At Adkins, Bayou Meta, Dupree, Harris, Jacksonville Elementary, and Pinewood, the enrollment decline was at least partly due to the relocation of sixth ~ graders to Jacksonville Middle School, a change which occurred during the grade-level reorganization that involved those schools for 1997-98. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 36. Since 1988-89, the District has lost 1,421 (12%) of its elementary students. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 37. Significant losses have occurred at 17 schools: Adkins lost 103 students (27%); Bates 277 (37%); Cato 105 (17%); Dupree 118 (24%); Fuller 217 (36%); Harris 411 (60% ); Jacksonville 207 (26% ); Landmark 165 (26% ); Lawson 75 (21 % ); Oak 51781 12 Grove 124 (22%); Oakbrooke 193 (29%);,Pine Forest 106 (18%); Pinewood 217 (32%); Robinson 71 (15%); Scott 96 (45%); Sherwood 185 (33%); and Sylvan Hills 323 (44%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 38. Enrollment has risen in four schools since 1988-89: College Station has shown a significant increase of 101 students (54%). The other three schools have much smaller increases: Arnold Drive added 20 students (5%), Baker 10 (3%) and Bayou Meta 16 (3%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 39. The maximum black percentage at any PCSSD elementary school last year was 41 %. Since the desegregation plan specifies 20% black enrollment as the minimum for all schools, the racial balance ranQe for 1997-98 was 20% to 41 % black. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 40. In 1997-98, ten of the 25 PCSSD elementary schools (including the three - interdistrict schools) have fallen outside the target for racial balance, which is two more than the eight elementary schools that failed to meet the racial balance goals last year. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 6.] 41 . The enrollment at Baker (an interdistrict school which has a minimum goal of 40% black enrollment) is 21 % black, which is 19 percentage points below the minimum for interdistrict schools. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 42. At 14% black in 1997-98, Lawson has fallen well below the minimum goal of 20% black. Since last year, Lawson has dropped two additional percentage points away from the minimum; since 1994-95 (the one year Lawson was within the range), it has fallen nine percentage points. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 51781 13 43. This year, Pine Forest (whic;h had been with in range the last two years) is - below the minimum guideline. The school has failed to meet the minimum target for black enrollment for six of the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 44. Of the seven elementary schools that exceed the maximum range of 41 % black enrollment, four are located in the southeast sector of the PCSSD and three are located north of the Arkansas River. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 45. Although within range last year, College Station, at 43% black, is above the targeted range. The school has been above the maximum range for eight of the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 46. Although within range for the last ~ve years, Scott, at 43% black, moved above the targeted range this year. The school has been above the range for four of the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 47. Bates, Fuller and Landmark have all been outside the target range for the last ten years. This year, Bates exceeds the target range by 15 percentage points, Fuller by 19 points, and Landmark by 4 points. Since 1996-97, enrollment at each of ~ these schools has moved farther above the target range. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 48. At 53% black, Harris, which has exceeded the target of black enrollment for the seventh consecutive year, is 12 percentage points above the goal. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 6.] 49. At 46% black, which is five percentage points above the goal and four points higher than last year, Jacksonville continues to exceed the target range. This is 51781 14 I I I I I I I I I I the third consecutive year that the school 'has missed the target range. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 50. Although above the targeted range last year, Taylor is within the range this year. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 51 . In 1997-98, for the third consecutive year, PCSSD's total secondary enrollment has increased over the previous year. The 1997-98 enrollment of 9,192 has risen by 2%, or 174 students (13 black and 161 white), over the number recorded in 1996-97. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, P~ge 7.] 52. Some of the increase in secondary enrollment that occurred between 1996-97 and 1997-98 was due to the District's reorganization of the Jacksonville junior highs. Jacksonville Junior High (which previously held grades 7-9) was reconfigured to house grades 8 and 9; Jacksonville Junior High North (which also previously held - grades 7-9) was renamed Jacksonville Middle School and began serving grades 6 and 7. Sixth graders were moved from Adkins, Bayou Meta, Dupree, Harris, Jacksonville Elementary, Pinewooq, and Taylor to Jacksonville Middle School. This movement ; resulted in a population shift from the elementary level to the secondary level because some sixth graders, who had previously been counted as elementary students, were counted as secondary students beginning in 1997-98. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 53. Six of the twelve secondary schools have posted enrollment increases between 1996-97 and 1997-98: Fuller Junior, Jacksonville Middle (previously Jacksonville South), Jacksonville Junior (previously Jacksonville North), Jacksonville High, North Pulaski High, and Robinson Junior. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 51781 15 54. The largest increases occur~ed at Jacksonville Junior (246 students or ' - 4 7%) and at Jacksonville Middle (88 students or 13%) and are due to the reorganization of the Jacksonville junior high schools. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 55. All other increases in student enrollment were much more modest: Fuller Junior High (18 students or 2%); Jacksonville High (1 student); North Pulaski High (34 students or 4%); and Robinson Junior High (24 students or 6%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 56. Between 1996-97 and 1997-98, five schools have shown a decrease in overall enrollment: Mills High (-70 or 8%); Northwood Junior high (-87 or 9%); Oak Grove Junior and Senior High (-39 or 4%); Robi!1son High (-16 or 4%); and Sylvan Hills High (-25 or 3% ). [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 8.] 57. The 70-student decline at Mills this year nearly offsets the enrollment gain - of 84 students recorded in 1996-97. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 58. Since 1995-96, Northwood Junior High has lost 152 students (15%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 59. The current enrollment of 785 at Sylvan Hills High School is a ten-year low. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 8.] 60. Between 1988-89 and 1997-98, enrollment has fallen in nine of the twelve secondary schools: Northwood, Robinson, and Sylvan Hills Junior Highs; Oak Grove Junior and Senior High; and Jacksonville, Mills, North Pulaski, Robinson, and Sylvan Hills High Schools. (Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 8.] 61. The 1997-98 enrollment in the Pesso secondary schools is 32% black. Using that figure as the basis for calculations, the maximum black percentage at any 51781 16 PCSSD secondary school this year should be 40%. Since the desegregation plan - specifies 20% as the minimum black enrollment for all schools, the racial balance range for 1997-98 is 20% to 40% black. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 62. Both Fuller Junior High and Mills High have remained above the target range for each of the last ten years. At 44% black, Fuller Junior High is four points beyond the maximum target; and Mills, at 48% black, is eight points beyond the maximum goal. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] . 63. The percentage of black stude~ts attending Fuller Junior High has remained fairly stable during the last ten years, ranging from 43% in 1993-94 to 49% in 1995-96. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 8.] . 64. The racial balance at Mills High has been constant at 48% black over the last five academic years, although the enrollment has increased by 34% during that -  same time period. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 65. No PCSSD secondary schools have fallen below the minimum of 20% black enrollment durin$J the past seven years. In 1988-89, five secondary schools had student populations that were less than 20% black. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 66. As early as 1988-89 in some schools, the PCSSD began offering specialty programs as a means for promoting voluntary desegregation. Eight schools have offered some type of specialty program, and some schools offer multiple programs. Schools which have (or once had) specialty programs are Bates, College Station, Fuller, and Landmark Elementary Schools; Fuller Junior High School; and Jacksonville, Mills, and Sylvan Hills High Schools. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 51781 17 67. At the end of 1994-95, the P,CSSD discontinued the Math and Science Together (MAST) specialty program it had offered at Bates. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 68. Six of the eight PCSSD schools that offer (or have offered) specialty programs have experienced a slide in total enrollment since the school began a specialty program. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 69. Between 1990-91 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98, Bates' enrollment has shrunk by 172 students (27%). Bates began experiencing a significant decrease in enrollment in 1992-93 and suffered a 12% decline in 1993-94 and another 12% drop after the school's speci~lty program was discontinued at the close of 1994-95. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 70. Between 1988-89 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98, Fuller Elementary's enrollment has decreased by 217 students (36% ). [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 9.] 71. Landmark's enrollment has declined by 104 students (18%) between ' ; 1990-91 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98. The 1997-98 enrollment is presently the lowest recorded in the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 72. Jacksonville High has lost 207 students (17%) between 1988-89 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 73. Mills' enrollment has decreased by 19 students (2%) between 1988-89 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98. However, in 1994-95 the District added two more specialty programs and enrollment began to climb. Between 1993-94 51781 18 (the year before the addition of the two specialty programs) and 1997-98, enrollment has increased by 195 students (34%). Nevertheless, the current enrollment of 766 represents a loss of 70 students since last school year. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 74. Enrollment at Sylvan Hills High has decreased by 116 students (13%) between 1991-92 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98. The current enrollment of 785 is the lowest number recorded in the past ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 75. Enrollment at College Station was 188 students in 1988-89; however, that number jumped 29% (54 students) when the specialty programs were added in 1989-90. Enrollment continued to increase through 1992-93, and has fluctuated each year since. The current enrollment of 289 is near the average enrollment over the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 76. With the exceptio "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_972","title":"''Status Report,'' 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":["1998-07/1999-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Gifted persons"],"dcterms_title":["''Status Report,'' 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/972"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\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_1679","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD's March 24 plan, ADE project management tool, and ODM ''Secondary School Facilities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'' report","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-04"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School facilities","School buildings","Education, Secondary","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD's March 24 plan, ADE project management tool, and ODM ''Secondary School Facilities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'' report"],"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/1679"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["48 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for enlargement of time; District Court, two orders; District Court, joint motion of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Joshua for approval of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) March 24 plan; District Court, memorandum brief in support of joint motion of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Joshua for approval of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) plan; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Secondary School Facilities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.   t' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LRC-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MQJIQN EQB ENLARGEMENT Of IIME PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On March 24, 1998, this Court ordered PCSSD and Joshua to submit, within ten days, the agreed amendment to the PCSSD Desegregation Plan together with a joint motion, brief in support and proposed notice. The parties desire an enlargement of time to comply with the Court's Order until and including April 9, 1998. WHEREFORE, Joshua and the PCSSD pray for an enlargement of time until and Including April 9, 1998 within which to comply with the Court's directive. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 c00d THEJOSHUAINTERVENORS John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 dll SEIN I NH3.f '8 '.!-.3S@ I 7 'lH':l I ~M \u003e t CERTIFICATE OF EBYICE On April ___(_ ~_, 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail to each of the following: Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026 Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Janes 425 West Capltol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 00d 2 dll S':JN I tlN3f '8 ' X3SCTN I 7 ' lH':J I df~ RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AP.KANSAS APR 8 1998 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION APR O 71998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JA~AES ! M~MACK, C~ERK By. ~ ) c}_ ~ D!:P CL.fR.~ ' UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT,  Plaintiff,  vs.  No. LR-C-82-866  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants,   MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.,  lntervenors,   KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.,  Intervenors.  ORDEB. Before the Court is a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District  (\"PCSSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") requesting a continuance to and including April 9, 1998 in which to file their agreed proposed Revised PCSSD Desegregation Plan, in addition to a joint motion and brief in support requesting that the Court approve the proposed Revised Plan and a notice regarding the proposed Revised Plan.  This Court grants the parties' request. The PCSSD and Joshua have to and including April 9, 1998 in which to file these documents and pleadings. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7~ day of April 1998. rHIS DOCUMENT ENTER COMP~ce T RuJ~e c:g,0OcRK7er SHEET IN ON  7/ 8 l!Y 7Z1-:: 9(a) FRCP FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT APR 8 199,9 EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESE6REGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION APR O 7 1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * JA~ES W. ~~ORMACK, CLERK By.. 'L 'QI ,u D 41 V'-:a DEP CI.ERll Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a reply filed by Ms. Hafeeza Majeed on April 6, 1998 on - behalf of Toe Fact-Finding Committee for the Little Rock School Desegregation Plan--Is It Working for African-American Youth?\" Ms. Majeed filed this reply in response to Mr. John Walker's letter regarding Ms. Majeed's initial objection to the proposed January 16 Revised LRSD Desegregation Plan. 1 The Clerk is hereby directed to serve the parties involved in this case with copies of this Order and attached Exhibit A. 2 By separate Order, the Court will inform the parties how the   Court will proceed in regard to Ms. Majeed's latest filing. 1 See Docket No. 3130 for a copy of Ms. Majeed's initial objection. See Docket No. 3135 for Mr. Walker's response to Ms. Majeed's objection. 2 The Clerk should also send copies to the following individuals: Mr. Markton Cole Ms. Hafeeza B. Majeed 7320 S. Ridgeland Ave. 2A 8505 Holmes, #174. .. Chicago, Illinois 60649 Kansas City, Missouri 64131 ; . i IT IS SO ORDERED TiilS  day of April 1998. fHIS DOCUMENT E1.JTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ;~~ t'$RULE s:;N~(a) FRCP - . ,, \\. 2 .. ,. . ' . ~:' : \" : April 6, 1998 TO: FROM: ;-;:: ,. :l rr.: --..... U~- -~ - . _ ) ... .'?  :.. . I'~., , . 1. I l I  , _ _ EAs, .:Hr, c:, ie:~ -\u003c, ~.'-: .. ,1r The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -'..' .. l.-f  ' :_;,:s,\\s Federal Judge Eastern District of Arlamsas, Western Di~ U 6 [SJ J/l.~:1:::~ ,., i i~l'.C'R . \" The Fact-Findina Conmiittee for the Little Rock S:choortiisTtfor ,,\\,,.._, /(, CCRK D~H,,-.,-in ftllBl h It w~ Pw MHv1B1Amm,1m Ym;f,91'' THROUGH: Hafeeza B. Majeed, Cbairpenon RE; LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Judge Wright: V: LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUN1Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOTICE (EXHIBIT C, JANU'ARY 16 REVISED DESEGREGATION PLAN'') The following open letter to Little Rock School District students.parents. and friends. is also a formal request desiring your approval: \"OPEN LETTER JO 11IE UITLI ROCK COMMUNITY\" \"Thank yor/' to the maoy friends and supporters ofThe Fa.rt-Finding Committee with whom I met and enjoyed talkin! to during the weekend. A special iha:nk yor/\u003e to those who supported our efforts with your signatures. AB promised to you, the following request to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright has been submitted in your behalf 1. We, the 1D1dersigned, recognize that we are represented in the Joshua Class, as defined by the attached \"Notice.'' (Exhibit C. LRSD January 16 Revised ..,. . 3. Plan)  We agree that we were provided a copy of the ~otice .. by the Fact-Finding Committee, represented by Ms. HafeezaB. Majeed. We agree, like several others who chose not place their signatures, that we have not been informed about the information contained in the attached \"Notice'' regarding the proposed Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We believe that the responsibility for BIDlOIDlcing this information to the cormmmity should rest with ColDlSel for Joshua, Attorney Jolm W. Walker, as well as with the LR.SD Board ofDirectors, as designated in the \"Notice.\" We ~e that we have not been informed by the Little Rock School District regarding information contained in the \"Notice.'' Therefore, we respectfully request that you delay your approval or disapproval of the Revised LR.SD Desegregation and Education Plan, pending the following:  Court's Exhibit A 1. Counsel for the Joshua Class, Attorney John W. Walker, should schedule a fonnal hearing to adequately iofonn the Joshua Cius about the Revised LRSD Desesregation and Education Piao. This hearing shall be scheduled at a time conducive to the schedules of working parentl. 2. The hearing shall be attended by a representative fi-om The Fact-Finding Committee, a representative from the LRSD , a represeotative :from ODM. and the Joshua Class. 3. Io sight of the fact that many persons who are defined as \"Joshua\" have not been afforded adequate and timely information regarding the Revised LRSD Desegregation and Education Plan; we request that the LRSD anno1mce an extended deadline to receive written objections to the Piao. The Fact-Finding Committee prayermlly seeks yow approval of this request that represents the concerns ofLRSD Pareots, students, aod friends who were interviewed by our representative, Ms. Hafeeza B. Majeed, during the weekend. Again, ''thank yoli' :from The Fact-Finding Committee. and we shall continue to \"Fight For Our Children.\" Respectfully,  J L ~ 1f. fr[a1u,f Hafee:1-~*ed, Chairperson f' cc: All Signees ColDlSel for Joshua Class LRSD ODM Attachments ---------- - - --- -- - - - ---- ---- - ------ - -- - -  .. - - -------- - - --  --- - - . . . -  - - - . . - ---- EDWARD L. WRIGHT ( 1003-1 071) ROBERT S. LINOSEY ( 1013- 1001) ISAAC A. SCOTT,_./R . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULOROW-N. M. NORTON EDGAR J. TYLER CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER SAMMYE L. TAYLOR WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAODEN WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 llTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 379-0442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD April 9, 1998 ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR . HARRY S. HURST . JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY, JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY M. ROBINSON BETSY MEACHAM AINSLEY H. LANG KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON DON S. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol, Room 302 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 HAND DELIVERED Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Dear Judge Wright: APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed are copies of each of the items you directed the PCSSD and Joshua to prepare as regards the amendment to the PCSSD Plan. I have retained the originals for the moment as they do not bear Mr. Walker's signature. Mr. Walker has indicated some doubt about his execution of these documents and I am simply submitting copies so as to comply with the Court's deadline as best I can. By copy of this letter to Mr. Walker, I am asking him to communicate his current position .~o the Court. MSJ/jhs Enclosures Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP Jon~_,/ I I I cc: Counsel of record (w/encl.) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECE!VED APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS JOINT MOTION OF PCSSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF PCSSD'S MARCH 24 PLAN Defendant Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the Joshua - lntervenors (\"Joshua\") for their Joint Motion for Approval of PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan state: 1. Joshua and PCSSD move for tentative and, ultimately, final approval of PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit \"A\"). 2. On October 14, 1997, PCSSD filed its Petition seeking release from federal court jurisdiction (the Petition). Prior to the start of the hearing on the Petition, PCSSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop an amended plan which both parties could support. Those negotiations resulted in PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan. The PCSSD Board of Directors approved the Plan on March 23, 1998 and authorized submission of the Plan to this Court for approval. 3. PCSSD and Joshua stipulate to the following facts in support of this tit Motion: a. That the record in this case supports modification of PCSSD's desegregation obligations; b. That the March 24, 1998 Plan is an appropriate modification of PCSSD's desegregation obligations. c. That the March 24, 1998 Plan is constitutional, workable and fair to Joshua class members; and, d. That, upon approval of the Plan, the PCSSD should be dismissed as a party to this case except as respects its financial claims arising under the settlement agreement. 4. PCSSD and Joshua recognize that their compromise and settlement should not be approved by this Court without notice to Joshua class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Accordingly, PCSSD and Joshua propose dissemination of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B. This notice shall be published no less than thirty (30) days before a deadline established by this Court for Joshua class members to submit written objections to approval of the March 24, 1998 Plan. PCSSD shall bear all costs associated with publication of the notice. PCSSD shall cause the notice to be published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; shall print and distribute copies of the notice to teachers; and shall prominently post the notice at all schools. 5. PCSSD and Joshua have prepared for the Court's consideration an Order (attached hereto) granting the relief sought in this Motion. WHEREFORE, PCSSD and Joshua pray that this Court tentatively approve PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan, pending the filing of objections filed by Joshua class members; that the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B be published at least thirty (30) 2 days bef~re the deadline for Joshua class members to submit written objections; and that this Court finally approve PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan upon consideration of any objections filed by Joshua class members. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 By: 3 THEJOSHUAINTERVENORS John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 By: _________ _ John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April ___ , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail to each of the following: Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026 Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill 4 Section 1: Pulaski County Special School District Plan Dated March 24, 1998 Prior Agreements and Orders. RECEIVED APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 1. This Plan, which is a \"Desegregation and Education Plan,\" shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreeme:nts and orders in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 ( \"Settlement Agreement\"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; d. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; e. The Interdistrict Plan; and f. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting or enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Plan. SECTION 2: Obligations. 2.1. PCSSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to - comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past EXHIBIT 1 I A APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOINT MOTION OF PCSSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF PCSSD'S PLAN This motion is brought pursuant to the amendment provision of the Pulaski County Special School Distirict permanent Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992, as well as Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1., 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995); Appeal of the Little Rock Sch. Dist., 949 F .2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991 ); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 THEJOSHUAINTERVENORS John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 By: _________ _ John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April ___ , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail to each of the following: Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026 Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill 2 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STAff.S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, * * * * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KA IBERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * No. LR-C-82-866 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FBLED US. ulS T;;:1cT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AR!\u003cANSAS APR 1 0 1998 Before the Court are the initial joint motion and the renewed joint motion filed by the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") requesting that this Court approve the LRSD's proposed Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (\"LRSD Proposed Revised Plan\" or \"proposed Plan\").1 L Approval of the Proposed Plan After evaluating the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, this Court hereby grants the joint motions filed by the LRSD and Joshua and hereby approves the proposed Plan. 1 Docket Nos. 3107 and 3136. 1 A. In 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the current version ofLRSD Desegregation and Education Plan or the 1990 Plan. In 1996, after the LRSD had operated under the 1990 Plan for six (6) years, this Court scheduled a series of hearings to gather evidence upon which to evaluate the success of the 1990 Plan, along with the settlement plans of the other districts, and the desegregation remedies endorsed therein. 2 At that time, even though the Court had withdrawn supervision over certain aspects of the 1990 Plan, there remained portions of that Plan which were of concern to the Court. Therefore, the Court called expert witnesses to testify, and invited the parties to call other expert witnesses to testify, regarding desegregation remedies in general in an attempt to aid the Court and the parties in evaluating the effectiveness of the 1990 Plan. Those evidentiary hearings were held in May of 1996.3 At those hearings and on several other occasions, the Court has noted that the parties themselves must develop and present for Court approval any proposed modifications to the desegregation and education plans under which they operate. In December of 1996, the LRSD requested and this Court approved a \"plan development period\" in which the LRSD could concentrate its efforts on developing such modifications to the 1990 Plan, in an attempt to 2 Docket No. 2631. 3 The following expert witnesses testified: (1) Herbert J. Walberg, Ph.D., then a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago . See Docket No. 2692. (2) David J. Armor, Ph.D., then a Research Professor at George Mason University in the Institute of Public Policy. See Docket Nos. 2693, 2694. (3) Gary Orfield, Ph.D., then a Professor of Education and Social Policy at Harvard University and the Director of The Harvard Project on School Desegregation. See Docket No. 2768. 2 improve education and desegregation within the district. Some time during this period, the LRSD commenced negotiations with Joshua regarding modifications to the 1990 Plan. As a result of those negotiations, the LRSD and Joshua agreed upon the provisions included in the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan currently before the Court. B. The LRSD and Joshua have agreed that, if approved, the proposed Plan: shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in the Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S .D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; d. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and, e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 5 Based upon this provision, this Court considers the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that because the law strongly favors settlements, courts should hospitably receive them, especially in cases such as this in which the parties have engaged in protracted, highly divisive litigation and in which any lasting solution necessarily depends upon the good faith and cooperation of all of the parties. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Spec. Sch. Dist., 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (811, Cir. 1990). When evaluating a settlement agreement, \"O]udges should not substitute their own 4 Docket No. 2901. 5 Docket No. 3107, Exhibit A, at 1. 3 judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\" 921 F.2d at 1385 (quoting Armstrong v. Board of Sch. Dirs. of the City of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7111 Cir. 1980)). The district court must consider the proposal as submitted by the parties. \"Of course, the district court may suggest modifications but ultimately, it must consider the proposal as a whole and as submitted. Approval must then be given or withheld.\" Id. at 1383 ( quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm 'n of the City and County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 630 (91h Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1217 (1983)). Although settlement agreements carry with them a presumption of acceptability, id at 1385, a district court need not automatically approve every settlement agreement the parties submit, id at 13 83 . A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in  an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged (indeed, they are not pennitted) to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. Id. at 1383 . \"[B]efore a settlement agreement may be rejected because it initiates or authorizes a clearly illegal or unconstitutional practice, prior judicial decisions must have found that practice to be illegal or unconstitutional as a general rule.\" Id at 1385 (quoting Armstrong, 616 F.2d at 321). In the area of desegregation law, the Supreme Court has detennined that the Constitution does not of its own force forbid all-African-American schools. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 26 (1971). The Constitution of its own force also does not require any particular racial percentage in various schools in the districts. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 740-41 (1974). Furthermore, the Constitution of its own force does not demand that all students 4 regardless of race satisfy national achievement norms. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 100-01 (1995). Obviously, parties in a desegregation case may and indeed should agree to eliminate the effects of prior de Jure segregation to the extent practicable. However, the details of such efforts are not specifically dictated by the Constitution. Even if the court is uncertain that the means proposed in the settlement agreement will succeed in integrating the district or concerned that the lack of sufficient detail in the settlement agreement may impede successful implementation, such concerns alone do not render the settlement agreement unconstitutional on its face, especially when the parties to the settlement agreement have consented to continued monitoring. 921 F.2d at 1385-86. This Court has carefully reviewed the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan as jointly submitted by the LRSD and Joshua and concludes that the Revised Plan is not manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. The parties have consented to continued monitoring by this Court. Although the Court acknowledges that the Revised Plan will present new challenges in regard to monitoring, these anticipated challenges do not render the Revised Plan unworkable or plainly unconstitutional. Therefore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan should be and hereby is approved. C. In the alternative, if this Court were to consider the proposed Plan as simply a modification of the 1990 Plan, this Court would approve the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. A party seeking modification of a consent decree \"must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree.\" Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). If the moving party meets this burden, the District Court 5 must then detennine \"whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.\" Id. at 39 1. The modification \"must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation,\" nor \"strive to rewrite a consent decree so that it confonns to the constitutional floor.\" Id. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. , 56 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). This Court concludes, after reviewing the circumstances of this case and the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, that this standard for modifying a consent decree has been satisfied. Based upon the voluminous Court record generated by this case since the 1990 Plan was instituted and based upon the conclusions which may be drawn from the evidentiary hearings conducted by this Court in May of 1996, this Court concludes that circumstances and conditions have changed which warrant modifying the 1990 Plan. Specifically, there are certain aspects of the 1990 Plan that have been successfully implemented by the LRSD. Some areas of the 1990 - Plan have been so successfully implemented that this Court has withdrawn supervision over those areas. However, there are other stated goals in the 1990 Plan which have not been achieved. Evidence in the record tends to indicate that the LRSD has put forth minimal effort to achieve certain of these stated goals. More importantly, however, there are certain goals in the 1990 Plan which are out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD6 and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan which expert testimony indicates may never be met, regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD. 7 Therefore, the 1990 Plan warrants 6 For example, the sections of the 1990 Plan regarding Student Assignment and Facilities are out of date with regard to the current situation that exists in the LRSD. 7 Specifically, the goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparity may never be met, regardless of the effort put forth by the LRSD. See the testimony of Dr. Walberg, Docket No. 2692, at 17-25; Dr. Armor, Docket No. 2693, at 18-39; and Dr. Orfield, Docket No. 2768, at 25-31. 6 - -- - - - modification. Furthermore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties. The LRSD Proposed Revised Plan is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances, does not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation, and has not been rewritten to conform only to the constitutional floor. Therefore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan should be approved. D. Having approved the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, this Court notes that once a modification to a consent decree or a decree itself has been approved by the Court, its terms, . including the details, become binding on the parties. 921 F.2d at 1384. Although at this time the - Court does not anticipate the need for further modification, the Court does wish to clarify that if progress under this Revised Plan is clearly insufficient or if certain sections of the Revised Plan should prove to be unworkable, the parties may again apply for a modification of the Revised Plan. Consent decrees partake of the nature of contracts, as well as of judicial action, and parties seeking to change them bear an extremely heavy burden. They are not, however, immutable in any absolute sense, and extraordinary circumstances can arise that would enable the District Court, within its discretion, to consider modifications. Id. at 1387. II. Objections to the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan By previous Order, this Court directed the LRSD to provide notice of the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan and set March 13, 1998 as the deadline for receiving objections to the 7 - proposed Plan from individual members of the Joshua Class and from other parties to the litigation. 8 Dr. Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of the LRSD, submitted an affidavit indicating that the LRSD had complied with the Court's Order regarding notice of the proposed Plan. 9 A. The Court notes that although the other school districts and parties in this case were not involved in the negotiations which produced this proposed Plan, those parties were given notice of the proposed Plan and of their ability to object. 10 None of those parties have filed an objection with this Court to the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. B. On the last day for filing objections, Mr. Markton Cole, on behalf of \"The FactFinding Committee for the LRSD Desegregation Plan--Is It Working For African-American Youthr (\"Fact-Finding Committee\"), filed several documents which he characterized as an objection to the proposed Plan. 11 The documents which Mr. Cole filed included a letter from Ms. Hafeeza Majeed, the Chairperson of the Fact-Finding Committee, and a report initially submitted by the Fact-Finding Committee to the Court on September 20, 1996. In response to the documents filed by Mr. Cole, Mr. John Walker, counsel for Joshua, filed a letter essentially requesting that this Court strike the documents and not consider the 8 Docket No. 3114. 9 Docket No. 3131. 10 Docket No. 3114. 11 Docket No. 3130. 8 - documents an objection to the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. 12 Mr. Walker claims inter alia: (1) that the documents filed by Mr. Cole and Ms. Majeed had been previously submitted to and considered by this Court; (2) that the documents pertained to the LRSD Desegregation and Education Plan entered into by the LRSD and Joshua in 1990 (\"the 1990 Plan\"), not the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan currently before the Court; and (3) that Mr. Cole and Ms. Majeed lack legal standing to object because they are not residents of the LRSD and do not otherwise allege that either they or their own children will be harmed by the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. This Court agrees with Mr. Walker's assertions and hereby strikes the documents filed by Mr. Cole on behalf of the Fact-Finding Committee and Ms. Majeed. Specifically, the Fact-Finding Committee report filed by Mr. Cole was previously submitted to this Court in September  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1014","title":"\"A Vision for the Future Strategic 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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998/2003"],"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 (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Standards","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"A Vision for the Future Strategic 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/1014"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nA Vision For The Future Strategic Plan 1998 - 2003 Mission A mission statement is a broad statement of the unique purpose for which the District exists and the specific function it performs. The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive, contributing citizens. This mission is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. Parameters are the guiding principles that establish the framework within which the District will accomplish its mission. Parameters *  We will not tolerate behavior that diminishes the dignity or self-worth of any individual.  No new program or service will be accepted unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits clearly exceed costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation.  No program or service will be retained unless benefits continue to exceed cost and it continues to make an optimal contribution to the mission.  The Campus Leadership Plan will always be consistent with the Strategic Plan as well as the Desegregation and Education Plan.  We will maintain a positive fund balance in the operating budget.  We will not tolerate ineffective performance by any employee. *Contractual items will be subject to negotiation. 2 Beliefs We believe .... Beliefs are a statement of the District's fundamental convictions, values, and character.  All people have equal, inherent worth.  Every individual can learn.  Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance.  Attitude always influences behavior.  All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality education is available to the children of our community.  Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable.  The family is a primary influence on the development of a child.  Educated and involved citizens are necessary to sustain the health of a democracy.  Accepting and utilizing cultural and racial diversity enrich and strengthen the community.  Education can enhance every aspect of a person's life.  With every right comes a responsibility.  Actions speak louder than words.  Self-worth allows each individual to aspire to excellence and develop his/her unique capabilities.  Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community. 3 Objectives are an expression of the District's desired, measurable end re ults of student success, performance and/or achievement. Objectives  Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others.  By 2003, at least 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified 1n the core curriculum.  By 2003, at least 65% of students in every identified sub-group of race and gender will perform at or above the national average in reading and mathematics on standardized tests\nat least 30% will perform at the highest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests\nand no more than 10% will perform at the lowest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests. 4 Strategies are the means by which the District can accomplish its objectives. Strategies  We will design our educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards.  We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum.  We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support.  We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations to address 5 Strategies (Continued) external issues that are interfering with our students' learning.  We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives.  We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will construct a delivery system that allows us . to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students and that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age.  We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the District.  We will develop and implement plans to enhance public confidence in the safety and security of our schools and to ensure discipline and an orderly learning climate.  We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the District. 6 Strategy 1 We will design our educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. (Implementation of Strategy 1 will be accomplished through other strategies.) 7 In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Strategy 2 Action Plan Year Year I Year 1 2/3 4/5 X 1. Adopt a definition for content standards in the Little Rock School District. ( completed) X 2. Adopt a definition for performance standards in the Little Rock School District. ( completed) X 3. Submit the components of performance standard sets in the Little Rock School District. ( completed) X X 4. Develop performance standards for the Little Rock School District. ( completed) X 5. Adopt a definition for delivery standards in the Little Rock School District. ( completed) X 6. Adopt components of delivery standard sets in the Little Rock School District. ( completed) X 7. Develop delivery standards for the Little Rock School District. ( completed) X X 8. Develop a trainer-of-trainers model for the Little Rock School District to use to train all appropriate human resources on how to implement and achieve the standards. X 9. Ensure parent understanding of the core curriculum standards and how progress will be measured. 8 We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. Strategy 3 Action Plan Year Year Year 1 2/3 4/5 X 1. Adopt a policy statement providing for intervention as an operative and vital part of elementary school instruction. ( completed) X X 2. Expand comprehensive Reading Recovery/Literacy Support early intervention services for K-3 students who are at risk of not developing literacy skills. X 3. Develop an intervention team at each school which provides systemic support including professional development for teachers which enables all children to sustain adequate yearly progress through grade 3. X X 4. Promotes school-wide reform and ensures access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Content will include intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences through an integrated literature-based program. X X 5. Implement middle school programming to provide a developmentally appropriate educational environment for the academic success of adolescents. X X 6. Redesign the delivery system at the alternative learning center to improve academic skills and to address the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of the students. 9 Strategy 3 Action Plan (Colltinued) X 7. Train requesting teachers in the Math/Science crusade (K-12) to better implement the Goal 2000 plan and give them the background for following the guidelines set forth by the NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) and the related science organization. X X 8. Provide extended day academic programming for students at risk of failing and in need of extra assistance in core subjects. X 9. Implement a three week summer program for identified at risk students in the middle level grades in order to provide an on-going three year experience in science and math. 10 We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support. Strategy 4 Action Plan Year Year Year 1 2/3 4/5 X X 1. Communicate key issues with consistency to our audiences. X 2. Increase credibility with teachers, principals, and members of the District's staff through more timely and accurate information flow to and from LRSD's central administration. X X 3. Achieve positive relationships with key members of the media in order to help ensure a consistent flow of accurate information to our various audiences. X X 4. Expand the use of available tools to positively influence the perceptions of parents, as well as other audiences within the District, with regard to the quality of education received by all children within the LRSD's schools. X 5. Shift focus away from the District back to its individual schools (as well as to their students and teachers). X 6. Create a system that ensures a constant flow of \"success stories\" from the individual LRSD schools into the District's Office of Communications for release to the public. X 7. Create positive spokespersons out of parents, teachers and other influential members of the community. X X 8. Improve the existing system that was designed to direct the media toward the appropriate information source within the District. 11 Strategy 4 Action Plan (Co11tillu ed) X 9. Assess the implementation of the communication plans and evaluate their effectiveness. 12 We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning. Strategy 5 Action Plan Year Year Year 1 2/3 4/5 X X 1. Expand the role of Partners in Education to include the development of business and community partner coalitions with neighborhood school emphasis in an effort to expand resources, which address external issues interfering with students' learning. X X 2. Improved opportunities for young people to develop positive interactions with adults who are mentors. X X 3. Increase the level of grant funding available to the LRSD to utilize in partnerships with community agencies and organizations to address external issues that interfere with students' learning. X X 4. Design and develop a joint working agreement with LRSD and community age_ncies and organizations that ensures availability of and access to comprehensive support services for all LRSD students. 13 We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives. Strategy 6 Action Plan Year Year Year 1 2/3 4/5 X X 1. Develop job descriptions that are consistent and specific. X 2. Design recruitment/entrance standards to attract superior personnel who excel academically or otherwise in their major fields of study, experience, or interest. X 3. Develop a fair, equitable compensation system for all employees that is objective, fairly administered and tied to the performance of the school. X 4. To maximize student-teacher contact time, decrease substitute personnel expense to the District and enhance the morale of all District personnel. X 5. Create monetary and non-monetary incentives to reward District employees who work for the betterment of our students. X 6. Provide staff with opportunities to pursue educational endeavors that will promote high educational standards within the District. X 7. Develop an evaluation process, which accurately assesses employee performance and serves as a tool for professional growth. X 8. Develop a termination process, which is fair, equitable, and effective. [Contractual items will be subject to negotiation.] 14 We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Strategy 7 Action Plan . Year Year Year 1 2/3 4/5 X X 1. To reformulate a District-level Staff development Planning Council which will bring together stakeholders to advise and assist in the development of policy for and evaluation of a staff-development system that is site-specific and driven by the three objectives adopted by the LRSD. X 2. To train the Staff Development Planning Council, central administrative staff, and staff at all middle schools on teaming for school improvement. X 3. To meet the needs and address the problems of school sites through the use of campus leadership teams. X 4. To establish a District and community technical assistance network to support campus leadership teams. X X 5. To evaluate the staff development system within the district. 15 We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students and that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. Strategy 8 Action Plan Year I Year Year I 2/3 45 X X lA. Prepare for implementation of site-based management to allow individual schools choice to do what is best to meet the needs of their students. X lB. Implement site-based management to allow individual schools choice to do what is best to meet the individual needs of their students. X 2A. Identify a variety of school innovation options throughout the District to be offered to best meet the needs of students at individual schools. X 2B. Develop a variety of innovation options throughout the District to be offered to best meet the needs of students at individual schools. X 2C. Implement a variety of innovation options throughout the District to be offered to best meet the needs of students at individual schools. X 3A. Establish a seed school with University Teacher Education ties to do ongoing research in the practical applications of various school programs and options, to keep current with literature in the field, to provide a site for exemplary individualized education for a student body representative of the LRSD student population, to do training by demonstration and example as well as precept, and thus continually adding to the list of potential programs and options for educational individualization. X 3B. Support and maintain operation of seed school. 16 Strategy 8 Action Plan (Continued) X 3C. Utilize the seed school to support teacher education and the testing of new educational programs and strategies designed to maximize individualized education. X 4. Allow students in grades K-12 to move at their own developmental and intellectual pace as teachers discover their learning styles to eliminate permanent ability tracking. X SA. Acquire alternative assessment methods that allow teachers to determine a student's actual functioning level so as to provide appropriate programming and to eliminate permanent ability tracking. X SB. Implement alternative assessment methods that allow teachers to determine a student's actual functioning level so as to provide appropriate programming and to eliminate permanent ability tracking. X 6. Strengthen pupil service teams to be utilized as a first line screening mechanism for students evidencing problems so that alternative program options will be implemented for students not requiring Special Education. X X 7. Collaborate with the community to offer early childhood programs for children ages 2 to 4 as an option for District patrons, with preference going to low socio economic status (SES) families, to provide experiences and information needed to equalize student preparation. X 8. Cultivate and use the community centralized resources guide (refer to strategy 5) for the individual development of each and every student. X 9. Provide community based services that enable parents, students, and community to work together to further a child's education. X 10. Create an educational climate, which encourages parent/teacher interaction by eliminating major barriers and providing increased opportunities for participation in the learning process. 17 We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the District. Strategy 9 Action Plan Year Year Year 1 2/3 4/5 X 1. Develop strategies to retain and attract students to the LRSD to assure adequate future revenues from sources that will be increasingly based on the size of student population. X 2. Develop a financial committee composed of LRSD personnel and community representatives to function as an advisory committee to the LRSD Board and Superintendent on budget development, monitoring, implementation, and other financial matters. X 3. Develop Board fiscal policy statements and manual to be housed in an official repository addressing revenues, expenditures, millage increase, debt service, monitoring, reporting, facilities planning, and staffing and procedures to effectively communicate to the public, teachers, and administration. X 4. Develop a five-year revenue forecast (by month for the first year and annually for years two through five) for the District. (completed) X 5. Develop a five-year expense forecast (by month for the first year and annually for years two through five) for the District. (completed) X 6. Revise the process and develop policy on monitoring actual performance compared to budget to include Board briefings, mid-year adjustments and amendments, and report formats. X 7. Select peer school districts and develop performance indicators for comparison purposes in order to identify areas and possible means for improvement. 18 Strategy 9 Action Plan (Co1tti1tued) X 8. Establish a committee of District and non-District representatives to monfror proposed legislation and/or regulations and make recommendations for new, or revisions to current, laws and regulations that would impact operations of the LRSD. X 9. Establish a goal to prepare a budget document that will meet the criteria for the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. X 10. Develop resource sharing partnerships with North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). 19 We will develop and implement plans to enhance public confidence in the safety and security of our schools and to ensure discipline and an orderly learning climate. Strategy 10 Action Plan Year Year Year I 2/3 4/5 X X 1. Provide ongoing conflict resolution training and skill development for students, parents/family, and staff. X X 2. Improve behavior and safety on school buses and bus stops. X X 3. Control access to school buildings, grounds, and events. X X 4. Implement a staff development plan for all personnel to fully understand safety policies and procedures. X X 5. Develop and enhance a system of communication among schools, administration, and the public regarding issues of safety and security. X X 6. Inform the public of plan in regard to the following ( a) control of drug activity (b) violence prevention (c) campus and bus security\n(language that is direct and easy for all to understand). X 7. Develop a credible evaluation plan that will ensure complete and proper implementation. X 8. Develop, enhance, and improve the communication/distribution and equitable implementation of the LRSD Students Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. 20 We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the District. Strategy 11 Action Plan Year Year Year 1 2/3 4/5 X 1. Define technology in terms of the educational and administrative needs of the LRSD. (completed) X X 2. Establish a broad based technology advisory board for the LRSD. X 3. Acquire and implement the technology needed to meet current and future instructional and administrative needs of the LRSD. X X 4. Assemble a technical staff to implement and support District information technologies, including computer hardware and software applications, networking, computer operations, and audiovisual services. X 5. Design and implement a comprehensive technology training program for all LRSD employees (teachers, administrators, and support staff) that provides appropriate facilities, tools, training, and supplies to maximize effectiveness. X 6. Train students in the use of technology so that they are able to access, evaluate, and apply information. X 7. Train students to use current technology to increase competencies in problem solving, specific content areas, and critical thinking skills. X 8. Train teachers, administrators, and other school support staff to use current technology to increase productivity and maximize effectiveness. X X 9. Gather, store, and analyze student data bases used to provide accurate and timely reports. 21\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_303","title":"Collaborate Action Team","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":["1998/2002"],"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","Teachers","Parents","Civic leaders","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Collaborate Action Team"],"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/303"],"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\nRECBWO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 OCT 3 0 i9S8 OfflCEOr tBfGREGATI0NM0NIT0a!*i8 October 30,1998 TO: Debbie Milam Suellen Vann Catherine Gill Liz Lucker Sadie Mitchell Diane Vibhakar Ann Brown, ODM Gail Nickerson Jo Evelyn Elston Linda Watson FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,'Associate Superintendent for Instruction SEDLs Collaborative Action Team Please plan to meet with me and and Ms. Cathy Jordan from SEDL on Tuesday, November 3, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 19. We will discuss with her the possibility of our participating in a collaborative action team. Im attaching some information on the project for your review prior to the meeting. BAL/adg Attachments RECEIVED 2 OCT 3 0 1998 OFFICE OF DEScGREGAPON MOSrrORIMS What is the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Process? The Collaboration Action Team (CAT) process guides family members, community representatives, school personnel, and students who collaborate as partners to improve results for children, youth, and families. The team helps improve results by developing plans and taking actions that address issues and concerns of the school and community. These plans and activities build on a commitment to bring together representatives of the community as a team to improve the chances for children  and their families to succeed in school and in life. The development of a CAT process includes activities organized around three concepts\nteam building, team planning and momentum generation. These activities encourage individual team members to work together as a productive unit to solve problems and to build new opportunities. Although the work differs in team building, team planning, and momentum generation, all three are needed to build a cohesive and effective community/school team. Teams that are strong in all three of these concepts will be capable of making significant progress. Collaborative Action Teams develop strength by practicing team building and team planning skills while generating momentum. Small changes that can produce big results create momentum for the team. During the planning stages when the team may seem to be talking more than doing, generating momentum creates a sense of progress and accomplishment. It also helps keep the team focused in the doing stages when a sense of direction can become blurred. Progress begins to happen as the teams energy and momentum build. Building Collaborative Action Teamsa Wha-t are the \u0026amp;asic Concepts of the Collaborative Action Team Process? The concepts that guide a Collaborative Action Team in its work are:  Team Building  Team Planning e?  Momentum Team Building and Team Planning. The process begins by identifying a group of diverse team members. Each person contributes a different perspective as school personnel, family member, - businessperson, community volunteer, or student. They meet together around the same table and commit to work together on common interests that will build on their school and community assets. Talking constructively from different vantage points and planning and working together to begin projects helps members build relationships with each other. Mutual respect and trust grow as personal relationships evolve. Momentum. Momentum is created by using team building and team planning together to generate movement and forward progress toward achieving the teams mission. Momentum builds when individuals are moved to act specifically on important ideas and issues. They become engaged and active in something bigger than themselves. Many teams create momentum by working on manageable size projects. In St. Bernard's Parish, Louisiana, a team began galvanizing its members when it successfully found funding and refurbished a much needed sign in front of the school to announce activities. Completing this simple project together built a sense of forward movement and accomplishment. Other projects such as a family fair attended by 300 people were more complex, as were efforts to increase parents invol' unent in their childrens education. Early success generates the energy and enthusiasm needed for long-term development and increasingly more complicated efforts. Momentum is the product of the effort it takes to improve schools and communities. Buildinf' Collaborative Action Teams't CAT Development Process Team Building Team Planning The next circle details the specific elements of Team Planning. The ring labeled momentum involves specific actions that generate the energy to make progress toward achieving the teams vision and mission. The outer circle represents the specific elements of Team Building. These three concepts-7eaw Building, Team Planning, and Momentum-mnst work together to create the synergy required to build and sustain partnerships that work toward the vision through the Team Identification, Team Mobilization, Project Development, and Project Implementation activities. Building Collabonitive Aclinn Teams 1 What are CATs and what is their purpose? I  RECI WED \"Meeting school community needs through expiinded partnerships\" OCT 3 0 1998 They are team.s whose members represent a broad cross-section nJ the school community, including parents, school staff, busiruss. civic and religiou.s organizations, health and social sets u e pros id ers, and teacher educator in.stitutions. Their purpose is to meet school community needs through expanding partnerships, thereby broadening systemic change in education. OFF DESE6REGATI EOh m MONITORING 2 What arc some need? of these areas of school comnuinity WJhaiit sure GATsT Three critical areas have been identified by Southwest Educational Development Diboratory (SEDL). 1 hey are. more success-oriented approache.s to reducing violence in schools, drug/alcohol/tobacco abuse\nteenage pregnancy, and school gang activities\n10 important reasons to establish Collaborative Action Teams more family-friendly, .student-centered comprehensive sersice delivery systems\nand  more kiiowledf-e among educators about iategratmg studentd early growth and education experiences later. with those that occur 3 t I l[f\" How did the CAT concept come about? I Southwest Educational Development Laboratory *211 East 7th Street  Austin, Texas 7870J-328I  512/476-6861  During a previously completed project, SEDL de\\-eloited and unple- merited Home, Sclurol, Conuiwnity Partnerships in its five-.state South- western Region. Diese [xirmerships irleruifiedpriority-C(\u0026gt;iu eni.s in their comnuuiities and .succe.wfitlly resolved .some of these com em.s through J collaboration ami mutual problem solving. CATs are extended v t rsii \u0026lt; ' these iKirtnerdiip.s in t/uit they incltule representatives from a wuler rmig, of organisations, incliutuig teacher education institutions. !4 What is unique about the CAT Model? The CA T Model i.s based on the principle of self-reliance within a communitv. Members take responsibility for developing and implementing an action plan that identifies and itse.s local resoun-e.s to resolve issue.s that members have identified a.s important to their community. It uses a two-dimensional, integrated approach\nTeam Building and Team Planning. These dimen.sion.s help members function ollahoraiive, cohesive team while developing and impleits il C menting a plan for making productive changes in the school community. Through guided activitie.s members will experience and practice consensus-building skills, effective communication, shared leadership, and decision making. Thi.s emphasi.s on Team Building, Team Planning, and Momentum Generation is the model's strength and the foundation of the team and peipetu- ates il.s replication. You mentioned Team Building and Team Planning as dimensions of the approach. Please describe them. Team Planning i.s the nuts and holts of defining and implementing the projects that add re.vs the concern.s of the school communiiy that were identified by the team. Thi.s includes, for example, setting goal.s and objectives, determining role.s and responsibilities, developing strategies, and setting lask.s and timeline.s to accomplish the work. Team Building is the prm ess of how teams work together as a unit. The activitie.s of Team Building allow the group to develop skills for exploring and eventually settling on ways of working together effectively. .Momentum is created by using Team Building and Team Planning together to generate movement and forward progress. 6 What is SEDL's plan for developing Collaborative Action Teams throughout the Southwestern Region. During 1996-2000, SDDI. will use a planning and iinplcincnlaiiun model in the five slates (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mesh o. and Texas) and refine it for replication. The first CATs in Fabens, TX, Violet, LA\nWest Memphis, AR\nand Albuquerque, NM will seis e us resource.s for additional CATs a.s they are established. .Sites established thu.s far in 1998 include\nAnn Parish Elementary School, Los Lunas, NM\nBalmorhea ISD, TX\nDel Valle High School, Del Valle. TX\nPonca City Mid-High School, OK\nDollarway ISD. AR\nand Barbara Jordan Elementary School, New Orleans, I A. CATs ill be self-sustaining once they have completed their Team Building and Team Planning work. By the year 2000. up to 40 C .A T sites will he tn existence. 7 How long does each CAT exist? Aa long a.s there are school needs to he met. The membership ma\\ hange hut the CAT itself regularly examines its eflectivcnes^. priority concerns, and its mission. il\\ Who can develop CATs? CATsite.s can begin in individual elementary or secondary schools, consortium.s within a school district, county, or slate. 9 What are Rural Development Collaborative Action Teams? Using the same CAT process described above, these teams are formed tn ruru. areas to link community and economic development with school improti mt t.t A service learning plan is developeilfor student and community meinber\\ to learn and practice entrepreneurship while serving the needs of the greater community. Comment.s and retptesls regarding Rural Development Aetton Teams can be directed to Pat Deloney al STDL.The CAT Development Process The Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Development Process guides home, school, and community through the process of building and sustaining partnerships to improve results for children, youth, and families. CAT members learn effective collaboration practices, identify the most pressing issues in their communities, and then develop, implement, and evaluate action plans for addressing those issues. Examples from CAT sites:  Middle schools in Oklahoma City identified violence as a major concern and are developing mentoring programs for their students.  An elementary school in West Memphis, Arkansas decided to focus on increasing community awareness and involvement in academic efforts and have established a family resource center to help in this purpose. received OCT 3 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Team Building and Team Planning The strength of the CAT model is the integration of team building and team planning. SEDL staff guide team members in applying the model to strengthen skills in consensus building, effective communication, networking, and shared leadership. At the same time, CAT members practice the nuts and bolts of defining and implementing projects that address their identified priority concerns. According to a CAT member from the Louisiana CAT site, We moved in a few short months from skepticism to optimism to success. We are a team and we can never go back. (Over) More examples...  The South Valley of Albuquerque established school-based health and social services for students and their families. Their success was recently recognized at the Department of Educations regional conference in Dallas.  A rural CAT site located along the Texas-Mexico border seeks to increase parent involvement in school efforts. The CAT has provided immigrant parents with an active medium for developing community leadership skills. Benefits to CAT sites By participating in this effort, you will...  receive initial training in the use of the model,  receive on-site monthly technical assistance and training,  receive consultation by telephone and e-mail, -  participate in an annual Training Institute with other CAT sites,  have opportunities to network with other CATs,  receive resource materials. How to Join the Project SEDL will add new sites to the CAT Development project each spring from across its five-state region of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. These sites will be selected according to their commitment to partnership building and full inclusion of family and community members in schools. Sites must be willing to commit to the project for three years. For more information on the CAT development project, contact any of the staff listed below. Pat Deloney, Jerry Elder, Jose Velazquez, or Catherine Jordan a|~1B Phone: Fax: E-mail: Web site: 800/476-6861 512/476-2286 as tockto@sedl. org http\n//www.sedl.org/ rib- [nsr aj 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3,1998 TO: Debbie Milam Suellen Vann Catherine Gill Liz Lucker Sadie Mitchell Diane Vibhaker Ann Brown Gail Nickerson Jo Evelyn Elston Linda Watson Connie Whitfield received NOV i 2 JS98 Cfi^CEOF CESE^SfflOOGfflTORJNS FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, ^sociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Collaborative Team Thanks to all of you who came to the November 2 meeting! I was very pleased with the outcome, and I am looking forward to our next steps. We agreed to meet again on Friday, November 20, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 19 at the IRC. Our agenda will include the following: 1. Brief review/ of November 2 meeting Debbie Milam 2. Discussion of a vision for the LRSD parent and community programs and services Bonnie Lesley 3. Discussion of a focus for the possible SEDL partnership Liz Lucker 4. Planning of next steps I look forward to seeing you all on November 20*^. BAL/adg cc: Catherine Jordan, SEDL 01/29/1994 19:19 5013242296 LRSD VIPS M P^ 04 EO'd Meeting Objeettvea: little rock school DISTRICT COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM MEETING Adult Leisure Center, 6401 West 12\" Street 7:30 .m, - October 7,1399 ' awareness of Collaborative Action Team work in LltDe Rock Objective Two\nDefine and Build Representative Membership agenda process and how it will Item Time Person Reaponaibte Welcome, Review Agenda and Objectives Ice Breaker Exercise Report on Start-up Training and CAT Process Discuss Defining and Building Representative Membership ot CAT Review Next Steps (meeting, agenda. obyacHves) Conduct Meeting Evaluation 5 min. 15 min. 15 min 30 min 5 min. 5 min. Marion Baldwin Essie Middleton Barabara OsbomeZKaye Rainey Debbie Milam/Connio Whitfield Diane Vibhakar/Priscilla Alexander Calvin Brady/Amber Mooney VOZ:tT 66-SO-43Oi3:ia bB13242296 LRSD VIPS M PAGE 03 TO: FROM: RE DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72202 LittJe Rock School District Collaborative Action Team members Debbie Milam, ViPS Coordinator Next meetino - October 7, 1999 September 30. 1990 Collaborative Action Team meeting is sat for Thursday, October 7 at 7.30 a m Center. We hope you can join us. This will be our official first maeting and we want to get off to a good start. Please call ViPS at 324-2290 to confirm your attendance Thank you for your support. ZOd VOZ:TT 66-SO-4^^OSeptember?, 1999 SOUTHWEST EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY 211 East Seventh Street Austin, Texas 78701-3281 Voice or TDD: 512/476-6861 FAX: 512/476-2286 RECBW Ms. Ann Brown 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 SEP i 0 1999 OFiCEO? CESEGREEAroilMCHSS Dear Ms. Brown: The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) is pleased to invite you to participate in a start-up training session for the Little Rock School District Collaborative Action Team (CAT) project. This training will take place on September 23 1999 at the Greater Second Baptist Church. 5616 Geyer Springs Rd. Registration and coffee will be from 8:00-8:30 a.m. Enclosed is an agenda for the day. An additional two and half-hour training will be conducted the following momina for an organizina aroup that will be selected during the daylong training. This organizing group will develop plans for the first CAT meeting. Your participation is key to the development of a Little Rock Schools Collaborative Action Team. The project will help parents, school personnel, and community representatives develop a team approach to address the needs of the Little Rock school community and will guide you in developing an action plan to get this done. SEDL staff have planned this training to engage participants in a full day of activities that combines presentations, small and large group activities, and individual participant feedback. Our goals for e training are that participants will:  discuss the process for developing a Collaborative Action Team\n identify and apply strategies for partnership development\nand  develop an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of SEDL staff and the Organizing Group in the CAT development process. Come and join us Thursday, September 23 and be an integral part of an exciting new Little Rock Schools/SEDL project. Lunch will be provided. If you unable to attend this training, please call Ms. Debbie Milam at 324-2297 so we can get an accurate count of participants. We look forward to seeing you September 23\"*. Inberely, L Jerry O, Elder, Program Specialist ' Program for Refining Educational Partnerships ^n^. Rudo, Program Associate TOgram for Refining Educational Partnerships Enclosure AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AEFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Site Start-Up Training for Developing a Collaborative Action Team at Little Rock School District September 23,1999 The Site Start-Up Training consists of a seven hour training the first day for all members of the Collaborative Action Team and a two and one half -hour training session the following day for members of the Organizing Group. Day One Goals  Discuss process for developing a Collaborative Action Team (CAT)  Identify and apply strategies for partnership development  Identify members of CAT Organizing Group Agenda for Day One 8:00 - 8:30 Sign Up \u0026amp; Smell the Coffee! (Continental Breakfast) 8:30 - 9:15 Welcome \u0026amp; Warm-Up Activity 9:15 - 9:45 Overview of SEDL and Collaborative Action Team Project 9:45 - 10:00 Where do we start? Self-Assessment 10:00 - 10:15 Break 10:15 - 11:45 Team Identification: Finding A Common Issue 11:45 - 12:45 On your mark... get set... LUNCH!!! 12:45 - 1:45 Team Mobilization: Planning for Action 1:45 - 2:10 Collaboration Energizer 2:10-3:00 Project Development: Celebrating Strengths 3:00-3:15 Break 3:15 - 3:50 Project Implementation: Evaluating Success 3:50 - 4:00 Closure \u0026amp; Training Evaluation J NOV i TO\nFROM: RE: DATE\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 Little Rock Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Members Debbie Milam, ViPS Coordinator CAT meeting - Thursday, November 4, 7:30 a.m. October 30, 1999 W33 Our next Collaborative Action Team (CAT) meeting is Thursday, November 4 at 7:30 a.m. in the Adult Leisure Center at 6401 West 12* Street. Members of our team have just finished attending two days of training at the regional SEDL conference here in Little Rock. They will be sharing information with the rest of the team on what the other CATs are doing in our region. We hope you will join us. We have enclosed copies of the previous meetings agenda and handouts for those of you who could not attend. Also included is a survey regarding your preference for meeting times. Please complete a survey and return it IF you did not complete one at the meeting. Feel free to invite any community or student representatives that you know. We have a fairly good group of parents and school reps but were lacking in community and student representation.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM MEETING Adult Leisure Center, 6401 West 12'* Street 7:30 a.m. - October 7, 1999 Meeting Objectives:  Objective One: Increase awareness of Collaborative Action Team process and how it will work in Little Rock  Objective Two: Define and Build Representative Membership AGENDA Item Time Person Responsible Welcome, Review Agenda and Objectives 5 min. Marion Baldwin Ice Breaker Exercise 15 min. Essie Middleton Report on Start-up Training and CAT Process 15 min. Barabara Osbome/Kaye Rainey Discuss Defining and Building Representative Membership of CAT 30 min Debbie Milam/Connie Whitfield Review Next Steps (meeting, agenda, objectives) 5 min. Diane Vibhakar/Priscilla Alexander Conduct Meeting Evaluation 5 min. Calvin Brady/Amber MooneySession Goals  Develop understanding and appreciation for representative membership  Define representative membership that reflects local community T-1 12 12/22/98 Representative Membership What is it? A cross-section of the local population that reflects the diversity of the community, including parents and family members, school staff, health and social service providers, institutions of higher education, community organizations, private industry/business, and others. Why is it important? To develop a comprehensive response to school and community needs for the well-being of the students and their families T-2 13 12/22/98Collaborative Action Team Please mark the times you would be willing to meet. 7:30 am 12:00 noon evening (list time) Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday(list time) Name PhoneNovember 23, 1999 To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 Little Rock Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Members Marion Baldwin, Community Education CAT Meeting - Thursday, December 2, 7:30 a.m. VI ' J I' u, lSSGRGATiC'tj Our next Collaborative Action Team (CAT) meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 2, 7:30 a.m. in the Adult Leisure Center located at 6401 West 12^ Street. We look forward to everyone attending.KJ 1 Welcome LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Meeting January 6, 2000 Oebbie Milam Choose a recorder and evaluator for meeting Debbie Milam Adopt a mission statement Marion Baldwin DIVIDE INTO REPRESENTATIVE GROUPS Reach consensus on one issue to address in small groups Reach consensus on one issue to address in large group Develop one long term action for issue Develop one short term action for issue Review next meeting RsBCE^yg JAN 3 i 2009 GfHGc Of Facilitators Facilitators Facilitators Kaye Rainey ICollaborative Action Team Minutes October 7,1999 Marion Baldwin opened the first official meeting of the Little Rock Collaborative Action Team by welcoming the group of 40 participants and reviewing the days agenda. Essie Middleton provided an ice breaker that got everyone moving around and talking to each otlier. Barbara Osborne reported on the start-up training that was provided by SEDL in September. Kaye Rainey reviewed the CAT process. Debbie Milam facilitated a process for identifying representative membership for the team. Groups that need to be invited to join Include other youth serving organizations, health care agencies, business representatives, minority populations and members of the faith community. Diane Vibhakar and Priscilla Alexander reviewed the next steps. Calvin Brady and Amber Mooney conducted the meeting evaluation. November 4,1999 Clementine Kelley welcomed the group of 41 participants. Suellen Vann provided an ice breaker that got everyones brains working. Judy Powers gave an overview of SEDLs CAT conference that was held in Little Rock on October 27-29, 1999. Little Rock representatives who attended were Debbie Milam, Diane Vibhakar, Kaye Rainey, Marion Baldwin, Rita Baldwin, Judy Powers, Essie Middleton, Connie Whitfield, Priscilla Alexander, Mike Vogler, Calvin Bracy and Amber Mooney. Leon Adams took the group through an exercise to refine the drafts of a mission statement that the group had hurriedly written at the end of the previous meeting. December 4,1999 The team met at 7:30 on December 4, 1999 at the Adult Leisure Center. Marion Baldwin facilitated the meeting of 25 participants. The team went through a consensus building activity, using a parable to reach consensus on which characters behavior they most approved of to which they least approved of. The team then reviewed drafts of a mission statement. A small group volunteered to finish the wordsmithing for the teams next meeting. The small group consists of Marion Baldwin, Diane Vibhakar, Barbara Osborne, Rita Baldwin, Sarah Huckabee, Dave Hoffpouir, Judy Powers, Marian Shead Jackson and Dante Smith. They will meet on Tuesday, January 4 at 7:30 a.m. at Dubs. The next CAT meeting is Thursday, January 6 at 7:30 a.m. at the Adult Leisure Center. Barbara Osborne, representing the City, agreed to take care of room arrangements and coffee for the meeting. Each member should bring three priority actions they would like to see the CAT work on this year. The group will spend the meeting reaching consensus on identifying the top priority for the team to address.Consensus Decision Making Consensus decision making is one of the most effective methods of group decision making. It requires that all members agree with the decision to the extent that they can live with it. In other words, even though the decision may not be what an individuals preferred choice of action would be, he or she will agree to support it How Consensus Decision Making Works 1 A member of the team states the proposed decision. 2 The proposal is written on a flip chart or board so that everyone can see it and check it for accuracy and completeness. 3. The facilitator asks each member in turn to talk about whether they support the decision and why or why not. 4. Members of the team who are opposed to the decision can offer their suggestions for modifications or an alternative decision. o. If all members of the team agree they can support the proposed decision, then a consensus exists. No decision is finalized until every member indicates they can live with the decision. Guidelines for Consensus Decision Making Avoid arguing for your own position. Present yourviews as clearly as possible and then listen carefully to the reactions of other members. Avoid personal attacks.  Do not assume that someone must win and someone must lose when the discussion reaches an impasse. Instead, look for the next most acceptable option for all  concerned. Do not change your mind simply to avoid conflict. When agreement seems to come too quickly and easily, be suspicious. Explore the reasons for this and be sure that everyone accepts the decision for similar reasons.' t 13Little Rock School District Collaborative Action Team Mission Statement Our mission is to develop educational partnerships among parents, students, the community, and the district to advocate for the well-being of and to provide opportunitiesall children and youth for the building and strengthening of minds.Little Rock School District Collaborative Action Team Vision Statement To maximize family, school, student, and community involvement so all children and youth may reach their potential.04/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 02 AMMENDMENTS- ChecUist forStudent Re!ttrnnn Plcssfi 3dd the following to the chccldist: T. Handicap Accessibie Adequate  YesQ Inadequate 0 Does each Stan have two handrails YesO Non Commoits? No  tl*e following to foe checklist procedures:  After checking in with foe office, please ask if there is anyone that would like to acwmpany you on your check. This is not needed, however, we want foe schools to know that we are there to help them, not to intrude.04/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 03 RESTROOM CHECKLIST PROCEDURES LRSD Collaborative Action Team  Complete your checklist between ^nil 17 and 21. Go to the schools between 10:30 and 1:30.  Bring your checklist packets with you to each school. Bring the principal letter, as wed, just in case there are any questions.  When you arrive at the school, please notify the office to let them know why you are there. For example, I am here as a representative of the LRSD Collaborative Action Team and we have identified school restrooms as a concern\ntherefixe 1 am here to perform a survey of the restrooms at your schooF. Be sure to ask for a visitors pass/badge. * Ask the office staff if there have been any custodians absent within the last week and how many work at that school  Visit one boy, one girl and a staff bathroom at all the schools. In addition, visit a londergorten class bathroom at the dementary schools.  Fill out checklist - Be very specific with your comments, especuUy if yon check that the area is inadequate. For example: I found the stall doors to be inadequate because 5 out of the 10 stalls had broken locks, or I found the toilet paper inadequate because there was only a roll or less in each stafl at H .00 in the morning  Check out with the office before you leave.  Mail to or bring surveys by Kayo Rainey at 501 Sherman, Little Rock, AR 72202 by April 24. If you prefer, you may \u0026amp;x your checklist to Kaye at 324-2044. Please remember when foxing that there is a fi'ont AND back to the survey.  If you have any questions, call Kaye Rainey at 324-2293 or Heather Gage at 663- 5541. Thank You!lO CD c CL \u0026amp; s (X i CO m co a\u0026gt; r4 IS in s in IS co o o CM S\u0026gt; Senior High Schools 1. cansAt iNTHwinitAi stwhes * ISaOPiAGt,O2 124 2300 2. 4A.FAIH 1342ODlll4Aa.D(XklHA,IO 22S3I6U 1. HAU UNIVEHSin STUDIES 6700-M'a, 05 67I-G2OO 4. UcCiaiANiUSttlESSZ CBMHUMICAItONSAWWET t 9417 Qoifgr Spring RA, 09 570 4100 A PAHnnan arts a ecuke maohet * 2601 Mn Baioi* fl A, 04 226-10011 n*cattonaMbcftn/caf Uucatlon a MEIROPOUTAN CABEER lECRHIGAI CBITBl 7701 ScoU Hwiabn Di., 09 5656485 Middle Schools 7. CLOVBUMUEACMlEMy aaUIMianRl.OS 870 4065 a tWHSARKIEfltiAnOMiSTUHESZ SFTEBSIAianBlEQUCAnSnNASREI * I WO ww All., 00 324 24401 \u0026amp; FOUST liaBHTS 5901 Eimi4rwiDi.,06 67I-S390 to. Hai)Ei|)N REAUHS43BICtSMAGNET* , 401 JdnBoHowHil, OS 22S-M60 II. MASaWLE tOBIIMaOatniaWHA, MakiMe.ARTZIOl 495-7400 IL HORACCHMHt MnSkWEMCEMMlNEr t lOOOE RnuBfellHd., 06 3242400 11. musniifttHTS 467N.I%a\u0026lt;B 671-6250 It BOUIHWesi IMIS-Bnart a. 04 5704070 19. AUERNAIIVEtEARUlNBCailER tt)O/ptiefsinSt,02 3242370 . Elementary Schools ta SA06ETT A BSOOPkmRA.OB 124-2475 17. BAl A 6501 HI BZfut 51,04 570-4060 10 OASOHE A 3S23BaielmtM,0S S7O-4TM 19. BOOWaAHTS WUDIET  201EBatwSL,06 124-2402 20, BRAOT A 79l5W.ttol4iaiiia,05 228-3006 2L CA1WBMSICSIIULS7 HAFH-SCiaCEMASHH t 2100 EM 60) 81,02 324-2460 22. OffiOT A IltflOCtSniUU, MatoM,AH 72103 570^ 23 ttOWHUIAlE A 6900Hli6iaa)ilil.,lR 570^4055 24. DODD A 6423.Sto08ciBcli HA, 04  45S-7430 25. EAR PARK a 61BN.HBnlunSI.,05 671B2M 26. ranurPMK IBIH.r)fcrSl,O7 0716267 I. 6NJAMnFHAIM.IMCaMHLIMIMT)0HS lECHHQLOBVaiMfcKTAfiY 1701 S.HitMi)S).,04 671-6380 2BL FULBRIGlir 3OQPIessafllVski7Dr..l2 228-3080 29. GARUVtU ACADEMY A 3CI5 Hl 256161., 04 671 627S Ml OEYCnSPWNOS 6240 Mabilvala nils. 09 67O4t\u0026gt; II. GIBBS FOHBON LAHOlUUieSZ niEHMAnoMIU. STUDIES HACNH t i11SHltiiSt,02 3242490 32. HMmNUniBMUfi,JR.H6HIRTBKin LEARNMGlNrannSTAICTMAStlET   A SSSMutlLuUiai K10D,Jr.DL,02 324-2135 n JEI7ERB0M 2SOOH.Md\u0026lt;]hley.07 671^11 H MABGUUHE A BOOIMabcIvalgQil-^, UMidwl, AR 72103 466-7420 38. McOBIMDFT 1200R\u0026gt;w(Vo\u0026lt;rHd.,07 220-3072 n IKADDWCUFF ZSSlHiilonOr^ra STIMtCS 37. mrCIfiL ACADEMY Of CREJUIVE DRAMATIC ARTS A 2410B0tlMya,0B 324-2415 . Onra CREEK 160(0llBiOl(Pt(n7.,09 456-7440 anrUASHHEIEms ai8M.nriBSt,05 6ZI-62Sa 411. flienTauLAuumrA Dtiw.teisi,08 . 324 2430 41. ROCKHEUEBEIBIETFIARITUtOEARIYCHUIIIOOD MAGHET SGHDCN. t A 7O0E.17lha.O8 324-2385 42. ftOMRECOMFinERSCIBlIXAHD DASICdnilS HTEJUHSimCT f 3400 RoitiAiaFlA.IH 228-3086 41 TEBRY 10800 Mm Lynn Di., 11 220-3603 44. WJUUUU) 76 IMutnOOsta 01,69 S70 4IIU a. booker T-WAIHMSTOH BASIC SnUS/MATR-SCENCE MASWTUnamSTIUGT * 4 A 1l5W.27ltia,O6 324-2470 46. MATSON A 70lViiltavDr.,.a 670-4166 4t UESTBWHUS 4901 WnM Hills, M S7O-\u0026lt;(7S \u0026lt; WtXWUSBASCSNUSMABMn * 730|ES(Bnana,07 E7l-B3li3 40i muoli A 4OI5SlBni1uR4.,O4 670-4160 Sa WOOHHUFf A 30l0W7lh,05 671-6270 2804/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 06 Date April 12,2000 To: Principals From: Betsy Johnson (Community Member) LRSD Collaborative Action Team I am writing on behalf of die Collaborative Action Team (CAT) of the Little Rock School District CAT represents concerned parents, students, LRSD staff, and members of the community who are interested in the improvement of our schools. Responding to student CAT members, who identified sanitary conditions at their schools as a concern, CAT is sending volunteers to tour school restrooms. The site visit to your school will take place between April 14* and April 21*. We will ask the CAT volunteer to check in at the office when they arrive, and to check out when they have completed their tour. We would appreciate your office answering the following questions for the volunteers: Have there been any custodians absent from your staff within die past week? If so, how many hours/days have the custodians been absent? Thanks you for your cooperation. If you have questions or comments, please contact me at 320-5150. cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley 04/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 07 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: _____ Checklist Completed by\nDate: ____________Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls Cl Custodial Staff # of staff Comments:___ Boys  Kindergarten D Staff  Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate: So^ Adequate Q Comments: Toilet paper Adequate Q Comments\n_ How many dispensers? Inadequate Q How many stalls? Inadequate D Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments:__________ Stall doors Adequate O Comments\nInadequate Cl Locks for stall doors Adequate Q Comments:________ Inadequate Q None Cl None  None Cl Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate Q Comments:___ Inadequate Q Yes  No Cl Hot running water Adequate D Comments\n______ Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2060 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 08 lights Adequate O Comments: Inadequate Q * Temperature control Adequate Q\nComments- Inadequate Q 5. Ventilation\nFans  Comments: Inadequate D 6, Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No Q Adequate Deodorizer Adequate E3 Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No O Cleanliness\nDry floors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Clean floors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate O Comments\n_____ Inadequate Q Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate D Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No  Site decklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 09 collaborative action team SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: Checklist Completed by: Date: ___________ Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. GirE D Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments: Boys Q Kindergarten D Staff D Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No n Supplies available and adequate: Soap Adequate D Comments: Toilet paper Adequate  Comments\nHow many dispensers? Inadequate O None  How many ^E? Inadequate Q None D Paper toweb How many dispensers? Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O None  Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments: Yes  No  Stall doors Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Locks for stall doors Adequate D Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  Yes  No  No O Utilities: Running water Adequate O Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 03:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 10 5. 6. Lights Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate O ' Temperature control Adequate d ! CoTrunenTs- Inadequate O Yes  Yes  No  No  Ventilation\nFans . d Comments: Deodorizer Adequate d Comment!!- Cleanliness: Dry floors Adequate d Comments: Clean floors Adequate d Comments\nInadequate Q Inadequate D Inadequate Q Inadequate Q Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No O Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate D Comments\nInadequate O Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate O Coaunents: Inadequate D Yes d No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 11 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL\n________ Checklist Completed by: Date: ___________ Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls O Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments:___ Boys  Kindergarten D Staff D Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate: Soap Adequate Conaments: Toilet paper Adequate Q Comments: How many dispensers? Inadequate Q How many stalls? Inadequate O Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate Q Comments\n_ Inadequate Q Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments: Stall doors Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O Locks for stall doors Adequate  Comments\n_______ Inadequate Q None  None  None  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate Q Comments:___ Inadequate D Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate D Comments\n______ Inadequate CH Yes n No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 12 5. 6. Li^ts Adequate d Comments: Inadequate D  Temperature control Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  Yes  No  No  Ventilation. Fans Comments: Deodorizer Adequate D Conoments: Cleanliness: Dry floors Adequate Q Comments: Clean floors Adequate Q Comments: Yes  Inadequate Q Inadequate D Inadequate ED Inadequate Q Yes  Yes  Yes  No n Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate d Yes  No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate D CnmrngntS' Inadequate D Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 13 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: Checklist Completed by\nDate: ____________ Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls Q Boys  Kindergarten O Staff D Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments: Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate: Soap Adequate Q Comments: Toilet paper Adequate O Comments\nHow many dispensers? Inadequate O How many stalls? Inadequate Q Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate Q Comments\nInadequate D Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments: Stall doors Adequate D Comments: Inadequate D None D None  None n Yes Q Yes  No  No  Locks for stall doors Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate O Comments\nInadequate D Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate O Comments\nInadequate EJ Yes  No  She Checklist 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 14 5. 6. Lights Adequate d Comments: ' Temperature control Adequate d j Comments\nInadequate O Yes  No  Yes n No  Ventilation\nFans d Comments: Deodorizer Adequate d Comments: Cleanliness\nDry floors Adequate d Comments\nClean floors Adequate Q Comments' Inadequate Q Inadequate D Inadequate Q Inadequate Q Yes  Yes  Yes C Yes  No n Adequate No  No n No  Trash cans emptied Adequate d Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No O Toilets cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate d Comments\nInadequate O Yes D No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate O Comments\nInadequate D Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 15 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: ________ Checklist Completed by: Date\n____________ Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls O Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Cominefits- Boys  Kindergarten Q Staff Q Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate\nSoap Adequate Cl Comments: Toilet paper Adequate El Comments: How many dispensers? Inadequate El How many stalls^ Inadequate El Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate C Connments: Inadequate D Privacy insured: Door to the hallway remains closed Comments: Stall doors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate  None n None Q None  Yes  Yes  No  No  Locks for stall doors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Utilities\nRunning water Adequate Q Comments- Inadequate O Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate O Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No  SneCheckKst 04/13/00 104/17/2000 03:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 16 5. 6. Lights Adequate Q Comments\nInadequate D Yes  No  Temperature control Adequate d\nComments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Ventilation: Fans d Commente- Deodorizer Adequate Q Comments- CleanliQess: Dry floors Adequate O Comments\nClean floors Adequate d Comments: Inadequate Q Inadequate D Inadequate Q Inadequate D Yes  Yes n Yes D Yes  No  Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate d Comments\nInadequate O Yes O No  Toilets cleaned Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Y,s  No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate O Comments: Inadequate Q Yes D No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 17 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: ________ Checklist Completed by: Date: ___________Time\nLocation of restroom  1. 2. 3. 4. Girls Q Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments\n___ Boys  Kindergarten Q Staff Q Any absent this week? Yes  . How many? No n Supplies available and adequate\nSoap Adequate Q Comments: Toilet paper Adequate E3 Comments: How many dispensers? Inadequate Q How many stalls? Inadequate Q Paper towels Sow many dispensers? Adequate CD Comments: Inadequate D Privacy insured: Door to the hallway remains closed Comments: Stall doors Adequate C Comments: Inadequate O Locks for stall doors Adequate D Comments\nInadequate D None  None Q None Q Yes  No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate d Comments\nInadequate Q Yes Q No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 18 \\ 5. 6. Lights Adequate O Commentg- Inadequate Q Temperature control Adequate D\nComments: Inadequate O Yes  Yes  No O No  Ventilation\nFans Comments: Deodorizer Adequate D Comments: Cleanliness\nDry floors Adequate Q Comments: Clean floors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate O Inadequate D Inadequate O Inadequate O Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate D Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate  Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate O Comments: Inadequate Q Yes D No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 2-04/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP 19 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: Checklist Convicted by\nDate\n_____________ Time\nLocation of restroom Girls  Boys  Kindergarten D Staff O  1. Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments: Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate\nSoap Adequate Q Comments' How many dispensers? Inadequate O None  3. 4. Toilet paper Adequate Q Comments\nHow many stalls? Inadequate Q None Q Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q None  Privacy insured: Door to the hallway remains closed Comments\nStall doors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Yes  No  Locks for stall doors Adequate O Comments: Inadequate d Yes  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate O Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 20 5. 6. Li^ts Adequate D Comments\nInadequate D Yes  No  ' Temperature control Adequate d Comments: Inadequate O Yes n No  Ventilation: Fans  Comments\nDeodorizer Adequate d Comm ante Cleanliness\nDry floors Adequate d Comments: Clean floors Adequate d Comment\n- Inadequate Q Inadequate Q Inadequate Q Inadequate O Yes D Yes n Yes d Yes n No O Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate d Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate d Comment\n- Inadequate D Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No D Mirrors cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/0004/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 21 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: Checklist Completed by: Date: ____________Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls d Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comm ante- Boys  Kindergarten D Staff ID Any absent this week? Yes d How many? No  Sapplies available and adequate\nSoap Adequate d Comments: Toilet paper Adequate d Comments\nHow many dispensers? Inadequate d How many stalls? Inadequate d Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate d Comments\nInadequate Q Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments\nStall doors Adequate d Comments\nInadequate D Locks for stall doors Adequate d Comments\nInadequate ID None  None ID None  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate d Comments: Inadequate ID Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate d Comments: Inadequate ID Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 5. 6. \\ Li^ts Adequate d Comments: Inadequate O ' Temperature control Adequate d Comment\n' Inadequate D Yes  Yes  No  No  Ventilation: Fans  Comments: Deodorizer Adequate d Comments\nCleanliness: Dry floors Adequate d Comments\nClean floors Adequate d Comments\nYes  TnaHequate^ O Inadequate D Inadequate d Inadequate D Yes Q Yes  Yes  No D Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate d Comments: Inadequate d Yes O No  Toilets cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate d Yes  No d Sinks cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate d Yes  No d Mirrors cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate D Yes d No d Site Checklist 04/13/00 2Student Perception of the Physical Appearance of their School In the spring of 2000, elementary students, grades 4 and 5, were surveyed as to their perception of the physical appearance of their school. All schools collected and reported data. Attached, is a sample of the survey and results by school. Students rated their schools condition and general cleanliness mostly fair or poor. They felt that the bathrooms were in the most need of cleaning and that soap was needed in these bathrooms. Students felt that it was the custodians responsibility to keep their school clean and interestingly enough students rated themselves third on this list. Schools need to begin building positive student perceptions and students need to take ownership in keeping their school clean. Except for Fair Park and Mitchell there appears to be adequate response by the 4* and 5'* grade students to the survey. Students felt that the bathrooms were the number one facility that needed the most repairs and cleaning, followed by the cafeteria and hallways. However, students at Carver (13%), Chicot (13%), Wakefield (9%) and Williams (7%) reported no repairs were needed. In general, only a little over a third (38.7%) of the students rated the general conditions of their school as excellent or good. Students at Carver (70%), Cloverdale (57.9%), and Geyer Springs (67.1%) were examples of some exceptions to this general feeling. Student feelings about the general cleanliness of the schools were lower than the previous question on school conditions, with only 33.5% of students rating their school as excellent or good. Again, Carver (48.8%), Cloverdale (62.1%), and Geyer Springs (53.9%) were some of the exceptions to the general feeling about cleanliness. Students reported that soap in the bathrooms was the number one supply item not available. Soap was followed by tissue and paper towels in the bathrooms as those items most often not available. Students at Baseline (19%), Cloverdale (15%), Gibbs (12%), Jefferson (15%), Otter Creek (14%), Rockefeller (31%), and Wilson (17%) reported that all supplies are available. Question six could be problematic. The design of the survey appears to have limited the response or guided students to a specific response. Most students considered mice or bugs as the primary sanitation problem. The question probably should have been posed as Is there a sanitation problem at your school? However, a number of students reported no problems, (i.e., Bale 13%, Baseline 17%, Carver 19%, Cloverdale 21%, Gibbs 16%, and Williams 18%). Finally, students ranked custodians as the most responsible for the cleanliness of the schools. Students ranked everyone second and themselves third. With some exceptions students are not pleased with the condition or cleanliness of their school. It is probably not surprising that bathrooms were rated as the facility most in need of repair. The data from question six on the primary sanitation problem should be considered unreliable. Interestingly enough, students did not consider themselves as the primary entity for keeping their school clean. Schools should review their results on this survey and begin the process of building positive student perception and students need to take ownership in keeping their school clean. LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) 1 11/06/01LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students: A Survey of 4th and Sth Grade Students Spring 2000 1. What do you consider to be the facility that is in the most need of repair? School Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright_____ Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Bathrooms Cafeteria 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 3 2 5 4 3 3 2 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 4 5 5 2 2 3 2 2 Hallways 5 4 4 4 4 6 4 5 5 4 2 4 4 3 4 3 2 5 4 3 5 5 3 6 4 4 5 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 3 Classrooms Auditorium 4 3 5 5 3 2 7 4 4 3 5 5 2 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 2 3 3 5 2 2 6 5 7 6 3 4 2 6 2 6 _6 _5 5 _2 6  3 2   7 6 6 7_ 1  3 6 7 3_  6 4 3 5 4 3  3 4 5 5 Gym 3 5 7 3 2 3 2 6 3 1 7 6 7 1 3 1 3 2 6 7 1 6 7 6 5 1 1 6 6 2 3 5 2 1 6 No Repairs are Media Center Needed 7 1 6 7 1 1 6 7 1 1 6 1 5 6 6 5 7 6 5 5 6 7 5 5 1 7 6 6 7 1 7 1 6 7 6 1 0% 0% 6% 0% 6% 2% 13% 13% 0% 0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 7% 1% 2% 0% 1% 7% 0% 4% 1% 1% 3% 0% 1% 2% 9% 1% 1% 2% 7% 0% 0% 3%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students\nA Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 2. How would you rate the general conditions of the facilities at your school? Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright_____ Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Excellent 7.3% 8.2% 18.2% 4.8% 6.3% 10.9% 13.5% 2.6% 4.1% 0.0% 7.2% 4.8% 2.3% 4.3% 21.5% 21.7% 5.1% 35.0% 14.1% 8.9% 5.4% 11.4% 7.7% 1.2% 0.0% 21.9% 1.4% 3.9% 1.6% 10.9% 4.8% 8.1% 6.4% 5.3% 8.2% 8.4% Good 4.9% 19.7% 37.7% 39.4% 7.8% 55.1% 18.1% 55.3% 14.3% 41.7% 44.3% 8.6% 35.7% 10.1% 45.6% 33.7% 35.9% 35.0% 21.7% 30.0% 14.9% 31.6% 34.6% 24.1% 8.8% 42.7% 25.7% 35.3% 6.3% 35.0% 5.7% 47.5% 45.9% 27.6% 28.8% 30.3% Fair 9.8% 49.2% 24.7% 46.1% 43.8% 27.6% 49.0% 36.8% 34.7% 33.3% 39.2% 33.3% 41.1% 55.1% 21.5% 25.3% 41.0% 20.0% 30.4% 54.4% 47.3% 39.5% 42.3% 38.6% 49.1% 28.1% 50.0% 48.4% 19.0% 40.1% 33.3% 27.3% 38.5% 48.7% 49.3% 38.7% Poor 78.0% 23.0% 19.5% 9.7% 42.2% 6.4% 19.4% 5.3% 46.9% 25.0% 9.3% 53.3% 20.9% 30.4% 11.4% 19.3% 17.9% 10.0% 33.7% 6.7% 32.4% 17.5% 15.4% 36.1% 42.1% 7.3% 22.9% 12.4% 73.0% 13.9% 56.2% 17.2% 9.2% 18.4% 13.7% 22.6% Average Number of Students Resending to All of the Questions on the Survey 43 62 84 166 64 166 161 39 49 12 107 109 131 69 85 86 122 21 95 97 77 118 80 86 59 99 74 164 68 146 108 101 116 77 74 3215LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students: A Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 3. How would you rate the cleanliness of the facilities at your school? Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson______ Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Excellent 4.9% 5.0% 17.9% 2.5% 3.2% 8.8% 16.4% 13.5% 6.1% 0.0% 5.0% 3.7% 7.8% 7.2% 21.8% 27.8% 7.0% 0.0% 11.7% 9.2% 2.6% 12.4% 2.6% 5.9% 6.9% 14.7% 2.9% 7.0% 0.0% 11.9% 5.7% 12.0% 10.5% 9.3% 12.3% 9.0% Good 9.8% 30.0% 32.1% 17.5% 6.3% 40.0% 18.9% 48.6% 16.3% 0.0% 40.6% 17.8% 22.5% 15.9% 32.1% 34.2% 25.4% 28.6% 20.2% 25.3% 11.8% 22.1% 19.7% 16.2% 20.7% 38.9% 21.7% 32.3% 3.4% 26.7% 12.3% 31.5% 27.2% 30.7% 21.9% 24.5% Fair 22.0% 33.3% 26.9% 43.8% 25.4% 41.9% 39.6% 32.4% 34.7% 33.3%, 42.6% 29.9% 34.1% 50.7% 32.1%, 30.4%o 48.2% 42.9% 38.3% 50.6% 42.1% 33.6%, 28.9%o 48.5%o 41.4%, 32.6%. 52.2%, 36.1% 25.4% 40.0% 22.6% 37.0% 47.4% 28.0%, 37.0% 37.5% Poor 63.4% 31,7% 23.1% 36.3% 65.1% 9.4% 25.2% 5.4% 42.9% 66.7% 11.9% 48.6% 35.7% 26.1% 14.1% 7.6% 19.3% 28.6% 29.8% 14.9% 43.4% 31.9% 48.7% 29.4% 31.0% 13.7% 23.2% 24.7% 71.2% 21.5% 59.4% 19.6% 14.9% 32.0% 28.8% 29.0%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students\nA Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 4. What do you consider to be the facility you feel is in the most need of cleaning? Bathrooms Cafeteria Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 6 2 2 3 6 4 3 4 2 3 2 2 Hallways Classrooms Auditorium 3 6 5 4 3 5 4 4 1 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 6 3 4 5 2 2 2 2 3 4 6 5 3 2 5 3 5 2 4 6 6 4 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 6 3 5 3 3 5 2 5 5 3 4 2 4 6 6 6 5 3 5 6 2 2 5 5 6 6 6 4 6 6 3 5 1 3 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 6 3 4 4 5 Gym 3 1 3 5 3 3 5 3 2 7 6 7 6 2 1 5 7 1 1 7 6 6 7 2    6     6 All Facilities Media Center are Clean 5 7 6 7 1 7 1 1 6 1 6 1 6 7 1 5 1 'o 5 5 6 7 5 5 2 1 1 6 7 1 7 1 1 1 6 7 0% 0% 12% 1% 3% 5% 12% 15% 0% 0% 5% 6% 2% 0% 2% 10% 4% 0% 5% 6% 0% 7% 5% 0% 0% 15% 3% 2% 1% 3% 7% 4% 6% 1% 12% 5%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students: A Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 5. What do you consider to be the supply item which is most often not available? Soap in the Tissue in the bathrooms bathrooms Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 2 1 4 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 Paper towels in the bathrooms 3 3 1 3 2 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 Working pencil All sharpener in Trashcans Supplies the in the are classrooms bathrooms Available 1 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 1 4 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 2 4 3 2 5 1 1 4 5 1 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 2% 0% 19% 1% 6% 7% 9% 15% 8% 0% 5% 9% 2% 3% 1% 12% 15% 10% 9% 9% 3% 10% 14% 5% 0% 31% 0% 7% 10% 3% 4% 5% 3% 17% 11% 8%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students\nA Survey of 4th and Sth Grade Students Spring 2000 6. What do you consider to be the primary sanitation problem at your school? Badgett______ Bale________ Baseline Booker______ Brady_______ Carver______ Chicot_______ Cloverdale Dodd________ Fair Park Forest Park Franklin_____ Fulbright_____ Garland______ Geyer Springs Gibbs________ Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell______ Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine______ Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson______ Western Hills Williams______ Wilson_______ Woodruff mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs foui odors mice or bugs mice or bugs foul odors mice or bugs foul odors mice or bugs foul odors foul odors foul odors foul odors mice or bugs foul odors mice or bugs foul odors foul odors foul odors other mice or bugs mice or bugs foul odors mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs foul odors foul odors foul odors mice or bugs (Mold \u0026amp; Mildew) Total There are no sanitation problems at my school. 2% 13% 17% 2% 6% 19% 5% 21% 8% 0% 9% 5% 6% 0% 7% 16% 2% 5% 6% 11% 1% 3% 8% 3% 0% 6% 4% 12% 1% 4% 3% 12% 19% 1% 11% 7%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students\nA Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 7. Who is responsible for the cleanliness of you school? Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff_____ Total Principal 16% 10% 13% 12% 16% 14% 12% 11% 14% 23% 13% 10% 14% 19% 9% 15% 11% 17% 16% 15% 10% 10% 18% 8% 16% 14% 16% 14% 8% 6% 15% 17% 15% 11% 15% 13% Custodians 18% 24% 26% 27% 22% 23% 31% 33% 39% 19% 19% 20% 32% 23% 30% 25% 25% 25% 28% 23% 18% 23% 28% 27% 25% 23% 21% 25% 26% 29% 28% 21% 30% 26% 24% 25% Heopie irom the community 5% 2% 2% 3% 1% 4% 5% 3% 1% 2% 5% 7% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3% 4% 5% 3% 7% 3% 1% 5% 6% 4% 3% 2% 0% 9% 2% 2% 1% 2% 4% 4% T eachers 9% 6% 5% 13% 17% 13% 10% 9% 11% 21% 15% 11% 12% 17% 10% 15% 12% 16% 14% 11% 8% 12% 14% 11% 12% 13% 13% 13% 9% 10% 11% 15% 14% 12% 14% 12% btuoents, including myself 11% 13% 10% 18% 18% 18% 18% 21% 9% 13% 17% 13% 14% 17% 20% 17% 19% 16% 15% 13% 18% 20% 24% 16% 18% 18% 11% 17% 22% 20% 13% 18% 19% 17% 15% 17% Everyone 22% 39% 35% 16% 16% 13% 14% 19% 24% 13% 17% 21% 13% 17% 15% 16% 21% 10% 12% 17% 28% 21% 9% 19% 14% 15% 21% 13% 30% 16% 26% 18% 13% 22% 21% 18% Parents 5% 2% 2% 3% 0% 7% 1% 0% 1% 4% 6% 5% 3% 1% 9% 5% 3% 3% 3% 7% 2% 5% 3% 5% 3% 8% 10% 6% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 4% siuaents, noi including myself 7% 4% 5% 4% 8% 3% 5% 3% 0% 2% 2% 8% 6% 2% 1% 3% 4% 6% 3% 2% 5% 3% 3% 5% 3% 2% 5% 3% 5% 3% 2% 4% 5% 2% 3% 4% Visitors ~6^ 1% 2% 4% 2% 4% 4% 1% 1% 2% 6% 5% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 8% 4% 1% 2% 4% 2% 3% 1% 7% 0% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 3%Parent Involvement Survey In the fall of 2000, volunteers from LRSDs Collaborative Action Team (CAT) collected survey information data from parents attending their respective schools open house. Data from 17 schools, (i.e. 10 elementary, 5 middle, and 2 high schools) were collected and reported. Attached to this report is a copy of the survey and survey results by level. Survey results are aggregated by level and disaggregated by school. Across all levels parents report being involved by encouraging their child to read, attending conferences and school functions, by monitoring homework, taking their children to the library and volunteering. There was a lack of parent response to the questions on the timing and frequency of communications. This made analysis difficult. Parents felt they could be more involved if they understood the curriculum, could be offered workshops, had evening conferences with teachers, and have a homework hot line. The results of this survey should not be generalized to the whole school district. The school surveyed should use this data to build parent involvement through workshops and evening conferences. The next three paragraphs summarize the survey data by level. Parents from Bale, Brady, Franklin, Mitchell, Rightsell, Romine, Wakefield, Western Hills, Wilson, and Woodruff participated in the survey. The number of parents completing the elementary survey ranged from 5 to 27 per school. Most parents reported that they involved themselves in their childs education by encouraging their child to read, attending conferences and school functions, and by monitoring homework. Parents reported that their job interferes the most when trying to become more involved with the school. Some other interferences were lack of at home assistance that parent could provide the schools and not being given a list of volunteer activities. Parents felt that the quality of communications was good, and that letters and newsletters were the most common form of communications. A number of parents, across all levels, did not complete the questions on the timing and frequency of communications. Those parents that did respond reported that most communications occuned 2-3 days prior to an event and that some type of communications occurred weekly. When asked how the schools could help them, as parents become more involved, parents responded equally with understanding the curriculum, workshops, and evening conferences with teachers. Parents from Southwest, Mann, Mabelvale, Forest Heights, and Cloverdale middle schools participated in the survey. The number of parents completing the elementary survey ranged from 12 to 21 per school. Middle school parents only differed from their elementary counterparts in the method and frequency of communications and support form school. Middle level parents tended to get more telephone calls than letters and typically received communications on a monthly rather than weekly basis. Finally, parents reported that a homework hot line would be very helpful towards involving parents. Parents from Central (N = 26) and Parkview (N = 13) High schools participated in the survey. High school parents from these two schools reported taking their children to the library and volunteering more than their middle and elementary peers. High school parents had similar interferences, to school involvement, as their middle and elementary peers. LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) 1 11/06/01Parents rated the quality of communications as OK and typically received this information on a monthly basis. High school parents also felt that the homework hot line would be beneficial. Data were collected on only a third of the school in the District. As such, this at a report should be viewed only in the context of those reporting schools. Parents attending open house completed surveys. This in itself is an indicator of high parental involvement. There were low numbers of parents completing the survey (e.g., 5 Woodruff). Two of the questions (i.e. quality and frequency of communications) had _ low response rate. This calls into question the reliability of data on these two questions. In spite of the shortcomings the surveys did reveal some important information. The schools of the parents surveyed should encourage parents to be involved in the childrens education. According to the survey this could be accomplished by providing more volunteer opportunities, offering workshops to help parents understand the cuniculum and at-home assistance, a homework hot line, and evening conferences with teachers. LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) 2 11/06/01LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Aggregate Data: 17 Schools (N = 297) 297 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 258 258 255 212 193 176 146 59 32 87% 87% 86% 71% 65% 59% 49% 20% 11% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of child care. Don't know how to become involved at school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Lack of transportation. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. 192 44 36 18 16 11 8 8 7 65% 15% 12% 6% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 177 75 28 60% 25% 9% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 161 137 119 7 54% 46% 40% 2% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 165 13 4 56% 4% 1% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 99 61 6 33% 21% 2% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Homework help line. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. 130 102 96 93 65 44% 34% 32% 31% 22%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Bale (N = 25) 25 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. #of Responses % to N 19 19 18 13 13 11 7 4 1 76% 76% 72% 52% 52% 44% 28% 16% 4% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Lack of child care. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. 16 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 64% 16% 8% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 18 3 0 72% 12% 0% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 12 12 7 0 48% 48% 28% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 14 0 0 56% 0% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 12 0 0 48% 0% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Evening conferences with teachers. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 11 8 4 3 3 44% 32% 16% 12% 12%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Brady (N = 17) 17 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 11 11 11 9 7 6 4 3 2 65% 65% 65% 53% 41% 35% 24% 18% 12% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime, school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 8 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 47% 18% 12% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 41% 24% 6% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 8 6 2 1 47% 35% 12% 6% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 47% 6% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 29% 6% 6% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Evening conferences with teachers. 6 5 4 3 2 35% 29% 24% 18% 12% 7 4 1 8 1 0 5 1 1LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Cloverdale Middle (N = 17) 17 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Taking my child to the library. Attending school functions. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Joining the PTA. Other ways. Serving on a decision-making team. # of Responses % to N 15 14 14 9 8 7 7 2 1 88% 82% 82% 53% 47% 41% 41% 12% 6% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 12 4 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 71% 24% 18% 18% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 41% 29% 24% Method of communication Telephone Calls Letters Newsletters Home Visits 8 7 5 0 47% 41% 29% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event After the activity/event The day of activity/event 35% 6% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 29% 18% 6% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Evening conferences with teachers. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 9 7 5 3 3 53% 41% 29% 18% 18% 7 5 4 6 1 0 5 3 1LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Forest Heights Middle (N = 19) 19 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Joining the PTA. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 19 19 17 17 17 15 14 9 6 100% 100% 89% 89% 89% 79% 74% 47% 32% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. 12 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 63% 21% 16% 11% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 37% 37% 21% Method of communication Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 12 4 3 0 63% 21% 16% 0% 7 7 4 Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event After the activity/event The day of activity/event 5 1 0 26% 5% 0% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 10 2 1 53% 11% 5% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Evening conferences with teachers. 14 8 8 7 3 74% 42% 42% 37% 16%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Franklin (N = 27) 27 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 24 23 21 18 18 12 12 3 2 89% 85% 78% 67% 67% 44% 44% 11% 7% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Lack of child care. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. 17 6 5 5 2 2 1 1 0 63% 22% 19% 19% 7% 7% 4% 4% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 15 9 1 56% 33% 4% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 17 14 11 2 63% 52% 41% 7% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 15 1 0 56% 4% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 10 3 0 37% 11% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Workshops Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Evening conferences with teachers. 12 10 10 6 6 44% 37% 37% 22% 22%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Mabelvale Middle (N = 12) 12 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 12 11 11 10 9 8 6 2 1 100% 92% 92% 83% 75% 67% 50% 17% 8% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. 8 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 67% 17% 8% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 58% 17% 17% Method of communication Telephone Calls Newsletters Letters Home Visits 7 5 4 0 58% 42% 33% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 42% 8% 0% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 25% 17% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Homework help line. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. 7 6 5 5 2 58% 50% 42% 42% 17% 7 2 2 5 1 0 3 2 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Mann Middle (N = 20) 20 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 18 18 17 17 16 14 13 3 1 90% 90% 85% 85% 80% 70% 65% 15% 5% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. 14 5 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 70% 25% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 45% 45% 10% Method of communication Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 12 9 4 1 60% 45% 20% 5% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 45% 10% 5% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 35% 15% 5% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. 11 10 8 7 6 55% 50% 40% 35% 30% 9 9 2 9 2 1 7 3 1LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Mitchell (N = 17) 17 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Joining the PTA. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 15 14 14 12 10 9 7 1 1 88% 82% 82% 71% 59% 53% 41% 6% 6% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Don't know how to become involved at school. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 9 6 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 53% 35% 12% 12% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 14 2 0 82% 12% 0% Method of communication Timing of communications Frequency of communications Letters Telephone Calls Newsletters Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Monthly Weekly Not at All 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Homework help line. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 11 10 6 0 13 1 0 8 7 6 4 3 65% 59% 35% 0% 76% 6% 0% 12% 0% 0% 47% 41% 35% 24% 18% 2 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Parkview (N = 13) 13 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Taking my child to the library. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Other ways. Serving on a decision-making team. # of Responses % to N 13 12 11 11 11 11 8 1 0 100% 92% 85% 85% 85% 85% 62% 8% 0% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 8 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 62% 15% 15% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. OK Very Good Needs Improvement 62% 23% 0% Method of communication Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 9 4 3 0 69% 31% 23% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 38% 0% 0% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 69% 0% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. 7 7 5 4 3 54% 54% 38% 31% 23% 8 3 0 5 0 0 9 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Rightsell (N = 20) 20 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Taking my child to the library. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 17 16 15 11 11 11 6 2 1 85% 80% 75% 55% 55% 55% 30% 10% 5% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime, school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Don't know how to become involved at school. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. 14 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 70% 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 13 4 3 65% 20% 15% Method of communication Timing of communications Frequency of communications Letters Newsletters Telephone Calls Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Weekly Monthly Not at All 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. Homework help line. 11 10 9 1 14 0 0 12 12 10 8 7 55% 50% 45% 5% 70% 0% 0% 45% 10% 0% 60% 60% 50% 40% 35% 9 2 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Romine (N = 10) 10 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Joining the PTA. Other ways. Serving on a decision-making team. # of Responses % to N 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 5 3 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 50% 30% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of child care. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 60% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 90% 0% 0% Method of communication Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 9 4 3 0 90% 40% 30% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 80% 10% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 70% 20% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. Homework help line. Workshops 2 2 1 1 0 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 9 0 0 8 1 0 7 2 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Southwest Middle (N = 21) 21 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. #of Responses % to N 21 19 18 17 14 12 6 4 2 100% 90% 86% 81% 67% 57% 29% 19% 10% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of transportation. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. 14 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 67% 19% 14% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 13 6 1 62% 29% 5% Method of communication Timing of communications Frequency of communications Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Monthly Weekly Not at All 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Homework help line. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. 12 10 9 1 57% 48% 43% 5% 38% 10% 0% 29% 24% 0% 10 10 8 5 4 48% 48% 38% 24% 19% 8 2 0 6 5 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Wakefield (N = 10) 10 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 10 10 8 7 7 5 4 0 0 100% 100% 80% 70% 70% 50% 40% 0% 0% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 10 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 100% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 90% 10% 0% Method of communication Letters Telephone Calls Newsletters Home Visits 8 5 2 0 80% 50% 20% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 80% 10% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 70% 0% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Workshops Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. 4 3 3 2 2 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 9 1 0 8 1 0 7 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Western Hills (N = 24) 24 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. #of Responses % to N 23 23 22 18 15 13 13 5 4 96% 96% 92% 75% 63% 54% 54% 21% 17% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Don't know how to become involved at school. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. 16 4 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 67% 17% 13% 8% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 19 4 1 79% 17% 4% Method of communication Letters Newsletters Telephone Calls Home Visits 17 13 10 0 71% 54% 42% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 20 1 0 83% 4% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 15 3 0 63% 13% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Workshops Evening conferences with teachers. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Opportunities to meet other parents. Homework help line. 11 8 7 4 2 46% 33% 29% 17% 8%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Wilson (N = 14) 14 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 13 13 12 7 7 6 5 0 0 93% 93% 86% 50% 50% 43% 36% 0% 0% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 79% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 12 2 0 86% 14% 0% Method of communication Timing of communications Frequency of communications Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Weekly Monthly Not at All 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. 9 8 4 0 12 1 0 8 6 3 2 0 64% 57% 29% 0% 86% 7% 0% 64% 0% 0% 57% 43% 21% 14% 0% 9 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Woodruff (N = 5) 5 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Taking my child to the library. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending school functions. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Joining the PTA. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 1 0 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 40% 40% 20% 0% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Dont know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 60% 20% 0% Method of communication Letters Telephone Calls Newsletters Home Visits 4 3 1 0 80% 60% 20% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 100% 0% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 80% 0% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. 3 3 2 2 0 60% 60% 40% 40% 0% 3 1 0 5 0 0 4 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Central (N = 26) 26 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Attending school functions. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Taking my child to the library. Joining the PTA. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 24 24 24 24 22 21 21 17 3 92% 92% 92% 92% 85% 81% 81% 65% 12% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 12 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 46% 12% 12% 4% 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 12 8 6 46% 31% 23% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 19 13 12 1 73% 50% 46% 4% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 10 1 0 38% 4% 0% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 10 4 2 38% 15% 8% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 10 9 8 6 5 38% 35% 31% 23% 19%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 EiGmentsry Aggregate Data (N = 169) 169 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Volunterring to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 145 142 108 96 86 86 68 23 16 86% 84% 64% 57% 51% 51% 40% 14% 9% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime-school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of child care. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. 112 25 19 14 5 5 5 4 1 66% 15% 11% 8% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% Quality of communication. Method of communication Very Good OK Needs Improvement Missing Data 119 30 7 13 70% 18% 4% 8% Timing of communications Frequency of communications Letters Newsletters Telephone Calls Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Missing Data Weekly Monthly Not at All Missing Data 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Evening conferences with teachers. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. 94 87 65 4 117 7 1 44 78 13 1 77 65 56 53 43 34 56% 51% 38% 2% 69% 4% 1% 26% 46% 8% 1% 46% 38% 33% 31% 25% 20%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 MiddiG LgVGI Aggregate Data (N = 88) 88 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunterring to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 81 79 79 68 65 57 46 19 12 92% 90% 90% 77% 74% 65% 52% 22% 14% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. 60 14 14 9 5 4 4 3 2 68% 16% 16% 10% 6% 5% 5% 3% 2% Quality of communication. Method of communication Very Good OK Needs Improvement Missing Data 43 29 13 3 49% 33% 15% 3% Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 46 27 38 2 52% 31% 43% 2% Timing of communications Frequency of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Missing Data 33 5 3 47 38% 6% 3% 53% 4. What support could the school involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. Weekly Monthly Not at All Missing Data provide to help you become more 17 29 3 39 19% 33% 3% 44% 48 38 35 28 22 55% 43% 40% 32% 25%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 High School Aggregate Data (N = 40) 40 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Taking my child to the library. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Volunterring to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 33 34 37 37 32 32 36 17 4 83% 85% 93% 93% 80% 80% 90% 43% 10% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytimeschool involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 20 5 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 50% 13% 8% 8% 5% 3% 3% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Method of communication Very Good OK Needs Improvement Missing Data 15 16 8 1 38% 40% 20% 3% Timing of communications Frequency of communications Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Missing Data Weekly Monthly Not at All Missing Data 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 28 16 16 1 15 1 0 24 4 19 2 15 17 15 14 9 9 70% 40% 40% 3% 38% 3% 0% 60% 10% 48% 5% 38% 43% 38% 35% 23% 23%fJCC -/cr Chtckh-i/- Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: May 18, 2000 To: Kaye Rainey From: Ann BroWn\" Re: CAT Restroom Monitoring Attached are the completed Site Visit Checklists for Restrooms that I was asked to complete on behalf of our CAT monitoring. I apologize for returning them late, but my schedule has been disrupted by unexpected events (the tragic death of two of my childrens young friends and out-of-town travel). I spoke to Heather Gage yesterday, and she assured me that the forms were still being compiled, so 1 hope these arent too late to be counted. Thanks so much for all your hard work on behalf of our Team.js is/. Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge APR 5 2001 April 5, 2001 *w Dear Collaborative Action Team Member\nWe appreciate all of the time and energy you have devoted to helping to improve education for the students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Your willingness to serve on the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) is evidence of your support for children in our community. During the past two years CAT members have addressed sanitary conditions at every school in the LRSD. We are pleased to have focused on this need cited by students as important in their school life and feel that there are many more opportunities for us to make a difference in our schools. This letter is to invite your active participation in the CAT and to update your contact information. We have planned a reception for CAT members on Monday, April 16, from 4:30 until 6:00 p.m. in the LRSD Board Room located at 810 West Markham Street. In addition to refreshments, we have some activities planned to energize you about the CAT and how we can help our schools. We need your attendance and input if our CAT is going to be successful. Please reaffirm your commitment to CAT by filling out the attached form and faxing it to Kaye Rainey at 324-2044. Thanks! Your Fellow CATs 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax:501-324-2032 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2001 DESIRE TO SERVE AND INFORMATION FORM .Yes, I wish to continue to participate on, and will attend meetings of, the LRSD Collaborative Action Team. No, I cannot continue to serve as a CAT member. Name: Home Address\nHome Phone: Work Address\nWork Phone\nFax: E-mail Address: Comments Please check one: Community  Student  Parent  School \u0026lt;2\n1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: November 21, 2002 SUBJECT: Approval of SEDLs Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project Background The Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL) in Austin began their Collaborative Action Team Project in 1996 by selecting schools or districts for participation within their five-state region. The focus was on districts with concentrations of students as follows: rural, urban, the Delta, the Border, and the American Indian Nations. The Little Rock School District was selected for inclusion, representing urban children, as a part of Cohort 3 in fall 1999, the last year of the project. We participated only that one year (1999-2000) in the project, but the Collaborative Action Team that was established continues to meet and most recently fulfilled the charge we gave them to provide leadership in the development of the District's Strategic Plan for Parent Involvement. Dr. Ed Williams, the PRE statistician, and Debbie Milam, Director of the ViPS program and the person assigned as liaison to SEDL for this project, both provided data to SEDL for their project evaluation. Members of the Collaborative Action Team responded to surveys as requested. Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSDs short-term (one year) participation in the project would not predict that the involvement of this relatively small group of parents and community volunteers would result in improved student performance. The purpose of the SEDL project is described on pp. 2- 3 of the report. On pp. 25-33 can be found a description of the Research Design and Methodology. Board of Education - Memo November 21,2002 Page Two SEDL s report includes some data that are specific to districts, but much of their analysis is by cohort group, so even though the Little Rock School District data are included in Cohort 3 data, it is impossible to know how we compared to anyone else on some measurements. Other Cohort 3 participants are listed on p. 9 of the report. The following pages are those with references either to LRSD specifically or to Cohort 3 in the analysis of Site Characteristics:  p. 35Demographic data, by district  p. 36Types of schools served, by cohort  p. 37 Special parent involvement programs, by cohort  p. 39Survey on Team Confidence, by cohort  p. 40Type^of community challenges, by cohort  P- 42Existence of community factors, by cohort  p. 44Days between project start-up and first CAT meeting, by district In the chapter on CAT Sustainability, the following pages are those with references to LRSD or to Cohort 3 data:  p. 49Responses to surveys, CAT Self-Assessment and Exit Survey, bv district  pp. 58-60Levels of perceived support from school administration, campus staff, community at-large, parent/other family member, and students for CAT sustainability, aggregated  p. 66Time of goal accomplishment, by cohort  p. 70 Perceived changes in CAT recognition/importance in the community, aggregated  P- ^2Importance of taking action on goals, aggregated f 1 i I i i The chapter on Student Outcomes is most relevant to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Cohort 3, however, had only one year in the project, and much of the first semester was spent on training, not action, improvement in student outcomes would not be predictable. so p. 82Percent student attendance, by district p. 83Percent student attendance, by cohort p. 85Percent student attendance, districts in Arkansas p. 89Percent student dropout, by district p. 90Percent student dropout, by cohort p. 91Percent student dropout, districts in Arkansas p. 96Percent student graduation, by district p. 97Percent student graduation, by cohort p. 98Percent student graduation, districts in Arkansas pp. 100-101Sat9 scores below 25** percentile, districts in ArkansasBoard of Education - Memo November 21,2002 Page Three Section 10 of the evaluation, Implications and Recommendations, discusses the research findings. Specific recommendations are given on page 147, Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve SEDL's \"Collaborative Action Team Process: Final Research Report as the program evaluation of the LRSD Collaborative Action Team project of 1999-2000. BAL/adg Attachment\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_357","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''School Improvement''","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":["1998/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''School Improvement''"],"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/357"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nSCHOOL IMPROVEMENT0-1 zm zmm 0) o School Improvement lO. Memorandum to Cabinet from Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 8, 1998, with excerpts from a book on total quality management. The Five Pillars of TOM: How to Make Total Quality Management Work for You by Don Creech. 11. Memorandum to Cabinet from Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 8,1998, with copy of an article she wrote on school restructuring and TQM, Do They Hear What We say? Understanding School Restructuring Initiatives. 12. Memorandum to principals from Bonnie Lesley in Feb. 24, 1999, Learning Links with copies of transparencies from February 1999 principals meeting on school improvement. 13. Memorandum by Bonnie Lesley in Aug. 18, 1999, Learning Links on good teachers\nattached article from Education Week, What Makes a Good Teacher? 14. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Sept. 29, 1999, Learning Links on the few essential components of successful school reform\nattached article, Perspectives: What Does it Take to Reform a Low-Performing School? 15. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Mar. 1,2000, Learning Links on school improvement\nattached article, Getting Results. 16. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in June 14, 2000, Learning Links on effective schools research\nattached article, Educating Urban Minority Youth: Research on Effective Practices. Y1. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Oct, 2, 2000, Learning Links on what works\nattached study, Making Standards Work: Active Voices, Focused Learning. -/^1 10LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 8, 1998 TO\nDr. Les Gamine Dr. Kathy Lease Dr. Vic Anderson Dr. Richard Hurley Brady Gadberry Marian Lacey Sadie Mitchell Mark Milhollen Suellen Vann Junious Babbs Dr. Linda Watson Frances Cawthon FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJCT: TQM in Practice One of my favorite TQM books is Don Creechs The Five Pillars of TQM: How to make Total Quality Management Work for You. Attached are some of the more relevant (to us in education) excerpts from that book - I hope you find them helpful as we begin thinking about how to implement the Campus Leadership Plan. BAL/adg Excerpts from The Five Pillars of TQM: How to Make Total Quality Management Work for You New York: Truman Talley Books, 1994 This book is about the management problems of our countryand proven solutions to them. The problems seem especially daunting and highly resistant to correction, but that need not be the case. So the book is aimed at every level within every organization because that is where the change for the better must begin, whatever the organization's nature. (2) . .. when it comes to introspection in individual businesses, you will find everything from demal that management change is needed there, to uncertainty as to what is broken, and on to serious doubts about how to fix it even if it is. This book addresses those issues. (2) Our management practices must change. Adequate though not ideal for earlier times they are thoroughly unsatisfactory in an era of intense competition. (3) I've found a TQM program must meet four criteria if it is to succeed. First, it must be based on a quality mindset and quality orientation in all activities at all times, including in every process and product. Second, it must be strongly humanistic to bring quality to the way employees are treated, included, and inspired. Third, it must be based on a decentralized approach that provides empowerment at all levels, especially at the frontline, so that enthusiastic involvement and common purpose are realities, not slogans. Fourth,  TQM must be applied holistically so that its principles, policies, and practices reach every nook and cranny of the organization. It [TQM] works successfully in any organization, whatever its size, whatever its nationality, whatever its product or service, whatever its industry, and whatever its market niche. (5) Product is the focal point for organization purpose and achievement. Quality in the product IC imnriCPikla it mmlihi im ___It..___ .1  . \" \" _ is_impossible without quality in the process. Quality in the process is impossible without the right organization. The right organization is meaningless without the proper leadership Strong,.bottom-up commitment is the support pillar for all the rest. Each pillar depends upon the other four, and if one is weak all are. ~ ------ The five pillars of TQM: Product, Process, Organization, Leadership, Commitment. (7) Various surveys show that a mere 5 percent of American workers are organized into work teams.... The long-standing American preference is for organization by functions with a vertical, centralized structure to provide the oversight.  ... the choice of the organizational system, structure, and style ends up deeply affecting th A nct/rkp cnirit o11 ___u :____cri the psyche and spirit of all employees. There's insufficient recognition that the most important system of all is the human system. (10) .. . a decentralized structure facilitates leadership and unleashes creativity. Indeed the kev nilPCtinn ic whAthAr thA r\\rnnri'Totir\\ ----------------1____...i-.i.. ..  . question is whether the organization serves or squashes the human spirit. Therefore how you choose to organize can either make you or break you. (11) There is increasing recognition Ihat how one organizes profoundly affects everything else mH fho Imm .-kT-z-vy-l.  U. . .L _ I .. i\u0026gt; z i * and that the team approach produces by far the best results. (12) 1In fact, individual behavior is powerfully shaped by the organizational roles people play. The most effective way to change behavior, therefore, is to put people into a new organizational context, which imposes new roles, responsibilities and relationships on them. . . . your approach must feature goals and tasks which are clearly defined. Finally, success indeed depends on sensitive and focused leadership-which I agree is a resource in very short supply. (13) ... organizing by functions creates separation, not integration. (14) Most centralized organizations have too many managers, and too little management. ... Centralization produces too little managementdespite layers of managersfor two reasons. First, it simply does not create and foster the active, sensitive involvement by managers that is needed. Second, in a centralized system the \"management,\" in the proactive sense, is not found at the frontline level where things to be done need to be managed. (20) .., the application of centralist thinking has been the principal culprit in America's flat productivity growth. . . . (22) I am convinced that the way to win big and grow big is to organize small. My advice to organizational leaders over the years has been: Think big about what you can achieve\nthink small about how to achieve it. That's because you get things done through individuals and small groups of individuals. (25-26) Any organization will be only as successful as those at the bottom are willing to make it. Their focus, spirit, enthusiasm, objectivity, and motivation are masters that transcend all others in importance. Study after study shows that employees are powerfully affected by the organizational principles and structure that shape their roles, responsibilities, and feelings of fulfillment. (26) The best organizations use the team approach to stay agile and adaptable. (28) The decentralized approach is radically different from the centralized approach discussed earlier. In fact, it's the virtual antithesis, and the differences from the centralized, managership approach show up sharply. The structure is based on Teams, not Functions. The supervisory focus is centered on Outputs, not Inputs. The accomplishment mindset is on the team Product, not on each person's Job. ... Its great and proven strength lies in the creation of new motivation and commitment among ^1 employees and of proactive leadership from the bottom up. (30) I've found the resistance to changing the centralist style is less a matter of hardheaded intransigence than of a lack of insight into the problems it produces. The resistance is buttressed by dim understanding of how a decentralized approach can improve matters (31) If I learned nothing else, it is that what goes on at the front is what determines organizational success-all the rest is background music. (32) Honda organizes by teams, not by functions. (45)Also, every team has goals that give meaning and substance to \"Kaizen\" (the Japanese term that essentially means \"continuous improvement\"). One finds measurement at all key product-process interlace points. The results of those measurements and assessments analyzed comparatively with history, goals, like shifts, and like teams. Scoreboards are reflecting those results and standings are everywhere. The objective feedback to the employee is relevant, rigorous, and rapid. As a result, leaders at every level display impressive, in-depth understanding of the subcomponents at each of the various assembly stages of their final product. .. . Honda trains, trains, and trains some more, and special training emphasis is placed on team leaders at every level. ' Each of the Honda principles and the methods used to carry them out are fully oriented to the customers, internal and external. And, Honda is absolutely unyielding on the quality of the product. The employees build the quality in-not inspect it in-at the various subcomponent stages. They do it right the first time and every time to every possible extent. (46-47) ' ... Honda's success with quality circles is due to their being but one of four key parts in Honda's overall approach to detailed employee involvement. (48) It's the management system and the way employees are organized and treated within that system that count. And that applies everywhere. (50) ... continuous, measurable, and incremental improvement.... Everyone I tolked with talks goals in numbers as well as in words, from the bottom to the top. (51) Principles operate top to bottom. Decisions operate bottom to top. (54) The team concept supports the basic attitude that the company belongs to each and every team member, not just management. (57) . a Toyota s principles . .. include high standards, excellent management-labor relations, well-motivated work force, outstanding planning, smooth integration of the various elements, and the pervasive use of goals, measurement, and feedback to employees at all levels. Like Honda, Toyota uses multiskilling as a key feature of its team approach. All team members learn one or more additional skills related to their team's responsibilities. (58) ... open offices and companywide dining are merely the start. It's an important way of making the leaders, the most senior ones included, accessible and approachable. It replaces the usually empty phrase \"open door\" with lots of opportunities for personal interactions. Those practices demonstrate with actionsnot just with wordsa readiness to listen with interest not aloofness. .. . When the top leader places that kind of premium on seamless communication and openness, it sets the tone for every'one. It's not that hard to instill in the organizational culture, but it has to come from the top. (61) . . . the team concept is absolutely dependent upon mutual trust, mutual respect and mutual support. . . . the leadership challenge is to have no weak links. (79) 31 saw in case after case that if you can create teams of people who care about and trust one another, and get leadership and commitment operating from the bottom up, you can create feats of quality and productivity that appear miraculous when compared to the levels that others are achieving. (83) When you don't have to do it over, it yields great mission efficiency, effort efficiency, and cost efficiency. (121) The centralized approach works to separate the thinkers from the doers. That's one of the reasons it works so poorly. (132) Leaders . .. must not only stick to their knitting, but also frequently reappraise what their knitting is all about. (144) We constantly challenged and reviewed our own most devoutly held beliefs. Paying that kind of attention to the business of the business is fundamental to aware, proactive leadership. However, it simply doesn't get enough attention by enough leaders in enough organizations. (145) ... it is at the top of the ladder that TQM management principles must be supportedeven championed-if they are to be allowed to spread. (147) ... if the organization is wrongly structured, nothing else goes well either. The evidence that this is the case is simply overwhelming. The evidence is also abundant that the right organization-decentralized, team-based-provides the required framework for TQM to operate freely and effectively in every organizational element at all levels. (157) Product is the focal point for organization purpose and achievement. (158) ... all organizations, their subelements, and the individual employees within them have a product. That's true whether those organizations are public or private, whether they deal in goods or services. . . . That product can be identified and defined in terms of its customer, internal or external (159) I I I A common purpose is essential for success. (161) . . . plumbing the extent of the common values, perspectives, and purpose is the surest way to judge whether an organization is being managed well or poorly. (162) The quality mindset. . . manifests itself in the pride and professionalism the employees feel and reflect\"Or do not reflect... . Pride is the fuel of human accomplishment. . . Unquality is unaffordable. (166) . . . pride and quality (in all things, not just some things) go together. You can't have one without the other. And you won't achieve professionalism without both. I . . . lack of sensitivity to the wellsprings of quality largely stems from shopworn but doggedly persistent ideas on where to economize. And it usually traces back to the beancounters lound in nearly all companies, especially traditionally managed ones. They VnrMl/ I kn /'net of (L..X , ,l____r_.x1_- 4 I . a know the cost ol everything and the value o! nothing. And they exercise a hammerlock on all the cost and value trade-off decisions. Those beancounters don't fully understand the 4 ifirst effects of their decisions, much less the secondary effects, but those secondary effects /*s ri t m 1 r Ari I 1 J 1 rt I I 1 z, \u0026lt;1 i 1. J -  most assuredly influence attitude, motivation, and pride. (167) Quality begets quality. (171) .l.jlAY-?..tto problem whatsoever with diligent efforts to save money. I do have problems big problemswith insensitive bureaucrats who try to save money on the wrong things. (173) Be wary of cuts that affect the quality mindset-don't disable it. (174) I've never seen a sharp organization that didn't look sharp. That's just the start, of course. It must go on to professionalism in all things, but the quality mindset is the cornerstone of all professionalism. A necessary condition of being professional is to look professional. People are affected by their surroundings, the way they're treated, and the way they're led either positively or negatively. It's up to senior leaders to decide which it is to be. (175) Turnarounds, in rny experience, share one common element a change in the way the organizations human system rallies itselfunder changed policiesto bring forth unrealized work-force potential. That slumbering potential is always there. (181) .. . success lies in making each group's product the focal point for purpose and achievement. It also serves as the logical rallying point for quality and productivity. (189) The cycle that shapes the process can appropriately start nowhere else than with the customer's needs and wants. (191) There are at least two \"customers\" of the American primary and secondary educational system. (1) the student, and (2) those who will use the services of that student. The first isn t complaining about the way the system is working, but the second is. Numerous surveys show how poorly equipped students are t ______favta i techmeal complexity and intensifying competition. Much h^b^n written a^ut  to enter a work force that faces increasing ' 7 :. ^77*7  vAjuipcuuuu. iviucn nas neen written atxiut our deficiencies in defining the product of that educational system, other than as graduation' the pntincm mr'innoc r\u0026gt;r\\nrirfi ________x- , , . criticism includes concern over the lack of comparative nationd standards and the lack of countrywide testing against such standards. Indeed, there's a strong case to be made that Its the very absence of a satisfactory product definition that leads to policies like \"social promotion (moving a student on to the next grade because of age, not accomplishment) Many teachers decry the practice, but most school boards either champion it or tolerate it. rp .f X,  * , . ' , ----------------- viiauijJikJll 11 UI lUICldLC I 1 o them It s an answer to alarming dropout rates and the perceived right for all students orQzliiQto__^1/1 th /-- ____ 4.:___ z-i- .1 .. .'x.x.  ixMj . aicuiiiHig uivpuul Idles ana me lor to graduate-with or without an education. Given that lack of focus on the customer and the r\\rA/li inUnM v.z.... __________ x_ x1_ _ .   . (.tiv. product, when you move on to the actual educational processes, it's not surprising that they  J 1 , . --------------- vvviwva, 110 iivi ouipiiaillH llldl II vaiy widely, have fuzzy definition and purpose, and often are geared simply to pumping students out the door. (192)  Seven-Steps approach to process related problem-solving: 1. What's the problem? 2. Where are we now? 3. 4. 5. What are the root causes? What is needed to improx e? What happened from our actions? 6. How do we hold on to the improvement? 57. Whal is the next item to be addressed? (196) The best way to start is with the basics. Even simple measurement, analysis, and scoreboarding techniques can yield needed insights and point employees in the right directions. (202) Typically, companies that were experiencing the most serious crisis were willing to implement change at a faster rate. Successful companies implemented gradual changes. Total Quality Management truly is a cultural change. It involves a change in both the stated and unstated rules which govern the behavior and beliefs of an organization. Adopting new techniques, tools, or programs such as problem solving working groups can be important-but in themselves do not represent cultural change. (209) ... you don't have to become an expert at statistical and mathematical legerdemain to transform your organization for the better. (211) In God we trust\nall others bring data. (240) ... 95 percent of businesses need broad systemic changesnot patchwork changes that leave the traditional style basically untouched. (242) ... quality improvement teams, and, indeed all of the other parts of a TQM system are each well worth doing in their own rights.... But it is all of them working together in a systemic way that produces the dramatic results companies really want. Anyone interested in quality management must consider it as a complete management system. (243) ... six sigma means one is achieving process perfection 99.9999997 percent of the time. Translated, that's only 3.4 defects per million. Six Steps to Six Sigma: 1. Determine what your product is. 2. Determine who the customer is for that product. 3. Identify the suppliers you need for your product. 4. Map out the process you must use in putting it together. 5. Examine that process to eliminate errors and wasted steps. 6. Establish measurement means to feed continuous improvement. (250) Tolstoy: All men's instincts, all their impulses in life, are only efforts to increase their freedom. Wealth and poverty, health and disease, labor and leisure, culture and ignorance, repletion and hunger, virtue and vice, are all only terms for greater or lesser degrees of freedom. (256) ^59^^^ inversely proportional to the degree of management centralization. Bosses need to take a critical look at their entire management system. They must decide, that they will have less control of people and more control of events. That's not a contradiction in terms. (259) Decentralization, empowerment, and ownership created great improvement in our control of events, products, and outcomes. (260) 6How employees feel is even more important than what they know in determining job performance. (262) Matrix management is a blueprint for organizational confusion, which in some of its variations approaches anarchy. It does so in an altogether appropriate quest-the quest for more effective internetting of effort. But the clouded authority and accountability, and the continued dominance of the top-down, functional structure in decision-making and ownership, washes out almost all its beneficial effects. While good people can make it work-after a fashion-that doesn't mean it's the best approach. The best approach is not to organize in the centralized manner in the first place. There's a better way to internet and integrate the organization (269) Surveys show that where you have excessive behavior formalization as the principal management tool you get alienation and apathy, not motivation and initiative. (273) To create organizational success the boss must build a system that, among other TQM principles to be applied, provides widespread empowerment and non-interference from the top. However, the top boss also must stay involved and informed. That's necessary to keep the decentralized empowerment going, and to resist the ever-present tendency of lower-level managers to recentralize. The toss also must know when and where to intrude to head off incipient problems before they can grow to disasters. It is striking that balance between involvement and intrusion that's important. Some characterize the notion underlying that balance as \"nose in, fingers out,\" or NIFO. By whatever name, those at the lower levels quickly perceive how you are striking that balance, and whether their own empowerment is real or fanciful. It's not difficult or complicated so long as you base your actions on trust and respect until the scoreboard and other measurements show that intrusion is required. Leaders indeed should get out of the way, but they also must help find the way, show the way, and pave the way. (281) Nothing speaks louder than powerful, irrefutable indications that you are getting far better all the time. (282) Centralization breeds and nurtures managership.... Decentralization breeds and nurtures leadership. (294) The Japanese call frontline employees associates because their management philosophy is to treat them as such. The Japanese companies also call the superxisors of their teams leaders. That's because they expect them to do some real leading, and they train them accordingly. Tl^ we long have prized managing over leading is one of our biggest national problems. You cannot have leadership unless you belie\\ e in it.... There's a vast difference between exhortation and empowerment. You must do more than talk about it\nyou must change the organization conceptually and structurally to bnng leadership alive at all levels. . . . Obviously, some decisions can only be made at the very topbut they should be rare exceptions, not the rule. And they should deal with major resource decisions and new directions, not day-to-day management. The leaders at the top should chart the course, not constantly steer the ship. (297) 7It's managership, not leadership, that breeds apathy, disincentive, and dependency. I have yet to see a top-notch organization, public or private, that didn't have the benefit of strong leadership. There are no poor outfits, just poor leaders. (300) Leaders must be taught, and can be taught. And they must be taught how to motivate those who work for themand to accept personal responsibility for building common purpose and organizational success. Leading involves determining the right things to do. It involves creating the favorable orgamzational dynamics to get people to commit themselves, energetically and enthusiastically, to bringing those right things about. Leading involves vision and principles. It involves influencing employee mindset and motivation. It involves creating a positive culture and harmonious climate. It involves creating ownership and empowerment in pursuit of the shared vision and common purpose. So leadership is hardly the sole province of the top leaders. And it most definitely is not the centrdist business of just telling employees what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. (301-302) Leaders provide the vision\nmanagers carry it out Leaders make it better\nmanagers make it run. Leaders make it happen\nmanagers hope it happens. Leaders create more leaders\nmanagers create more managers. Leaders address the constant race between inspiration and indolence-and add to the inspiration. ... leaders build commitment through policies that increase motivation and decrease alienation. And leaders constantly probe for evidence of each. That requires involvement and sensitivity. It also requires trust, openness, and unfettered communicationnot aloof, Olympian managerial detachment, as is so common in centralized organizations. ... leaders understand that the way to win starts with the will to win-and that instilling both is leadership business. In that pursuit, leaders understand that fervor feeds on opinions-and opinions feed on presumed facts. So they influence those opinions by getting the actual facts out for everyone's benefit. They combat misinformation, and disinformation, with the straight skinny. They understand that it's objectivity that keeps misdirected subjectivity under control. Uninformed opinions and misplaced fervor thrive in an information vacuum because there's no counterforce at work. Yet most companies and managers pay scant attention to the need to keep employees well informed-or to seek their opinions. They simply don't invoke the four most important words in any management system: What do you think? (304-305) Leadership and motivation go together. (305) The team-based approach is the ideal way to ensure that real empowerment reaches the frontline-and that it gets exercised in a focused and responsible way. (306) Teams provide an ideal structure for recognizing where technology can be fruitfully applied and gaining support for its introduction into the work equation. (308) [Tenacity] is my shorthand for backbone, chutzpah, determination, endurance, fortitude, guts, grit, spunk, stamina, pluck, persistence, and perseverance. (309) 8Without meaningful comparison, people in all walks of life are simply not objective about their strengths and weaknesses. They tend to magnify the former, downplay the latter, and overdramatize their standing and accomplishments.. .. businesses that do not provide measurement and comparison, and most don't, can count on their planning being faulty and their leadership misdirected, because neither is formulated in the harsh light of objective reality, (313) You can't tell the winners without a scoreboard, or tell the losers either. And without a scoreboard neither winners nor losers will know which they are. No one will know how to get better, either. In that regard, I strongly believe a leader's greatest nemesis is human subjectivity. I quickly add that it can be a leader's greatest ally-when marshaled in the proper way. In all cases, the greater the objectivity of everyone in the organizationbased on ample data, facts, and surveys and not on supposition-the better off you are. (314) . . . you have to work hard at keeping organizations decentralized. (315) . . . the best way to achieve coherence and control is through leadership, not rules and managership.... you have to work at keeping decentralization going because of the prior conditioning of generations of our managers.... it takes guts to be a decentralizer, but the payoff is large. (317) The measurement system must not only be simple and understandable, but it must be primarily designed for the employees who are actually doing the work. (319) George Bernard Shaw: The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished. One of the cardinal rules in effective communication is to be sure you're saying what you mean to say in the first place. (320) It's no mystery to anyone that the language used in an organization is one signal of its policies and practices. (323) I made up and used twenty-five reminders to myself on how to help make communication boundaryless, honest, and unstilted. They reminded me of the keys to making it a language of purpose, not protest, between front and rear: 1. Speak the language of trust, not of mistrust. 2. Don't confuse fancy words with profound ideas. 3. Don't harangue the many as the message for the few. 4. Reward the messengers of bad tidings, not shoot them. 5. Listen intently to the dissenting view\nit may be right. 6. Keep all the language goals-directed-not rules-directed. 7. Talk in numbers as well as in words to crystallize purpose. 8. On key issues communicate several layers deep. 9. If the policy is important, put it in writing-concisely. 10. Listen for the echoes to learn if it's all getting through. 11. Follow up to ensure there is full comprehension throughout. 12. Remove all barriers to upward communication. 13. Be candid, and tell it like it iswithout fear or favor. 14. Get all possible facts before expounding on the conclusions. 15. Get out the straight skinnyto combat misinterpretations. 16. Don't overhype or advertise. Let actions speak the words. 9 17. Praising the winners has more power than criticizing losers. 18. Credibility depends on flexibility, not mindless consistency. 19. Knowledge is power when widely shared, not withheld. 20. Feel free to admit you don't know, but you do want to learn. 21. The best opening sentence of all is: What do you think? 22. Listening, Hearing, Caring are the keys to mEdong it thrive. 23. Provide the means and the incentives that will make it work. 24. Go where you need to go. Spend whatever is needed. 25. Treat the communications grid as an electrical grid. Any node failures leaves people in the dark. Fill the vacuums. Find the reason they're there. Fix the grid. (325) In short, leaders need to stay closely attuned to the organization language. It is telling them what the organization is thinking, feeling, and doing. Effective communication depends on the means and methods to make it free-flowing-and also depends on the leadership positively affecting the thinking, feeling, and doing. That can't be done with adequate effectiveness unless employees at all levels are sharing common information about what's going on. Therefore, the need is not only for caring, proactive leadership and free-flowing communication, but also for effective means of information gathering and distribution that provide the insight for enlightened choices and decisions. (326) . . . you must have ways to measure progress throughout. Otherwise you \"don't know whether it's doing any good or not\" when you take actions to improve. And you don't know where to make midcourse corrections, either. (327) Peter Drucker: If you want it, measure it. If you can't measure it, forget it.\" Tom Peters: \"I haye become a fanatic about quantifyingbut a new sort of quantifying. I insist upon quantifying the soft stuffquality, customer linkups, innovation, organizational structure, people involvement.\" When used imaginatively [information technology] facilitates decentralized leadership, enlightened decisions, common perspectives, and common purpose. (328) Leadership is needed more than ever. As knowledge and attendant complexity grows the more important, not less important, core values become. Also, complexity calls for even more efficient operation of the human system in every organization, regardless of its type. (329) Leadership is far easier than ever before, not harder. It's far easier (because the tools are available) to provide overall purpose and coherence while at the same time widely distributing authority for agility, responsiveness, and effectiveness at all levels. The best companies, including the Japanese companies, prove it. With such tools we can acquire, aggregate, analyze, assimilate, and disseminate timely management information in more efficient and creative ways than ever before. . . . information technology can and must be used to facilitate decentralization. (330) Paul Strassmann: Automate only after you simplify. You cannot measure what is not defined. Effectiveness is a matter of team performance. Without productivity goals business has no direction. Without productivity measurements business has no control. Without strong leadership little succes.s can be expected. (332) 10 . . . information technologies flatten hierarchies. (332) . . . good communication is simply everyone having the same set of facts. (334) The companies that make the fullest and most imaginative use of information technology in a \"think small, tl II graphic example. (336) think wide\" contextare leaders in their industry. Wal-Mart serves as a Use information technology to aid the switch from managership to leadership. (341) . .. there must be strong leadership at the top. ... top management must be committed to distributing the authority throughout the organization-so that leadership can be exercised at the cutting edge, where it counts the most. (346) A leader's vision has power only to the extent it is shared by those who are asked to carry it out. (347) Lead by example. (349) Numerous studies show the influence of supervisors' qualities and behavior in shaping the attitudes of their subordinates. .. . I've frequently seen employee behavior and performance swing markedly back and forth as leaders change-even between positive and negative extremes. Positive, constructive behavioral patterns are important in leaders from the frontline level all the way up. (350) I never saw a new leader fail to have an effect. I found that leadership failures usually fit one of three basic patterns.... The first of the three involves the aloof and detached boss who simply doesn't know what's going on and whose employees don't know what he or she stands for. Leadership must be proactive, not reactive. That's what separates it from managership. And proactive leadership depends upon detailed involvement and awareness. The second of the three patterns involves those who practice rule through terror. Their leadership tools are threats, bombast, and intimidation. That intimidator approach is always a loser. Everyone below the boss becomes frightened to take any initiative, and communication dries up completely. (351) The third pattern is at the opposite extreme. That's the type of boss who is all over the place, but \"running for office\" and gladhanding, not probing, understanding, and setting new directions where necessary. This boss's personality craves the affection of everyone. . . . Such bosses confuse leniency with leadership. . . . employees soon learn it's no use telling them what's going on\nthey won't do anything about it anyway. Yes, leadership is essential-and it's not managership. But you won't have leadership without the freedom to exercise it. And you can't get it by sloganeering\nit depends on structure and system changes that provide the oxygen of empoweiTncnt. Only then will it nourish at every level. And that, in turn, will make the organization flourish. (352) 11 There are six [leadership qualities 11 have found to be of the greatest importance: courage, confidence, savvy, maturity, integrity, and desire. They interact, one with the other. (353) 1. Courage... . courage in interpersonal relationships and in adherence to principle. That brand of courage includes the courage to follow your convictions, but also the courage to change your mind, the courage to say, \"I don't know, but 1'11 find out\"\nthe courage to admit that neither you nor the organization you lead is perfect-or ever will be\nthe courage to keep learning, not resting on your laurels\nthe courage to place principles over prejudice, and over expediency. 2. Confidence. It goes with courage. Doing great things always starts with the belief that you can. So leaders need the tenacity that flows from confidence, not the timidity of doubt. But there's a vast difference between confidence and arrogance. The confident leader recognizes his or her need to keep growing and learning. The arrogant leaders knows it all, so there's nothing else to grow toward. The confident leader listens to others intently and is not threatened by criticism or the need to change policies that aren't working. In fact, the confident leader continually seeks them out. It's what you leam after you know it all that counts. (354) Some leaders build confidence in their subordinates\nothers drain it away. You want the first kind\nyou can't afford the second. Organizations should prize confidence and work hard to build it.... If it's confidence the organization reflects, based on the example of its leadership, the need for continuous improvement is taken for granted. If it's arrogance, forget improvement. 3. Savvy. It's more than knowledge and more than intelligence. It's a practical blend of the two. .. . Understanding, Know-how, Shrewd, Discerning. . . . The savvy are smart enough to recognize what they're dumb about, and take steps to fill in the blanks. 4. Maturity. I'm speaking here of emotional maturity, not age and not experience. (355) Leaders need to be trained so they do not confuse inspiration with intimidation, or being tough with being mean, or exercising control with their own loss of it.... Invariably, the emotionally immature are ineffective-though they fancy themselves the opposite-because the immaturity shows itself in other more subtle but equally damaging ways. Not the least of those are snap judgments and bull-headed obstinacy. That immature kind of leadership behavior is terribly damaging to employee morale and commitment. None of this means leaders shouldn't be tough-minded, make tough choices, and even be tough in handling individuals when required.... maturity is high on the list of leadership qualities. 5. Integrity. To establish organizational character, leaders must reflect integrity and honesty in all their actions, and demand the same from others. (356) 6. Desire.... desire to lead-for the right reason. . . . To make life better for others, not for oneself. That's what sustains the best leaders, and makes them go the extra mile and work unceasingly to make the organization succeed. (357) The most successful leaders, military or civilian, are good with people, and they provide the people-onented leadership example for the entire organization. 12 The strong desire to be the leader who \"makes it belter\" for others fuels determination that translates into extra effort and concern. (358) those who desire to lead for the right reason have the greatest empathy with those who work for them, and they build the needed rapport between the various layers of the organization. They are comfortable around people because they like people and are secure in the knowledge they are working in the best interests of everyone. (359) . .. they give and then some. Ask them to do a job, they do it-and then some.. . . They're running to make the organization and all its people better off, not running for office or for self-aggrandizement. .,. they're always aware of the need to accentuate each employee's dignity, not tear it down. (359) The more complex the world becomes, the more important core values become. The kind of leadership I espouse here, 1 have found, build loyalty throughout the organization. (360) Protecting cronies ruins many fine organizations. (361) When leaders practice the right kind of loyalty to their employees, they get the right kind in return. (362) I... spent a large amount of time in the selection, training, and grooming of the most senior leaders. Since most companies simply don't groom and train their leaders well, they see no good option but to proselytize and fill top positions by raiding other companies of their talent. .. . Many companies also operate on the flawed theory that you can't do it unless you've done it before. (365) ... I'm convinced leaders are made, not bom. Nurture can overcome nature in nearly all cases, given the right training. (366) Beyond creating the leaders with the right qualities and instincts, there's the matter of creating the organization's competence. That goes hand in hand with the quality of the leadership\norganizational competence obviously doesn't happen on its own. It comes from proactive, aware leaders who pay close attention to the training provided to each employee at every level. Unfortunately, surveys show that training is another of the weaknesses in the American management style. Clearly, situation awareness must include assessing internal training needs. (367) America's education system has proved stubbornly resistant to change. (370) Certainly, there's no groundswell for change. As a result, the elected school boards, which theoretically manage the system, end up tinkering on the periphery of its major problems. If the school boards don't get exercised and organize themselves for change in some reasonably consistent way across the land, don't expect change. Given that those school boards are committees, and there are thousands of them, my advice is not to hold your breath waiting for them to act. (371-372) 13. Training has always been important. Globalization makes it even more important. .. . the Japanese view training, including formal training, as a value issue, not a cost issue. They're right about that. . .. greatly expanded training-frequent, focused, formal-pays for itself many times over. Pay the price or pay the piper. (374) .. . devoting time, money, and effort to frontline team leader training makes sense because the caliber of the leadership there determines Honda's success. One simply cannot achieve high levels of competence, or of cooperation and commitment, without ample formal training. It's the leader's responsibility to build the competence and motivation within the organization. In the best companies they also participate in the teaching. Training is, quite simply, one of the highest leverage activities a manager can perform.... A manager generally has two ways to raise the level of individual performance of his subordinates\nby increasing motivation, the desire of each person to do his job well, and by increasing individual capability, which is where training comes in. (376) It is generally accepted that motivating employees is a key task for all managers.... You yourself should instruct your direct subordinates and perhaps the next few ranks below them. This doesn't mean, however, that companies should not reach outside for help if that's useful, all needs considered. ... I have one special piece of advice. If the business leaders aren't prepared to do it all, the one thing they simply should not \"outsource\" is determining the land of training they need to provide. (377) Some see a widely proclaimed erosion in the American work ethic as a sign of our times that's irreversible. I agree there's been an erosion, but I emphatically disagree that it can't be reversed. It's the managers who are failing the workers, not the other way around. .. . the work ethic is alive and well in America. (Provided, of course, that you don't turn the employees from committed to alienated with dumb management practices.) The leadership must provide the training, and the training the leadership. That's what organizational competence and renewal are about. The rest is background music. Fail in that and you fail in everything. (378) ... companies must replace the customary cost obsession with uncustomary' value orientation. And that, in turn, depends on each company's addressing and eliminating the beancounter mentality that's rampant in the traditionally managed organizations. (379) You can find beancounters in almost any job, at any level, in any endeavor. Very often they are in charge. They simply don't pay attention to the human aspects of their undertaking except in the most cursory way. (380) . . . far greater leadership involvement and dynamism are called for in the shaping of the organizational structure and organizational dynamics. What is needed is highly involved leaders-leaders who are not micromanaging but who are creating leadership thinking and involvement by everyone, and eliciting stronger motivation and commitment from everyone. 14The world will belong to passionate, driven leaders, people who not only have enormous amounts of energy but who can energize those whom they lead. . ,. leaders must stay in close touch and in tune with those they lead. (381) .. . the most important principle of proactive leadership\nYou go to the front not to issue instructions, but to gain insight and perspective. That cannot be delegated. The best leaders know that. ... to do our job right required personal interaction, not insulated management of an in box and a telephone from the rear. (382) It's my strong belief that in-depth insight into all organizational elements is the foundation for nonintrusive management. It's when leaders do not understand the challengesand the real problems and issues-that they intrude with direction that adds to the problem rather than to the solution. Involvement, immersion, interaction-call it what you will. American management doesn't do enough of it. (384) I knew the more I became a slave to my desk and in box the less well I would do my job. (385) Any bureaucratic entity of forty or more people can stay busy ten hours a day, six days a week, with no inputs and no outputs. (386) ... work is generated to fill the time and number of people available to do it, without any obvious connection to real-world needs. (387) . . . it's a very good idea to start worrying about leadership. What people feel is important. That provides motivation. What people know is important. That provides competence. More than anvthing, you need leaders and leadership, not some pale substitute for both. (388) No matter how you slice it, a team without a leader is a committee. And a team without a leader, a plan, and specific goals is the lost patrol. It is important to keep in mind the three basic management questions: What's the plan? Who's in charge? Compared to what? (389) The Japanese populate their companies with leaders. . . .I'm speaking of the enlightened, caring leadership that is based on full recognition of the profound difference between ordering people and persuading them to make good things happen in an organization. You can order compliance, but you can't order initiative, enthusiasm, and creativity. The power of resistance can always overcome the power of direction. That's what leads to creative incompetence as an art form practiced the world over by those who are not motivated and committed. In fact, you can count on it from the alienated. It's the worst kind of incompetence of all because it is the purest form of squandered potential. (390) . . . it's the caliber of the leadership that sorts out the winners from the losers. Every organization has leadership at work, whether it's called that or not. (391) 15 Mike Loh: One of the mostdominantcharacteristicsalcader must portray in these times is a sense of vision. A vision of where he or she wants that organization to go and what that organization should be thought of. A g\u0026lt;\nx)d leader sets goals, measures progres.s and rewards performance. He or she tries to give everyone a stake in the mission of the organization and its outcome. That's the role of leadership. (393) The reason most TQM programs are lloundering is that TQM is being treated as another management initiative and not as a pervasive change in the leadership style. (394) A wag once said, \"It isn't ignorance that causes the problems in the world, it's what people know beyond a shadow of a doubt that just isn't so.\" (395) An organization not only has a head\nit also has a heart. And the size of the heart depends upon the size of employee commitment to its ideals and goals. Organizational vitality from the bottom up must be built. And it doesn't happen with halfhearted employee support of where the head wants to go.... commitment must not only be on the list, but at the head of the list. Vince Lombardi: The quality of a person's life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence, regardless of their chosen field of endeavor. Mario Andretti: Desire is the key to motivation. It is the commitment to an unrelenting pursuit of your goal that will enable you to attain the success you seek. Abraham Lincoln: Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle. (399) It is very difficultno, virtually impossible-to achieve the loftier goals that globalization demands unless the employees at each level, bottom to top, perceive continuous improvement as a benefit and become committed to the goals that produce it. We know that organizational practices and policies directly affect the attitudes of the employees within that organization-and by extension their level of desire and commitment. ... Employee commitment is a largely neglected realm of American management, and within it lies the key to our competitiveness in a rapidly changing world. (400) ... research shows that \"little personal control on the job was the single largest cause of burnout.\" The workers themselves explain that a principal reason for their lack of enthusiasm for higher productivity is the lack of incentive to work harder. (403) We cannot substantially improve productivity when the preponderance of America's workers simply see no benefit in it to themselves. (405) ... unless the employees perceive that productivity and quality improvements will benefit them, directly and tangibly, you can forget the company's productivity improvement plan. It won't work because it lacli the principal ingredient. I find the single largest source of frustration is that femployeesl would like to make more of a contribution than they do now-if practices were changed so they could. (406) I'm convinced most do indeed want to do a good job. (407) 16 Pay-for-Skill-an incentive for workers to increase their job knowledge and productivity. Earned Time Off--Time off is given as a reward for productivity and quality achievements against specific goals. . . . Evidence shows that earned time off rewards, structured properly, can greatly improve productivity and quality. Thus it can help make money, not cost money, in the long run. (410) A willingness to learn from others is a strength, not a weakness. None of us came into this world with full-blown concepts and conditioning. We all learn from others. But some learn lots and some learn little. A willingness to learn from others, and a readiness to adapt to changing circumstances, help set the best companies apart. (418) Some union chieftains-not all-see a vastly diminished role for themselves in a system of performance-reward links. They also understand that benefits traditionally are tied to wage scales, including the retirement benefits, not to wages plus bonuses. That also provides a strong vested interest in perpetuating the status quo. Simply stated, we need new definitions of winning and losing in management and labor relations. These biases and habits are deeply ingrained, and changing isn't easy. (430) But it's high time both management and the unions assessed where they've been and where they're going or we're in for even rockier days ahead. I don't know about the rest of this fractious and contentious world, but that's where America most needs a peace treaty. (431) People believe in opportunity, not equality. Faith in individual effort and reward remains strong. (434) ... if you treat people fairly and justly they will respond in positive ways.... everyone wants to matter. And policies that in effect tell people they don't matter are a big turnoff. ... Conversely, those that make people believe they do matter inspire loyalty and commitment in return. . . . psychic pay greatly outweighs monetary pay. (435) . . . employees want responsibility whether it comes with a promotion or not. Company leaders need to pay lots of attention to the satisfaction index. (436) We pay a big price when common purpose and commitment become the missing ingredients b^ause of shortsighted management policies and practices. ... the work ethic is suffering in America because managers pay too little attention to the worth ethic. (437) Vince Lombardi... was fond of saying there are three key elements to winning in any human endeavor-be it sports, business, or life. The first is talent. The second is discipline. And the third, Lombardi said, is \"You ha\\'e to care for each other.\" And that spirit must come from the top. (438) Winston Churchill\n\"Man often stumbles across the truth, but then gets up and hurries on as if nothing had happened.\" (441) Rosabeth Kanter\n\"Powerlessness corrupts. Absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely.\" (450) 17Everything I've experienced, and everything I've seen in the best companies, convinces me that success depends on the effectiveness of the management system by which a business operates-including the structure and style that shape its operations. (452) So how do businesses make real improvements in quality and productivity? It requires system changes, and that requires people who are determined to make a change. Obviously it's best if the leader at the very top of the organization sees the need for a holistic TQM approach and leads the charge. But it can also happen from within, starting in one part of the organization. From small acorns grow mighty oaks. Therefore, you can make a difference. You can be a principal catalyst for changewhatever your particular level might be. (4S3) A lot of the barrier to change is in the mindset.... My point is, a lot of the barriers to change are to be found in the minds of those who could carry it out, if only they would. No guts, no change. No guts, no glory. (454) . .. we used an evolutionary' method to bring about revolutionary change... creating models, conditioning people to change, winning converts as we went. . . . it's important to have a clear vision of where you're going--and to share it with everyone in the organization. It need not be a written, step-by-step plan, but the direction and ultimate reorganization goals should be well understood by all. Then you need to get all the employees involved in crafting as well as implementing the new organizational vision. (455) ... no matter how skillfully and humanistically you go about it you can expect some opposition-even a few hard-core pockets of it-as a few protect their turf and the status quo ante with which they are comfortable. You should use logic, example, and persuasion first, and to every possible extent. (You'll find that peer pressure from the majority who like the new approach will help in that regard.) Challenge individuals who are impervious to all that to get all the way in or all the way out. ... organizational transformations must be led, not driven. And companies must go about implementing decentralization in a decentralized way. Relentless pursuit of perfection can begin right away-but can be fine tuned as you settle into the new system. (456) i Once system change is started properly it takes on a momentum of its own. (457) There are not a lot of hard-and-fast rules on how to form the teams. But there are four general rules to keep in mind. First, we're talking about permanent organizational structure, not ad hoc team overlays. Second, the teams should be designed to exercise ownership over a specific product, and each team given adequate authority to carry our that charter. Third, each team should have a leader as the focal point of responsibility. (And the leadership style should create leadership involvement by every single team member.) Fourth, the teams should be small. That's to give content and meaning to the team product and to the relationships, interpersonal and organizational. How big should teams be? Depends on the industry, the company, and the product. In general, they should be kept as small as possibleas few as three or four and as many as fifteen, but no more. i The charter must be defined and the outputs measurable. (458) 18 The Combined Actions That Make Teams Successful T rust them E mpower them A im them M easure them S upport them Above all recognize After training them With wide latitude With objectives and goals For feedback and comparison With backing and resources and reward them to provide a stake in the outcome. (459) I Employees recognize when they are distrusted-and they resent it, as well they should. Moreover, they simply won't accept responsibility (or accountability) without adequate authority to carry it out-nor should they. (460) Therefore, a principal advantage of the team-based approach is that it allows managers to build trust and respect into the system, while also providing for accountability at every level. (460) The key to harmony and efficiency is the smooth integration of the various specialties, at a meaningful team level, and with clear-cut goals. Cooperation stems from giving people reasons and incentives to look at their endeavors in a team context. The functional approach just does not produce the same spirit or perspective. Teams do. They do, that is, if they are installed throughout~as the organizational building blocks. Pseudo-teams don't. Quasi-teams don't. Ad hoc committees (called teams) don't. And cross-functional teams make marginal not primary contributions. (464) Why so little measurement and feedback to be found in American businesses?... It certainly is not because the tools aren't available. And that bias against measurement doesn't benefit the frontline employees, it penalizes them. (465) There's room for quality and productivity improvement in every organization-embedded in all sorts of untapped potential. (467) Adequate factual infonnation is the lifeblood of intelligent decision-making. (469) Measurement of Specific Goals Provides These Important Results I I Focus Objectivity Recognition Improvement Motivation Decentralization Commitment On what is important From the comparisons Of what/where to fix Of the right things To improve the score With cohesion/control From this empowerment and reward process J Each result is important to TQM, and you simply won't get them without means to measure, compare, analyze, and feedback to those doing the work. Also, managers must be given means to track performancefor visibility, coherence, and \"control\"-or they won't even consider empowerment. (472) I The leaders of decentralized organizations realize that when you decentralize you also need means of keeping track. Why? Because they know ) ou can bet your boots it will all get better-bul that it won't get better, and stay better, in all places all the time. Thus, you need means to provide detailed, comparative insight so that you can spot problems and trends in their formative stages. I would add these convictions\nWhen performance is measured, it improves. When performance is measured and compared, it improves further. When 19 performance is measure, compared, and appropriately recognized and rewarded, it improves even more-dramatically more. (473) . I have found that employees will welcome measurement, even champion it, when it works to their benefit and not to their detriment. They even quickly grow to prize it if it's designed and structured as their system, and is used primarily for self-improvement, recognition, and reward. Moreover, if being measured is the price exacted for giving them a level of involvement and ownership they never had before, they can understand that. (474) But achieving quality involves a great deal more than the tools you use. It involves finding out what the customers need, how to design goods and services to respond to those needs, and how to produce them using the proper technology. (477) Experience shows if the top leader will break that mold, the entire organization will swing into step, and will do so with increasing vigor and enthusiasm. (491) Deming Cycle\nPlan-Do-Check-Act. By any name it's a useful tool in creating continuing process-product improvement. (521) Epilogue 1. Build your TQM approach, and its principles, on five system pillars\nProductProcess -Organization-Leadership-Commitment. Product is the focal point for organization purpose and achievement. Quality in the product is impossible without quality in the process. Quality in the process is impossible without the right organization. The right organization is meaningless without the proper leadership. Strong, bottom-up commitment is the support pillar for all the rest. Each pillar depends upon the other four, and if one is weak all are. 2. Firmly establish the character and culture of your organization. Develop the overarching principles. Key them to the human spirit. Ensure they are wholly understood and widely practiced-by all. Give them vigor through insistence, persistence, and consistency. Stress ethical conduct, integrity, and courtesy in all endeavors. The principles flow top down but their power must flow bottom up. 3. Use a decentralized, interactive system that integrates all levels. Organize for the new realities. Centralism is a bankrupt approach. Build a decentralized structure on the teams-outputs-product model Replace the I and My mindset usually found with that of WE and OUR. Foster belief in the rich rewards of teamw'ork, and professionalism. Build strong commitment by all to highest quality and productivity. 4. Organization is the central pillarit influences everything else. Create widespread ownership. Decentralize the authority throughout. Combine authority and accountability. Make that unambiguous to all. Eliminate unnecessary layers. Tear down all of the functional walls. Recast the rules. Streamline the paperwork. Shorten the cycle times. Maintain coherence and control with incentive, not author!tananism. 5. Base the structural building blocks on small teams not big functions. Organize by teams for involvement, agility, and an ownership focus. Keep each team at a manageable size. Provide each its own identity. Every team has a product. Identify it. Dignity it. Celebrate it. Form teams of teams. Clearly identify the interfaces between teams. Provide each team ample authority over iLs own part of the product. 206. Onent employee focu.s and activity to their product, not their job. One's job is self-centered. Build a group-centered product mindset. Define each product in terms of its customer, internal or external. Identify each product sub-element. Identify all involved processes. Create process improvement by measurement, analysis, and incentive. Use the product as the focal point, and rallying point for quality. 7. Place the prime leadership focus on the outputs, not the inputs. Inhibit micromanagement of the inputs. Champion output ownership. Develop output goals iteratively with the teams directly involved. Make the goals understandable, relevant, attainable-and wanted. Provide ample incentive for initiative, ingenuity, and innovation. Create strong desire for continuous improvement in every activity. 8. Keep score, assess, and provide timely feedback to one and all. Measure quality and productivity at varied product/process points. Use quantification benchmarks to judge your progress-and needs. Amplify objectivity through broad use of data, facts, and surveys. Use comparison to bring life to the data and to provide relevance. Use goals and scoreboarding to decentralize and create ownership. 9. Know your marketplace inside out and create strong customer linkage. Continually assess your strength and competitiveness in your niche. Be sure your expertise is suitably matched to each of the products. Pay close attention to the business of your business. Stick to it. Create a product-customer linkage. Assure everyone understands it. Ensure that every decision, every action, is keyed to the customer. 10. Provide a climate of quality which promotes pride and professionalism. Mobilize dedication to highest quality in all things, at all times. Pride is the fuel of human accomplishment. Create it. Sustain it. Make continuous renewal and rejuvenation everyone's responsibility. Calibrate your revisions on the level of motivation and enthusiasm. Quality begets quality. Provide the means, tools, and motivation. 11. Base any and all decisions on the inseparability of cost and value. Get every organizational level involved-from the very bottom up. Provide cost data to teams. Instill value consciousness throughout. Be wary of cuts that affect the quality mindset. Don't disable it. The line cuts the costs not the staff, to ensure value sensitivity. Use quality to drive costs down, not savings to drive quality down. 12. Provide detailed, focused training to employees at every level. On-the-job and ad hoc training are key parts, but are only parts. Formal training is vital for proper quality mindset and know-how. Make all training specific on key principles, methods, and goals. Train all employees at every levelincluding at senior levels. Leaders at all levels must be teachers. Leaders create leaders. 13. Give high priority and pay great attention to the communication flow. On key issues augment the hierarchical flow. Go several layers deep. Talk numbers as well as words. Ensure full comprehension throughout. Replace all inhibitions to upward communication with full openness. Provide the requisite means and adequate incentives to make it work. Listening, hearing, and caring are the catalysts which make it thrive. 14. Work unceasingly to instill common purpose from the bottom to the top. Close the classic management and labor gap. Make leadership seamless. Assure the common purpose is keyed to the product, and the customer. Get all of the employees enthused, and fully involved to support it. Stay in touch and in tune with all of the employees all of the time. Instill in all that commitment from all determines success for each. 21 15. Build the commitment through genuine ownership, and shared success. Emphasize the dignity and the worth of each job and every employee. Make wide use of recognition and reward, for individuals and teams. Make involvement real. Provide the opportunity and the incentives. Make ownership real. The test is if they feel it--and apply it. Provide a clear stake in the outcome for everyone. Share success. 16. Above all, build your total quality management on all five pillars. It's not complicated or mysterious. It need not all be done at once. But it requires actionsnot just words. A slogan is not a system. The system isn't difficult to implement. Start with these principles. The very best companies, worldwide, use them to beat the competition. All who use them reap far greater quality, productivity, and success. A holistic TQM system is a proven answer to the new realities of the 9O's. It will hugely benefit any organization whatever its size or its business. 11 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 8, 1998 To: Dr. Les Carnine Dr. Kathy Lease Dr. Vic Anderson Dr. Richard Hurley Brady Gadberry Marian Lacey Sadie Mitchell Mark Milhollen Suellen Vann Junious Babbs Dr. Linda Watson Frances Cawthon FROM: SUBJCT: Dr. Bonnie Lesley .'Associate Superintendent for Instruction School Restructuring and TQM In 1992 I wrote the attached article for a Texas ASCD publication. You may find it interesting as we begin to think about the implementation of the Campus Leadership Plan. BAL/adg DOTHEY HEAR WHAT WE SAY? UNDERSTANDING SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING INITIATIVES by Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed. D. Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Support Services Austin Independent School District Even though educations critics are dismayed at the slow pace of change in schools, we are, in fact, changing at least as rapidly as business organizations as a whole. After all, W. Edwards Deming began teaching the principles of total quality management (TQM) to the Japanese forty years before the first American corporation. Ford Motor Company, invited him to assist in their restructuring in the early 1980s. A decade later-a half century now-most American businesses maintain their old management methods even as their CEOs espouse the need to create new working environments and processes for knowledge workers and even as they continue to lose market share and profits to foreign corporations. Indeed, one of the barriers that schools confront in restructuring is the lingering support for th^ sort and select factory -model school among every communitys power elite. We hear the demand that we change. However, in too many cases, when we start implementing quality principles, we hear even louder, but not that way! Not if it affects my kid! What school leaders need even more than Adopt-A-School programs in this era is for business leaders to help us educate the community-their employees-on the urgency for the transformation of schools, on the understanding that there will be no excellence (quality) without equity, and on the reality that schools, just as businesses, must become more productive or die. Perhaps one reason that the business community is generally so critical of us-and one reason for our acceptance of that criticism-is that neither they nor we have understood that total quality management principles are embedded in every successful school restructuring initiative. Whether the embedding was conscious or intuitive does not matter. What matters is that we in education do the right things and do them right, just as it matters that business do the right things and do them right. As early as the 197O's, when Ron Edmonds first began conducting research on Effective Schools, he was seeking to identify the practices that enabled some schools to be more successful (productive) than others with similar kinds of students. If we look carefully at his identified correlates (and their continuing refinement by Lawrence Lezotte) and then juxtapose them beside Demings 14 principles, we see similarities immediately. Edmonds and Lezotte write about the importance of an instructional focus, collaborative processes, frequent and ongoing monitoring of student progress, effective teaching strategies, instructional leadership, a school climate conducive to teaching and learning, collegiality, high expectations, professional development at the school site, and the involvement of everyone in achieving the school mission. Anyone with a deep understanding of Effective Schools research hears the echoes of Demings exhortations for constancy of purpose, adopting the new philosophy, ending mass inspection, continuous improvement of processes, leadership, eliminating fear, breaking down barriers between staff areas, eliminating slogans and ratings, vigorous programs for organizational development and self-improvement, and putting everyone to work to achieve quality. But we have to know both the TQM principles and the Effective Schools literature to see that they are the same. What happens is that businesspeople lament our ignorance about systems and quality 1 management, and they encourage us to define our customers, engage in processes for continuous improvement, benchmark, and use statistical tools to measure progress toward achieving zero defects. The business worlds vocabulary is foreign to us. It sounds too scientific, too cold for the very complex environment of a classroom of 30 very diverse children with one teacher who must somehow assure their mastery of the curriculum-or at least some of it-when there are so many variables over which she (or he) has little or no control. So the businessperson does not understand that we are attempting to restructure according to quality principles, and we do not understand either. The reality is that all of the major restructuring initiatives are remarkably similar. All involve systemic changes in the guiding theories or beliefs or values, all include the importance of empowerment of teachers through collaborative processes, and the success of all is dependent upon the creation of a true community of learners. Otherwise, as John Champlin says, school-based management may result in a lot of people sitting around sharing ignorance. For instance, Henry Levins Accelerated Schools model focuses on necessary changes in the schools curriculum, instruction, and organization. He emphasizes the importance of unity of purpose, empowerment with responsibility, and building on strengths. The inquiry and planning processes that he teaches reflect his belief in the importance of taking stock or examining data on an ongoing basis and on study, research, piloting, and evaluating. William Glassers Quality Schools are, of course, grounded in his theory regarding the importance of self-responsibility and on the growing imperative that schools be as needs-satisfying as possible since increasing percentages of children do not have their needs met anywhere else. Therefore, he, like Deming, urges us to talk about quality at every opportunity, eliminate fear and coercion, and move toward self-assessment. His theory of lead-management is the collaborative, yet accountable, decision-making that we see in Levins model. We know that both Levin and Glasser are very much familiar with Demings work. The League of Professional Schools, led by Carl Glickman, is a fourth restructuring model that also emphasizes quality principles. Before a school can join the League, the faculty and staff must define its covenant-a statement of beliefs about teaching and learning developed collaboratively and by consensus. The covenant is their constancy of purpose or unity of purpose or grounding theoretical base. They must also write a charter-again collaboratively developed by consensus-that defines their decision-making processes. And, finally, they must commit themselves to critical study. The action research advocated by Glickman equates to Demings insistence on continuous improvement rather than mass inspection at the end of the process, to Edmonds correlate on measurement, to Levins taking stock, and to Glassers self-assessment for quality. A fifth important initiative is Theodore Sizers Coalition of Essential Schools. One of his premises is that the central purpose of schooling is for students to learn to use their minds well. His model focuses on the school level and assumes that the principal and teachers will make decisions and share leadership responsibilities. The Essential Schools staffs participate in continuous, long-term professional development during both the school year and the summer. James Comers developmental model is yet another \\'ariation of the quality theme. The purpose of the school, according to Comer, is to facilitate the childrens cognitive development and the learning of social skills. His collaborative school includes everyone on the staff, parents, and university and/or mental health professionals. Ending the isolation of teachers and forming bonds between university scholars and teachers to create a unity of theory and practice are the goals of his continuous learning program. A seventh approach, more that 20 years old now, is the Outcomes-Driven Developmental Model designed by John Champlin and his colleagues in Johnson City, New York. Champlin knew Glassers work, and he used mastery learning strategies to assure that high expectations became a realitythe purpose. Involvement and collaboration were introduced to create and maintain a healthy organization. And major investments were made from the beginning in training so that the staff would also be empowered by knowledge. Phillip Schlechty has proposed our eighth model, Twenty-First Century Schools. Constancy of purpose for him is values and commitments, and, he says, a major responsibility of leadership is to conceptualize, articulate, and communicate that purpose. Like Deming, he understands that mere involvement or participation by staff is not an end. It is a means by which quicker responses can be made to student needs, and it is the decision-making strategy most likely to produce quality results. Schlechty points out the irony of there being so few schools that organize to develop their staffs for continuous improvement. Ongoing support and training, he says, are an absolute prerequisite for successful change. All eight restructuring models continue to be refined and elaborated upon as our experience with them and the research grows. And the more we learn about how to move toward quality in education, the more our paths may converge with business practices. For instance, Ernst and Young published in 1992 a Best lYactices Report. It identifies conelates, if you will, of quality practices that work best for low-performing companies, for medium-performing companies, and for high-performing companies. Those practices that seem most appropriate for low-and mediumperforming organizations resemble to a high degree the practices-especially the emphasis on training for professional and organizational development- advocated by many reformers. The study also makes clear that benchmarking and abrupt decentralization are only effective in high- performing organizations. (Yet Texas mandates site-based decision-making all at one time for all.) Schlechty recognizes that one of the chief tasks of leaders in a knowledge society is to teach. Our task, then, in not only to teach childrenand their parentsand patrons who are not parentsbut businesspeople as well. We will gain their support and respect if we can help them see how educations leaders have translated the quality management principles for our unique environment. We must also help them-and each othersee that it does not matter whether we subscribe to Edmond and Lezottes Effective Schools, Levins Accelerated Schools, Glassers Quality Schools, Glickmans Professional Schools, Sizers Essential Schools, Comers Developmental Schools, Champlins Outcomes-Driven Schools, or Schlechtys Twenty-First Century Schools. They are all quality models with slight variations, just as business has varying TQM training models. Our pace does appear to be slow. Howex er, five years ago few of us had even heard of TQM or quality schools or accelerated schools. Five years ago, few of us talked about exit outcomes or authentic assessment or interdisciplinary curriculum or brain-based instruction or multiple intelligences. In fact, few of us ever spoke of site-based management or restructuring or flattened hierarchies or customers or empowerment or accountability or capacity-building in the context of schools. We have come a long way quickly. These promising concepts must now be taught to all educators, and we must devote the resources to assure that parents and business people also learn something about them. And somehow we must teach school board members that w'e will never have constancy of purpose unless superintendents can survive much longer than two years in a district and unless decision-making focuses on children, not the politics of adults special interests. We must also teach legislators about quality in education and insist that they stop mandating practices that violate quality management principles and best knowledge about teaching and learning. 3BIBLIOGRAPHY SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING INITIATIVES Accelerating remediation (Jan. 1991). Achieve! An Update on Student Retention Issues. Austin: Texas Research League. Bonstingl, John Jay (1992). Schools of quality: An introduction to Total Quality Management in education. Alexandria, VA\nAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Champlin, John (1992). Four phases in creating and managing an outcome-based program. Successful schooling for all. Lee Gray and Glenn Hymel, eds. Roseville, MN\n' Network for Outcome-Based Schools. Comer, James (1980). School power: Implications of an intervention project. New York: The Free Press. Conley, David (Feb. 1991). Restructuring schools: Educators adapt to a changing world. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Cushman, Kathleen (Nov. 1992). What works, what doesnt: Lessons from Essential School reform. Horace. 9: 1-8. Deming. W. Edwards (1986). Out of the crisis. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Edmonds, Ron (1979). A discussion of the literature and issues related to effective schooling. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170 394. Edmonds, Ron (Oct. 1982). Programs of school improvement: An overview. Educational Leaders^p. 40: 4-11. Ernst and Young (1992). Best practices report: An analysis of management practices that impact performance. Cleveland, OH: American Quality Foundation. Glasser, William (1984). Control theory: A new explanation of how we control our lives. New York\nHarper and Row. Glasser, William (1992). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York: Harper Perennial. Glickman, Carl (April 1990). Open accountability for the90s\nBetween the pillars. Educational Leadership. 38-42. Glickman, Carl (May 1991). Pretending not to know what we know. Educational Leadership. 4-9. Glickman, Carl (Sept. 1990). Pushing school reform to a new edge\nThe seven ironies of school empowerment. Phi Delta Kappan. 68-75. Glickman, Carl and Lew Allen, eds. (1991). Lessons from the field: Renewing schools through shared governance and action research. Athens, GA: University of Georgia. 5 Guskey, Thomas (Feb. 1990). Integrating innovations. Edueational Leadership. 11-15. Levin, Henry (Winter 1993). Accelerated visions. Accelerated Schools. 2: 2-3. Levin, Henry (Sept. 1991). Building school capacity for effective teacher empowerment. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Levine, Daniel and Lawrence Lezotte (Mar. 1990). Unusually effective schools. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development. Lezotte, Lawrence (Jan./Feb. 1993). Creating effective schools today and tomorrow. The Journal for Quality and Participation. 16: 22-30. Lezotte, Lawrence and Barbara Jacoby (1990). A guide to the school improvement process based on Effective Schools research. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd. Munsey, Donna and Patrick McQuillan (Feb. 1993). Preliminary findings from a five-year study of the Coalition of Essential Schools. Phi Delta Kappan. 486-489. Neuroth, Joann (1992). TQM handbook: Applying the Baldrige criteria to schools. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. Schlechty, Phillip (1990). Schools for the 21st century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass FAiblishers. Sizer, Theodore (Nov. 1989). The Coalition of Essential Schools-A partnership formula for reform. Partnerships in Education Journal. 8-9. Sizer, Theodore (1990). The common principles of the Cocilition of Essential Schools. Providence, RI: Coalition of Essentid Schools. Tri bus, Myron (Jan./Feb. 1993). Quality management in education. The Journal for Quality and Participation. 16: 12-21. Walton. Marv (1986). The Deming management method. New York: The Putnam Publishing Company. 6 12 igOUlSi The LRSD Master Plan Components 1. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 2. Strategic Plan , 3. Campus Leadership Plan 4 4. NSF Project 5. Title I 6. Smart Start 7. CCOE I I IThe ^^StufP They Have in Common 1. Standards (with emphasis on reading and mathematics) 2. Assessment I I I a 3. Professional development (instructional strategies etc.) 4. Accountability for results I I IK: i I I What Matters Most in Improving Achievement (Restructuring Variables that Work) 1. Caring, positive, safe, orderly, nurturing, risk- free, personalized, culturally sensitive learning environments (classroom and school-wide) 2. High expectations for success--both academics and behavior standards/benchmarks 3. Diverse, enhanced, and personalized instruction and assessment 4. Professional learning community for adults (including site-based, data-driven decision making site-based professional development, action research data analysis, AND collective responsibility for results. 9JiPTS'W.T*a::W?j rwr^ .t sisaBumREBReaasxaB!' Implications for Our Work 1. Elementary Leyel * ONE elementary language arts and ONE mathematics program that include the standards assessment, professional development, and 9 accountability expectations of LRSD, Title I, Smart Start, and NSF (math only). I I IJE. \u0026gt;- BEaa!s53srTOr'H(| I WM COMING SOON (Youll be involved): Hi * * * He * Hi K-5 Standards and Benchmarks by grade level Restructured K-3 and 4-5 curriculum plan Restructured Title I program I Professional development options--? days LRSD assessments to measure progress \u0026lt; I Adoption of an instructional framework New quality indicators of school successI I I 2. Middle Level * Middle school program standards  LRSD standards and benchmarks by course, 6-8 * New curriculum aligned with AR Frameworks: Reading and Writing Workshop, 6-8 Research and Writing Pre-AP, 6-8 Mathematics 6 Science 6 Career Orientation, 7 Arkansas History 7 Social Studies 8 Physical Education and Health 6 Expressions! Write On! 7-8 6-8 III I'll I.mill................. I IIlli II. jiiiii i| I ___I. * I New Pre-AP courses in core * LRSD assessments to measure progress * Professional development options for 7 days * Title I at grade 6 s * Adoption of an instructional framework * New quality indicators of school success I I I IB -aas?. kwaaNll !iRC2rns55wxspw?TrnCT?OTSJraD 3. High School Level * New curriculum standards and benchmarks by course * New courses , Physics I, gr^de 9 Several new electives * New emphasis on increasing numbers of students in Pre-AP and AP levels I I * New graduation requirements and new recommended curriculum  Professional development options for 7 daysL.L -5? MsMM * Adoption of instructional frameworkvery important to support new block scheduling in high schools * New end-of-level assessments * New quality indicators of school success 13 LL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 August 17, 1999 TO: Everyone FROM: Dr. Bonnie LesleSy,b Associate Superintendent, for Instruction SUBJECT: Good Teachers As the children come for a new school year, it is good to remember how very important good teachers are in their lives! Our jobs as administrators are, first, to select the very best ones available. Then we must support their work and both encourage and facilitate their growth and development. I am attaching an essay from Education Week about What Makes a Good Teacher?\" that I think you all will enjoy. I am also attaching a summary of critically important research on How Children Learn. We have paid the fee to reproduce this information, so feel free to make copies for your teachers. We will be using this same research as we develop delivery standards and an instructional framework for the District. Attachments BAL/rcm j i Commentary 34 education WEEK  JANUARY 20,1999 dividual who MW P.rfel.r What Makes A Good Teacher? the classroom. It was the in an extracurricular ac- level of performance that surprised and delighted th ^\"STthird attribute, distinctive character, is the most the tmro ai.i.iiuuv\u0026lt;=, tn the other elusive one, and it gives flavor or t----------- texture to the other This Historian Found 3 Answers-Over and Over Again two. (It is likely 11/ HIV co WUw* ------- , . the attribute that contributes most to memorable teacher.) In al- By Richard P. Traina level of education, there / jec^t What constitutes good teaching. Some years ago, I embarked on an interest- i bU of resetdi in pursuit of an  to ^tllt query. As a historian I deeded e^lore *e autobiographies of P-tTf. ^Thlse lQth and 20th centimes (some 120 oi me \u0026gt; iytn anu __ e enpial. econoinic, tevery question\nmatter being taught. students pil\"che\"^ damental. Where there was ease on the part of the teacher moving around the subject, a dexterity of explanation matter, such that students 1   o ernnd teacher also a memorable teacner.j ui ai- SgSBSSS tragedy overcome, an unabashed passion r subiect ot a way of demonstrating concern for the student (although throwing chalk at^orhugpng a a student are both out- of different social, economic. __mpn and women of dinerent social, , and explication, students could feel the teachers command of the material. That confi- . There was a palpable energy that suffused the competent and caring side of the communication lexicon these days). In any event, there was a palpable energy that suffused the competent and car reteachers whom they valued? dence was a root cause of a students respect for the teacher, opening the teacher, some mark-making quality. teacher. ing teacher, some mark-making quality. I cannot emphasize enough how powerful this combination of attributes was reported autobiographers believed that their hves were changed by such Sachers and professors. K should m to be. The good teacher. I guess memorable teacher. There were I would have to say { three characteristics that were the world differently. in the subject matter,_car^ deeply j^bout student^ deeply ---- These attributes were evi- 'gr^^eS^T^T^el of education or the subject caring character. __________  RichardPdiy^in^dl^^ University in Worcester, Mass. characteristic seemed equally  deeply about each student and about that stu- acTomphshment and growth. In this iMtance it . .. ., I recognizing the student as an in The second caring deeply about dents began with the teacher recojHow Children Learn: What Cognitive Research Tells Us About Effective Instruction Each day, professional fields as diverse as medical science, psychology, and education contribute more to the body of knowledge about how the human brain works. From Piagets research on developmental psychology, to Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, to the use of MRI and PET scans to examine physical brain activity, our knowledge of human cognition is always expanding. Recently, brain-based learning has become the focus of much attentionand some skepticismin the education profession. This overview of what we know about how children learn does not deal vtith the more controversial claims of brain research\nrather, it focusses on how this latest wave of research contributes to the growing body of useful knowledge about human learning and effective instruction. issue ofThe Informed Educator describes the key understandings that have come out of the cognitive research and explores how educators can use these findings to guide curriculum and instruction. Key Findings of the Research on Human Learning In the last few decades, research on human learning has produced a wealth of new information. Many of the conclusions of this research are inconsistent, but that is the nature of our evolving understanding of human learning. When the cognitive researchers take the additional step of applying their findings to make suggestions for practice and instructional strategies, the resource for educators is even richer. However, these strategies should not be viewed as prescriptive\nrather, the entire body of research is a tool to help develop awareness about the complexities of the teaching and learning process. When we look at the many theories that have come out of the cognitive research, what can we say we really know about the way people learn? The following sections highlight some of the key understandings that have gained wide acceptance, and discuss how educators can use these findings to inform teaching and learning. ** The brain searches for meaning. Whatever else we are as human beings, we have an innate desire for meaning, says Parnell (1996, so). Learners of all ages discover meaning by making connections. Recent cognitive research tells us that the need for developing connections is rooted in the basic functioning of the brain itself. An individual brain cell may be connected to 10,000 or more other brain cells. In simphfied terms, each brain cell receives messages from other cells and decides to pass each message along depending on the amount of electrical charge behind the message. When it finds little or no connection, the message may be 2000 Clarendon Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22201  Phone: (703) 243-2100  Fax: (703) 243-5V7I  www.ers.org Copyright  1998, Educational Research Service. Reproduced with permission. \u0026amp; discarded. Every time a person experiencesj some- thing that connects with a previous experience, that experience tends to stick, and something is learned (Parnell 1996). In the classroom, this means that teachers should\n Build curricula around what students already know. If facts are presented as part of a larger picture and associated with past learning, the brain  Provide a great deal of input, allowing the learner to construct patterns. Della Neve, Hart, and Thomas cite sparks as one way to increase input. Sparks are presentations by staff members, people from the community, or students on virtually any topic that is real and of interest (from collecting seashells, to repairing shoes, to making bread). is more likely to remember them (Bruer 1997).  Encourage students to talk about material in an 1 if I i j .V I 1 i I  Create meaning by linking information to real- life experience. IVhen possible, connect information to other personal associations (Jensen 1996).  Give students choices about what they learn so that they can choose what is most relevant to them.  Use meaning-making activities such as journal writing. For example, at the end of each lesson, students may write down what they learned, how the learning relates to what they already know, and how they can use this information in the fii- ture (Sousa 1998).  Embed learning activities in actual productive uses. For instance, students may use their language abilities by making signs for an event or by reading in preparation for a visit by an author.  Use stories, complex themes, and metaphors to link information and understanding.  Create interdisciplinary curricula, or find times when it is possible to address one topic across disciplines. The brain resists assimilating isolated bits of information\nit prefers to integrate information by recognizing and incorporating patterns. Meaning is also created by identifying patterns. The brain resists assimilating isolated bits of information\nit prefers to integrate information by recognizing and incorporating patterns (Caine and Caine 1995\nDella Neve, Hart, and Thomas 1986). What can teachers do in the classroom to take advantage of the brains preference for patterns? unstructured way, discovering on their own how each piece of the puzzle fits into something larger (Jensen 1996). 5* The brain is a complex system. The brain is a system of thoughts, emotions, imagination, and physiology that constantly exchanges information with its environment. As a parallel the brain is able to perform many functions processor, the brain is aoie ro pawuu simultaneously (Caine and Caine 1994). Research by neurologist Harold Chugani explains that a myriad of brain activities are possible because of connectiotis between trillions of neurons, representing potent! pathways that an electrical impulse may travel. mation broken up into small chunks, with supplied answers at every turn, does not take advantage o pathways that an such complexity (Nadis 1993). What are the implica- tions for teaching and learning? Schools should.  Immerse students in complex experience. Rich sensory materialssuch as music, field trips. books, and reproductions of fine artentice comi iplex thinking (National Education tion 1997). -2- Associa-  Avoid imposing artificial time limits on karning. Schedules should reflect the actual time it takes a student to complete a task, while maintaining sense of coherence (Caine and Caine 1995). a  Allow learning to follow its own course. Recog nize that the brain does not always take bgicd steps down one path, but can go down a hundred paths simultaneously. With varied experiences, students make connections and extract patterns, absorbing and retaining a great deal incidentally (Della Neve, Hart, and Thomas 1986).  There are many ways to be intelligent. Intelligence is multifaceted, defjdng measurement on an IQ_test. Howard Gardner originally identified seven basic types of intelligencelinguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic,taucaiionai Kesearcri service interpersonal, and intrapersonal^but he and other researchers acknowledge that there are more (Black 1994).This understanding suggests that teachers should:  Bring different kinds of intelligence to traditional subjects. Whether teachers link music to math or visual art to biology, the key is to tap into the many ways students learn.  Promote self-directed learning, in which students ask researchable questions\nidentify varied resources\nand initiate, implement, and bring closure to a learning activity. Regardless of the focusstudying the nesting habits of local birds or I F -these projects draw on solving a mock crimi numerous intelligences (Campbell 1997).  Teach students about the theory of multiple intelligences, and then ask them to think about which intelligences they use during different activities (Greenhawk 1997),  Provide choices so that students can pursue individual interests using individual strengths.  Allow aU students to express visual, tactile, emotional, and auditory learning preferences in response to multifaceted teaching. f [ ** Learning is an emotional activity. Emotions often serve as a link for retrieving information and enhancing long-term memory. If we recall an event from years ago, most often there is some emotion attached to it (McClanahan 1998). Research indicates that adrenaline, a hormone released by the adrenal gland when emotions are aroused, activates the amygdala, which then sends a message to the rest of the brain: This information is important. Remember it!\" (Paulus 1997,11). The amygdala can also be activated by harsh criticism, sending messages of threat to the rest of the brain\nthe resulting release of chemicals causes the body to fight, flee, or freeze (Jensen 1998). In general, how a person feels in a learning situation determines the amount of attention he or she devotes to it. Students need to have an emotional connection to their work, their peers, and their teachers (Sousa 1998). How can educators use this knowledge to improve instruction? They can:  Create a comfortable, nonthreatening climate. Anything that students might interpret as punitive, critical, or threatening may adversely affect learning (Della Neve, Hart, and Thomas 1986).  Engage students personally through the use of journals, discussion, sharing, and reflection. If there is a significant current event that may have personal meaning for the students, ask them to talk or write about it.  Use theater and dramaideal forums to engage the emotions. In general, how a person feels in a learning situation determines the amount of attention he or she devotes to it. V Learning is a social activity. Learning is heavily influenced by the interaction of the individual with the larger social environment. Our minds respond to interaction with others, in part because these situations often engage emotions, as discussed earlier. What are the implications for the classroom? Teachers can:  Create a classroom atmosphere in which students interact comfortably and see themselves as part of a learning community.  Look for opportunities for students to work in small-group settings.  Use peer tutoring. Metacognitive skills enhance learning. Effective learners do more than acquire knowledge of facts and concepts. They have an awareness of how they are learning and use it to monitor their own thought processes and to change their approach to fit the situation or activity (Bruer 1997). Some researchers argue that teaching thinking skills, learning strategies, problem solving, and creativity can make a difference as fundamental as how the brain itself works (Languis 1998,46). Metacognition involves being aware of ones strengths and weaknesses as a learner. What are the implications for teaching?  Recognize the importance of teaching students metacognitive strategies.  Involve students in discussions of their learning process and problem-solving strategies. By listen- -3- ing to students think out loud, teachers can recognize what specific understanding a student is missing, and then help the student obtain it (Bruer 1997).  Thematic, Integrated Curriculum There are many ways to organize learning around themes. Most of them require more teacher common preparation and effort than the tradition , su ject based curriculum. Yet, cognitive research clearly 1 Si Some researchers argue that \"teaching thinking skills, learning strategies, problem solving, and creativity can make a difference as fundamental as how the brain itself works.  supports the integrative approach. Marlin L Languis, 1998 As Walker writes, While subject-bound education treats students as passive receptacles, requiring them only to feed back fragments of skills and facts given them, integrative education promotes the construction of broad mental programs that require students to use skills and information in new, reahstic contexts (1995,1). Such an approach creates the expectation in students that there are connections to be made\nconnections with upcoming ideas in the same course, wth other courses, and with out-of- school settings (Perkins 1991). This process takes  Early learning is crucial. Brain research indicates that an important window of opportunity for learning occurs in the first few years of life (Seebach 1998\nJensen 1998). For instance, neurologist Harry Chuganis research demonstrates the rapid growth of the auditory cortex, claiming that by the childs first birthday, the auditory cortex is mapped\" (Shore 1997). While educators _ such as John Bruer (1997) take issue with some of the theories developed in the field of infant neuroscience, virtually all researchers do agree that this is an impor- tant time in human development. School leaders can take advantage of this knowl- the readiness of\ndge by finding ways to help increase t-j - - J X children who enter kindergarten. They can reach out families during the preschool years through alliances with local social service agencies, creating pro- to educate parents about the importance of grams to educate parents aoout uic early learning and what parents can do to give their children the best cognitive start (Shore 1997). \"ly learning and what parents Practices Supported by Cognitive Research When one considers the basic principles and understandings discussed above, it is clear that many current instructional approaches are compatible with understanding of how the human brain our current works. Several examples are discussed here. advantage of the minds continual search for meaning. l/Cooperative Learning The term cooperative learning is used to descnbe a variety of instructional strategies are in which students placed in small groups, working together achieve a common to goal (Little Soldier 1994). Much research has suggested that cooperative learning be effective\nour knowledge of cognitive research fillfill the suggests why. Working in groups can can human need for social interaction and can cultivate emotional responses in students. In addition, each students role in contributing to the group and working toward a common goal creates a powe purpose for individual learning (Jensen 1998, 33).  Block Scheduling Longer teaching periods may be conducive to teaching to the complex brain. Teachers have time to introduce a new topic with hooking activities, exciting demonstrations that stimulate questions in each student. More time is available to make connections to teal concerns, leading to higher levels of student motivation (Fitzgerald 1996). Many different instructional approaches can be used in one period, calling on a variety of intelligences. The Learning Cycle Approach This popular approach in science Instruction (exploration, invention, and application) has been demonstrated by research to result in higher content -4-tducationai Kesearcn service ! i I i I i achievement, improved thinking skills, and better attitudes toward science (Gabel 1995,124). Our new understandings of how the mind works help to explain its success. During the first phase of the Leanung Cycle Approach, students explore new materials and ideas vrith minimal guidance, raising questions about the phenomena being explored and identifying patterns of regularitytwo practices that reflect the brains quest for meaiting. In the invention phase, terms and concepts are introduced that explain the patterns discovered in the exploration phase. In the application phase, students apply the terms and concepts to new situations, thus learning to generalize in a broader context, once again nurturing the brains need to construct meaning (Klosowski 1998).  Establish a safe emotional climate where risktaking is the norm, and where students feel that wrong answers are as much a part of learning as right answers. Specific strategies include tapping into the emotional intelligences of the learners and organizing diverse smaU-group work.  Create a rich learning environment, resembling a childrens museum. Use enticing presentations of science equipment, art supplies, or computers to stimulate curiosity. Create mini-environments that facilitate a variety of activities, including one-on-one interactions between students and between the teacher and the student. quiet reflection, and learning centers. Sensory input music, print materials, visually appealing bulletin boardscan also engage the students interest. Teaching Higher-Order Thinking Skills The human brains capacity to act as a parallel processor and function on many levels at once helps to explain why higher-order thinking is an important part of the effective curriculum. Asking thoughtprovoking questions or requiring students to explain their reasoning can encourage learners to make connections between past and new learrting, create new neural pathways, strengthen existing pathways, and increase the likelihood that the new learrting will be consolidated and stored for future retrieval (Sousa 1998). Nummela and Rosengren explain that traditional methods of teaching are similar to giving students a Establish a safe emotional climate where risk-taking is the norm, and where students feel that wrong answers are as much a part of learning as right answers. Robin Fogarty, 1998  Teach the mind-tools and skills of life. These run the gamut from communication skills neces- single route to reach a destination, while teaching methods that take advantage of the brains capacity for complex problem-solving are more similar to giving students a map offering many possible routes to reach a destination. Route learning is quicker, and easier to test, but contains far less information than maps (1998, 85). sary in any social environment to skills needed to program computers. Specific skills might include critical thinking (prioritizing, comparing, and judging)\ncreative thinking (inferring, predicting. and generalizing)\nsocial skills (team leadership and conflict resolution)\ntechnological skills (key- Putting It All Together in the Classroom Research has much to teU. us about how children learn and what instructional methods are most effec- tive. Yet, educators still face the task of constructing UVC. iCL, tuuuaivio ouu ------------------ classroom environments that take advantage of this knowledge. Fogarty (1998) sets forth eight guidelines for the intelligence-friendly classroom. boarding and searching the Internet)\nvisual skills (painting and sculpting)\nand performance arts (dancing and acting).  Develop the skillfulness of the learner. Student skills are developed through mediation, practice, coaching, and rehearsal. Skill development occurs through formal teaching structures, such as direct Instruction, as well as through independent readings and research and through the dialogue of peer coaching and mentoring.  Challenge students with hands-on learning opportunities and lab-like situations, real-life expe- -5-w Educational Research Service i i i [ I ! k t riences that invite the learner to become an integral part of the process.  Involve many facets of intelligence. It is not necessary to include all eight intelligences in every lesson, but teachers might reasonably try to ery lesson, dul leacncrs iiugiii incorporate several different ways of understanding in any given assignment. For example, working on a school newspaper requires that students interview (interpersonal), write (verbal), design and lay out (visual), and critique (logical).  Transfer learning from the public arena to the personal through reflection, making learning meaningful and relevant. Possible tools for reflection include reading-response journals, in which the reader writes a personal, immediate response to what has been read, and learning logs, which record thoughts, comments, and questions prior to or following an experience.  Balance traditional assessment measures with portfolios and performance assessments. In addition to letter grades, use portfolio assessments (on collections of students best work) and performance assessments (on speeches, presentations, plays, concerts, etc.). An Intelligence-Friendly School Environment: Role of the Principal The instruction that goes on in classrooms will be most effective when it is supported by a total school environment, which can be established only with the support of the principal. David Sousa outlines steps take to bring about changes that principals can in school climate that are compatible with cognitive research.  Strive to provide students with a safe, emotionally warm climate in which to learn.  Encourage teachers to take appropriate risks with their curriculum and to challenge students with lessons requiring critical thinking.  Facilitate the development of alternative ways of assessing students that are more reflective of the kinds of meaningfill, multi-faceted learning fostered in intelligence-friendly classrooms.  Provide frequent opportunities for sharing among teachers about ways they have found to join classroom practice to research.  Establish and maintain a staff development program that will keep teachers abreast of current cognitive research. Another key role for the principal is supporting the development of materials for parents of preschool children, such as informational brochures rei\ngarding infant learning, health, and nutrition, and their implications for parenting. Principals are in a unique position to estabhsh partnerships between elementary schools, preschools, and parents to better prepare children for elementary education. Summary Today, we know more than ever about how human beings leam. Our challenge is to change schools to incorporate what we know. The cognitive research has implications not only for curriculum and instruc tion, as discussed in this summary, but also for school organization, assessment, and other important areas of public education. This does not mean taking the new findings of brain research, or neuroscience, so seriously that they curricula. Educational prescribe teaching methods or new theories are often programs based on unproven viewed as gimmicks by both educators and the public. But a healthy skepticism about these findings should not blind us to the fact that they may make a valuable addition to a solid foundation of knowledge about human learning that has been built over the last three decades. The research on human cogmtion provides valuable information that educators can use to develop effective instruction based on the learning needs of students. As Judy Lloyd Yero writes. True brain-compatible education should be an on-going and flexible process of trying to find the most natural and enjoyable approaches to on an increased under- teaclung/learning based standing of the brain/mind (1998,1). -6-cuucawoiiai rsesearcn service 1 1 r I I i si S I II 4 r I i IS References Armstrong, Thomas. 1994. Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA\nAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Black, Susan. 1994. Different Kinds of Smart. TheExec- utive Educator (January 1994)\n24-27. n Bruer, John T. 1994. How Children Learn. The Executive Educator (August 1994)\n32-36. Bruer, John T. 1997. A Science of Learning. The American School Board Journal (February 1997)\n24-27. Caine, Renate Nummela, and Geoffrey Caine. 1994. Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain. Reading, MA\nAddison-Wesley. Caine, Renate Nummella, and Geofttey Caine. 1995. Reinventing Schools Through Brain-Based Learning. Educational Leadership (April 1995)\n43-47. Caine, Renate Nummela, and Geoffrey Caine. 1998. How to Think About the Brain. The School Administrator (January 1998)\n12-16. Campbell, Linda. 1997. Variations on a Theme\nHow Teachers Interpret MI Theory. Educational Leadership Kovalik, Susan, and Karen Olsen. 1993. What Is the Best Available Knowledge About How the Human Brain Learns? Quality Outcomes-Drive Education (October 1993)\n13-16. Kovalik, Susan and Karen Olsen. 1994. ITI: The Model. Integrated Thematic Instruction (Third Edition). Kent, WA\nBooks for Educators. Languis, Marhn L. 1998. Using Knowledge of the Brain in Educational Practice. NASSPBulletin (May 1998). 38-47. Litde Soldier, Lee. 1994. Here's How: Cooperative Learning: From Theory to Practice. Alexandria, VA\nNational Association of Elementary School Principals. McClanahan, Anita. 1998. Brain Research Informing Classroom Practices. Early Childhood. Western Oregon University. Online, www.tr.wou.edu/train/ (September 1997)\n14-19. Conant, Beth. 1998. Learning\nWhat Weve Learned.  Online, www.nauticom.net/www/cokids/ articleleaming.html. Della Neve, Charmaine, Leslie A. Hart, and Edgar C. Thomas. 1986. Huge Learning Jumps Show Potency of Brain-Based Instruction. Phi Delta Kappan (October 1986)\n143-148. DiCresce, Amy. 1997. Brain Surges. Online, www.med. wayne.edu/wmp97/brain.htm. Fitzgerald, Ron. 1996. Brain-Compatible Teaching in a Block Schedule. The School Administrator (September 1996)\n20-21, 24. Fogarty, Robin. 1998. The Intelligence-Friendly Classroom. Phi Delta Kappan (May 1998)\n655-657. Gabel, Dorothy. 1995. Chapter 9\nScience. In Handbook cf Research on Improving Student Achievement, Gordon Cawelti, editor. Arlington, VA\nEducational Research Service. Gardner, Howard. 1993. Multiple Intelligences: Theory into Practice. New York\nBasic Books. Greenhawk, Jan. 1997. Multiple Intelligences Meet St^- dards. Educational Leadership (September 1997)\n62- 64. Hoerr, Thomas R. 1997. Frog Ballets and Musical Fractions. Educational Leadership (September 1997)\n43- 46. Jensen, Eric. 1996. Brain-Based Learning. Del Mar, CA\nTurning Point Publishing. Jensen, Eric. 1998. Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria, VA\n/Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Klosowski, Lyn. 1998. To What Extent Is the SCIS 3 Science Curriculum Compatible with Brain Based Learning? Online. http\n//essc.calumet. purdue.edu/ Activity%20Science%20Research/Research%20HP. spring98/htm. Nadis, Steve. 1993. Kids Brainpower\nUse It or Lose It. Technology Review (November/December 1993)\n19- 20. National Education Association. 1997. Inside Scoop\nThe Latest on How the Brain Works. NEIA Today (April 1997)\n17. Nummela, Renate M. and Tennes M. Rosengren. 1988. The Brains Routes and Maps\nVital Connections In Learning. NASSP Bulletin (April 1988)\n83-86. Parnell, Dale. 1996. Cerebral Context. Vocational Education Journal (March 1996)\n18-21,50. Paulus, Norma. 1997. Students Need Emotional Response to Learn. State Education Leader Vol. 15, No. 1 (Winter 1997)\n11. Perkins, D.N. 1991. Educating for Insight. Educational Leadership (October 1991)\n4-8. Seebach, Linda. 1998. Brain Research Cant Guide Education. Online, www.worldafricarmet.com/hfe/ lifel400.html. Shore, Rima. 1997. Rethinking the Brain: New Insights into Early Development. New York\nFamilies and Work Institute. Sousa, David A. 1998. Brain Research Can Help Principals Reform Secondary Schools. NASSP Bulletin (May 1998)\n21-28. Sylvester, Robert. 1995. A Celebration of Neurons: An Educator's Guide to the Human Brain. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sylvester, Robert, and Joo-Yun Cho. 1993. What Brain Research Says About Paying Attention. Educational Leadership (December 1992/January 1993)\n71-75. Walker, Dean. 1995. NAESP Research Roundup:Integrative Education. Vol. 12, No. 1. Alexandria, VA\nNational Association of Elementary School Principals. Willis, Scott. 1992.yfSCD Curriculum Update: Teaching _ Thinking. Alexandria, VA\nAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Yero, Judy Lloyd. 1998. Brain Compatible Learning. Online.www.funderstanding.com/messages/375.html. Young, Andrea C. 1997. Higher-Order Learning and Thinking\nWhat Is It and How Is It Taught? EducationalTechnology (July/August 1997)\n38-41. -7- 11For More Information on Cognitive Research and Instruction More in-depth information about cognitive research and instruction is available from the Educational Research Service in ERS Info-Files. Each Info-File contains 70-100 pages of articles from professional journals, summaries of research studies, and related literature concerning the topic, plus an annotated bibliography that includes an ERIC-CIJE search. Base price per Info-File-. $32.00. ERS Comprehensive subscriber price: $16.00. ERS Individual subscriber price: $24.00. To order, contact Educational Research Service, 2000 Clarendon Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201. Phone: (800) 791-9308. Fax: (800) 791-9309. Add the greater of $3.50 or 10% of total purchase price for postage and handling. Phone orders accepted with purchase order number or Visa or MasterCard. ERS Info-Files on related topics include:  How Children Learn^Presents current research from neuroscience on how the brain works and the implications for learning, teaching, and curriculum. Articles also address brain-based learning, learning styles, and left/right brain hemisphericity. #IE-0343.  Multiple IntelligencesCovers programs, curricula, teaching methods, and research results applicable to the seven intelligences identified by Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner. #IE-0130. ) 4 The Informed Educator Series Educational Research Service prepares the publications in The Informed Educator series to provide busy education leaders with condse, yet comprehensive overviews of the most current research and information on topics of priority concern in education. Each publication in this series is designed to enable education leadersincluding central-office administrators, prindpals, curriculum spedalists, teachers, and othersto stay up to date on a leading or emerging issue in education, enabling them to make die best dedsions for the children and youth they serve. About ERS Educational Research Service (ERS) is the nonprofit foundation serving the research and information needs of education leaders and the public. ERS provides objective, accurate, and up- to-date research and information for local school and school district decisions. Prepared by the ERS staff, publications in The Informed Educator series are intended to provide an objective, comprehensive summary of research and opinion appearing in the current literature. The inclusion of any specific assertion or opinion here is not intended to imply approval or endorsement by Educational Research Service or any ERS sponsoring organization. ERS, established in 1973, is sponsored by seven national associations of school administrators:  American Association of School Administrators  American Assodation of School Personnel Administrators  Assodation of School Business Offidals  Council of Chief State School Officers  National Assodation of Elementary School Prindpals  National Assodation of Secondary School Prindpals  National School Public Relations Assodation. if 0 5 I *4 Ordering Information: Stock No. 0303. Quantity discounts are available for the purchase of multiple copies of any topic in The Informed Educator series. In addition, school districts may purchase a camera-ready reproducible for any topic in the series, which includes unlimited reproduction rights within the district. For information, contact ERS Member Services Information Center, 2000 Clarendon Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201. Phone: (800) 791-9308. Fax: (800) 791-9309.14 I S'* K ll l' i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 27,1999 I I 'J f ( i. I I TO\nFROM\nSUBJECT\nPrincipals Dr. Bonnie Lesley\nAssociate Superintendent for Instruction School Reform 1 J The evidence continues to emphasize a few essential components for successful school reform. The attached article (provided to me by Mona Briggs) outlines the following six\n1. A strong research-based literacy curriculum HIPPY, ages 3-4 Four-Year-Old Program expansion ELLA, grades K-2 Effective Literacy, grades 3-4 Reading/Writing Workship, grades 5-8 High School Literacy - stay tuned etc. 2. A significant extra help components After-school programs Tutoring and mentoring Title I programs Summer School ALC and ACC Language Arts Plus etc. 3. A focus on smallness Middle school teams . Weve provided high \u0026amp; middle school principals a lot of information etc. I i i il 1 I I i ! i' i i i I i 1 I I i ISchool Reform - Memo September 27,1999 Page Two I I *\n4 A commitment to parental outreach and community building Parent-School Compacts - elementary and middle schools Title 1 Parent Programs Collaborative Action Team (CAT) VIPS Mentors Parent-Teacher Conferences Communities in Schools PIEs Vital Link Child Development Program (grant proposal) PTA Membership CLT inclusion of parents and community etc. d 5. An ongoing, schoolwide program of social skills development Conflict Resolution Peer Mediation Student Handbooks Parent Education Classroom Management training for teachers etc. I 6. A comprehensive, sustained staff development program  Urban Professional Development Initiative, UPDI  NSF training  Literacy training . CLT/Principals/Broker training  Prejudice reduction/cultural diversity training etc. You are encouraged to explore the resources listed in the articles bibliography. BAL/adg Attachments iE/! . . . Risk to Excellence\nPerspec...to Reform a Low-Performing Schhttp'.//www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/At-...sletter/sprmg99/Perspectives.html I prom At-Risk to Excellence - Spring 1999 \u0026lt;5- a 5 Perspectives: What Does It Take to Reform a Low-Performing School? 1 sr I The first in a series of viewpoints on current topics I .y I I I I I This article represents the perspectives of Susan Talley, a research analyst in the National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students. Susan's work with the Department over many years has focused on educational research and development programs to improve achievement for urban, inner-city students. For the past 6 years, she has provided assistance related to promising research-based practices to key personnel in the District of Columbia Public Schools. The article discusses the six critical elements Susan has concluded must be present in a school reform model to turn around low-performing schools. Three decades of research on school reform has led to the identification of four basic elements that students need from their schools\nrelevant schoolwork, a nurturing and supportive environment, opportunities for academic success, and help with personal problems. Unfortunately, studies of schooling for students at risk of academic failure demonstrate that schools often fail to address the special circumstancesincluding economic, family, community, ethnic, and racial status^that characterize students placed at risk (Natriello, McDill, \u0026amp; Pallas 1990). I I I I i The challenges that low-performing schools must address are substantial. It is not uncommon for 80 percent or more of the students in such schools to be performing significantly below grade level and living in poverty and conditions that are inhospitable to healthy child development. For these schools, a reform model must encompass elements to meet student needs that might not be prevalent in other schools. 7 I e I ( Based on close examination of school reform models funded by this Institute and the research associated with those models, the author conclu\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":14,"next_page":15,"prev_page":13,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":156,"total_count":419,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":418},{"value":"StillImage","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":60},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":42},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":23},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":5},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":3},{"value":"Ross, Steven M.","hits":3},{"value":"Arkansas Policy Foundation","hits":2},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":2},{"value":"Quality Education and Management Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Area School Advisory Committee","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":419},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":413},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":307},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":287},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":280},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":229},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":204},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":174},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":151},{"value":"Student assistance programs","hits":139},{"value":"School integration","hits":138}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Intervenors, Knight","hits":1},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":417},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":415},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":411},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":405},{"value":"United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Phillips County, 34.42829, -90.84802","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Connecticut, 41.66704, -72.66648","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Maryland, 39.00039, -76.74997","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Michigan, 44.25029, -85.50033","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Detroit, 42.33143, -83.04575","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":415},{"value":"New York","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Maryland","hits":1},{"value":"Michigan","hits":1},{"value":"Missouri","hits":1},{"value":"Texas","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1995","hits":88},{"value":"1993","hits":74},{"value":"1994","hits":74},{"value":"1996","hits":72},{"value":"1992","hits":64},{"value":"1999","hits":59},{"value":"2001","hits":59},{"value":"1997","hits":58},{"value":"1991","hits":53},{"value":"2003","hits":53},{"value":"2000","hits":52},{"value":"1990","hits":40},{"value":"1998","hits":40},{"value":"2004","hits":40},{"value":"2002","hits":38},{"value":"1989","hits":33},{"value":"2005","hits":31},{"value":"2006","hits":21},{"value":"1986","hits":10},{"value":"1988","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":8},{"value":"2007","hits":8},{"value":"2008","hits":8},{"value":"1987","hits":7},{"value":"2010","hits":7},{"value":"1985","hits":6},{"value":"2009","hits":6},{"value":"2011","hits":6},{"value":"1980","hits":5},{"value":"1981","hits":5},{"value":"1982","hits":5},{"value":"1983","hits":5},{"value":"1974","hits":4},{"value":"1975","hits":4},{"value":"1976","hits":4},{"value":"1977","hits":4},{"value":"1978","hits":4},{"value":"1979","hits":4},{"value":"2012","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":3},{"value":"1951","hits":3},{"value":"1952","hits":3},{"value":"1953","hits":3},{"value":"1954","hits":3},{"value":"1955","hits":3},{"value":"1956","hits":3},{"value":"1957","hits":3},{"value":"1958","hits":3},{"value":"1959","hits":3},{"value":"1960","hits":3},{"value":"1961","hits":3},{"value":"1962","hits":3},{"value":"1963","hits":3},{"value":"1964","hits":3},{"value":"1965","hits":3},{"value":"1966","hits":3},{"value":"1967","hits":3},{"value":"1968","hits":3},{"value":"1969","hits":3},{"value":"1970","hits":3},{"value":"1971","hits":3},{"value":"1972","hits":3},{"value":"1973","hits":3},{"value":"2013","hits":3},{"value":"2014","hits":3},{"value":"2015","hits":2},{"value":"2016","hits":2},{"value":"2017","hits":2},{"value":"2018","hits":2},{"value":"2019","hits":2},{"value":"2020","hits":2},{"value":"2021","hits":2},{"value":"2022","hits":2},{"value":"2023","hits":2},{"value":"2024","hits":2},{"value":"1910","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1910","max":"2024","count":1171,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":244},{"value":"reports","hits":71},{"value":"legal documents","hits":38},{"value":"judicial records","hits":36},{"value":"correspondence","hits":10},{"value":"handbooks","hits":9},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":7},{"value":"budgets","hits":6},{"value":"books","hits":2},{"value":"newspaper clippings","hits":2},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":419}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":417},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Photographs Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":419}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":418},{"value":"Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":419}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}