{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_779","title":"Report: Preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-01-13"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education"],"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/779"],"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\nNotice of filing with United States District Court\nCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED /^/i. /7 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAHOfl 55OSTOR1HG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education in accordance with the Courts Order of December 17,2005. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501Z376-2011 ZsZ Christopher HellerCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 13, 2006,1 have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CMZECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@jli.com johnwalkeratty @ aol .com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 ZsZ Christopher Heller 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 45 RECEIVED OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Extended Yey or Year Round Education Program In the Little Rock Arkansas Schools. An Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African American Student Achievement Draft Report for Comments Only January 13,2006 RHCE/veq James S. Catterall Professor UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 Please direct comments to the author at: jame$c@gseis.ucla.eduCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 45 Section II. Executive Summary This section will be completed after receiving feedback on this draft report. following are tentative summary findings presently contained in Sections III through VI. Conclusion III.l. The Extended Year schools outperformed the Comparison with respect to percentages of students proficient in literacy and mathematics. year time span leading up to spring 2005, an advantage measured in m scores over the base year as well ! schools over a five the same time period. percentage changes as in absolute percentage proficient point gains over Conclusion III.2. Based on analyses of test score residuals, Extended Year schools ,, owit iraiuudis, cxienoeo Year schools verv modestly outp^ormed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy tS and simificanf V _________\n_______r . ________ . inviavy icsi and significantly outperformed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark mathematics test. This result means that EY schools generally performed higher than would be expected from past performance and student demoi'phics and tK^n schools generally fell short of predicted scores, particularly fo mathematics Ski And 90(5^\nshow significantly more progress between discinlfoa^ r f Comparison schools in five important indicators: student mobility, in l^th^h suspensions, and African American student proficiency both rra hematics and literacy. Two mdicators of attendance i :.uwcd no magnitude of these changes sc^ols and their consistent outpacing of changes in Comparison schools i  rates showed no for EY indication of positive developments in Extended Year schools. is a significant Conclusion V.l. Two different analyses point XTd'^n'^ emes^^si\n^o R V ? comparisons of the percentages of students proficient on the 2005 Benchmark tests ^mt to this conclusion. And our analysis of correlations between Intersession attendance and academic indicators to small performance advantages for comes to the same conclusion. Academic ___C ___ , , --------IV Uiv doijic WIlUlU: perform^e may be boosted by Intersession attendance\nalternatively or in some........... may reflea \u0026gt;1 whidt slrtdems choose to attend Intersessions and which students do not. attending Intersessions can be made. Under either circumstance, a sound argument for Page II. ICase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 3 of 45 Conclusion VI.l. The parent, student, and teacher  1... . HC pareni, siuoent, and teacher surveys accumulated over three vears p ovide an derail appraisal of comparative achievement conditions in EY versus regular advantages or on condftions that might contribute to academic advantages, about 60-65 , , '^^lages, about 60-65 percent of parents and students r^rt higher achievement in EY schools. Teachers report better conditions for le^mg, but fewer, only about 35 percent, report actual academic achievement differences fevormg EY schools when asked this question directly. These survey results ^e wholly consistent with our data based achievement assessments presented in sections III, IV, and V. The general characterization gained in these analyses was that there \"................. are small but statistically significant differences in literacy and ^thematics achievement fevoring EY students. This applies both for 2005 Benchmark tests and also as we tracked performance trends over the past five years. What the parents, students, and teachers reported supports this result. Page H.2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 4 of 45 Section III. Educational Effectiveness of EY Schools - Basic Test Scores Question: What do Arkansas standards test measures suggest about the effectiveness of EY scwolsZ Methods: The Benchmark tests. For this question, we focus on the annual Grade 4 Benchmark tests in literacy and mathematics as our main indicator of elementary school effectiveness. Our interest in this Grade 4 test stems from two factors - first its qualities as a standards-based test and second its consistent use in prior years allowing estimates of achievement change over time. The Benchmark tests are based on academic performance standards developed by the state of Arkansas. Unlike standardized * wj Miv oimc VI zYiR.dii:\u0026gt;db. uniiKe standaraizeu norm- referen^ tests, such as the ITBS or SAT9 which rank student performance according to national percentlies, the Benchmark tests are scored to rate student performance against a set of state-level proficiency standards and thus to provide objective measures of student learning. a year to year for , , Arkansas Benchmark test classifies students as advanced, proficient, basic or b^w basic in both literacy and mathematics according to criteria established for each perfom^ce level. If standards are consistent from year to year, as they are designed to be, the Benchmark fest can detect changes in levels of achievement from Iroth individual students and for school grade levels and entire schools. K c puwci ui these standards-based tests to appraise student and school effectiveness that places them at the center of state school accountability programs nationwide. Its the power of State and national goals for learners are expressed formally as the percentage of C rvrTnrrrunf nt ___a 1_____i . s   . _____ _ . . students performing at the proficient level or higher. The Federal No Child Left Behind Act requires states to set annual performance targets that imply growth of student proficiency rates over time - with a goal of 100 percent of students performing at the proficient level by 2014. We----- - , . . , , - . *^56 the percentage of students performing at the proficient or higher level as the key criterion in our assessment of test scores. Our comparative frameworks. Assessing school performance is customarily assisted by comparisons. One comparison frame is current performance versus past performance - i.e. has the school improved over time? Another comparison is how well a^hool is doing m comparison to other schools. Appraising either absolute perfom^ce levels or performance trends across schools demands identifying like- situated schools as a basis for comparison. This is because schools do not operate from ^^1 .starting points - nor do they necessarily work with equally prepared children Schools across a state r----*  serve differing economic, racial, and cultural populations. Schools . - -----pvpuiaijuiji^. ov servmg more formally educated and higher income families tend to show relatively higher student achievement populations. measures across the board than schools serving poor Page III. 1Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 5 of 45 A task for our evaluation team was to select an appropriate group of schools to (xmpare with the five Extended Year schools of central interest to this study. Because of the overriding importance of the education of Afincan American children driving this evaluation, we used the percentage of African American student attendance as the principal criterion for comparison group construction. The five EY schools are higihghted in Table III.l on the following page. Table III. 1 arrays schools according to Atncan Amencan school attendance and also indicates a measure of student family economic disadvantage - the percent of students qualifying for fi-ee and reduced price lunches. For comparison (or control) schools, we selected a group of schools that suitably bracketed the five EY schools on the basis of Afiican American attendance. These are alw shown in Table III. 1. The average AA attendance for the EY schools is 87.8 percent. The average AA attendance for the control schools is 84.9 percent.' The percentages of are economically disadvantaged students are 87.8 (EY) and 90.0 (control) respectively. Among demo^aphic predictors of student achievement, SES or student family nicoriizontono J 1_________..1. _ disadvantage is considered by far the most important, apart from non- or limited English spring status. (This latter factor is important in some states and urban areas that have fogh populations of immigrant families, especially Hispanics. This is not a systematic factor in the Little Rock schools.) The analyses. In this Section III analyses. we assess school performance with two separate K \\ analysis presents the percentages of students scoring proficient or better in literacy and mathematics respectively. Contrasts are drawn among an early two vpar TV\u0026gt;nz^H _X___ . _______ -___   1 ' ---------------------- CUJ vol 1 y IWV year period (2001 and 2002), a later two year period (2003 and 2004), and finally for the most recent year, the 2005 proficiency test scores.^ These statistics are reported for EY schools, all control schools, and all LRSD elementary schools combined. B. The second analysis reports an assessment of2005 school performance - EY event is described , , _ , ' * ------------- MVi IVlIJiailVC  CI  ^c^^nmodates a change in standards implemented by LSRD for the 2005 Benchmark tests. This standards adjustment and the resulting procedures outlined as the analysis is presented. These percentages are the simple averages of the school-level percentages listed. Taking school population is about 90.2 percent African American Control ^noois are aoout os percent African Amencan. Fot this and a subsequent set of analyses, we aggregated indicators from 01 and 02, and of performance (in other words, measures not suoject t VII Ul UjC Udld. again from 03 measures not subject to the s going Page in.2Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 6 of 45 TABLE III.l Little Rock School School District Extended Year (EY) and Comparison Schools, Selected Characteristics SCHOOL EY Percent AA Percent Disadv. c c c c Rightsell Franklin Watson Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Wilson Geyer Sprs. Bale Baseline iMablevale *** *** c Western His. c Wakefield c Brady c Meadowclf. I Cloverdale *** Romine Washington 100.0% 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 95.0% 91.0% 89.0% 88.0% 82.0% 81.0% 80.0% 79.0% 78.0% 78.0% 78.0% 77.0% 76.0% 76.0% 87.0% 95.0% 94.0% 93.0% 92.0% 87.0% 94.0% 80.0% 89.0% 88.0% 88.0% I 74.0% 92.0% 82.0% 85.0% 90.0% I 77.0% 81.0% c c c c c [indicates Extended Year Schools c Indicates Comparison or Control Schools Percent AA Percent Disadv,  Percent African American Enrollment Percent Qualified Free and Red. Price LunchCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 7 of 45 TABLE m.2 PERCENT OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS PROFICIENT BY SUBJECT, GROUP, AND SELECTED TIME PERIODS ALL EY SCHOOLS 2000-2002 2002-2004 2005 LITERACY MATH PCT. PROF. PCT. PROF. 15.7% 12.8% 40.0% 35.5% 21.5% 22.1% ALL COMPARISON SCHOOLS LITERACY MATH PCT. PROF. PCT. PROF. 23.0% 15.6% 46.0% 31.6% 26.3% 23.8% All ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS LITERACY MATH PCT. PROF. PCT. PROF. 37.5% 30.4% 59.5% 47.0% 39.5% 35.5%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 8 of 45 A. How have EY vs. Comparison Schools performed over time? Table 111.2 (immediately following Table III.l) displays student proficiency statistics for EY and Control schools over five testing years. As described in footnote 2, the early data represent school years 2000 and 2001 combined, the later data combine school years 2003 and 2004, and the final statistics are for the latest foil school year 2004-2005.  Three patterns stand out in this table. One is that the proficiency percentages on the Grade 4 Benchmark tests are considerably higher for the schools overall than for either the EY or Comparison schools. This is expected, since the EY schools, and thus the comparison schools, were chosen because they represented schools with very high levels of economic disadvantage and high African American attendance. The second pattern is that schools in all three groups moved in a generally lockstep fashion over time. There were sizeable increases in student proficiency between the earliest biennium and the second - more than doubling for the EY and Comparison schools with about 50 percent gains statewide. This of course heralded good news for many Little Rock schools over this four-year period. The third pattern is a significant downturn of proficiency rates in the 2005 school year for all three groups. There is an imposed reason for this downturn, the resetting of fest performance standards, which precipitates our second score analysis just below. Extended Year vs. Comparison School performance. As far as appraising the fortunes of EY versus Comparison schools. Table III.2 shows comparable results for the two groups of schools over time, with an edge favoring the Extended Year schools. This edge comes in the larger advances between the 2000-02 biennium and 2005 for the EY schools. EY literacy scores are 37 percent higher in 2005 than 2002. EY math sccrcc arc 73 percent higher over the same time period. The comparable indices for the Comparison schools are 14 percent growth in literacy and 53 percent in mathematics. scores are Interpretive note: differences are smaller than they seem. It is important to place these score changes in perspective. For example, the 37 percent increase in literacy scores for EY schools reported above does not signify a 37 percent increase in overall student performance. It represents movement from 15.7 percent of students proficient in the early biennium to 21.5 percent of students proficient in 2005. This is an absolute gain of 5.8 percentage points. The comparison school gain is 3.6 percentage points over the same time period. Conclusion III.l. The Extended Year schools outperformed the Comparison schools with respect to percentages of students proficient in literacy and mathematics over a five year time span leading up to spring 2005, an advantage measured in percentage changes in scores over the base year as well as in absolute percentage proficient point gains over the same time period. Page IU.3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 9 of 45 B. Comparing EY versus Control school performance given the 2005 change in the Arkansas Benchmark test score standards. Standards shift. The scores in Table III.2 derived finm a playing field that was the same for both EY and Comparison schools. So head to head comparisons between the two groups of schools are meaningful and were discussed above. However, the dramatic downturn of scores for 2005 for all schools, including the EY and comparison schools, was in part, and probably in large part, due to the fact that the Arkansas Department of Education revised the scoring standards for the 2005 Benchmark tests. Periodic standards resetting is common to state standards testing systems. Arkansas made their standards of performance stricter for the 2005 test The result of this standards shift was that, for example, some ample range of 2005 student test scores that would have warranted proficient ratings in 2004 and earlier test years was now classified as basic. Similar downshifts occurred across the spectrum Therefore it is difficult to interpret the absolute levels of the 2005 scores in the context of the earlier scores. Without some sort of a translation guide that we have not seen, we cannot determine that a given student scoring in, say, the basic range might in fact be performing at the same level as the prior year - a year in which the student was classified as proficient. In short, we dont fully know what to make of the lower percentages of students rated as proficient on the Benchmark tests in 2005 other than to say that the game changed and the tougher standards took their toll. Appraising test scores when standards change. All state testing systems face needs to change standards from time to time  typically on the order of every five or six years. The meaning of proficient and other levels of performance needs occasional review in the context of state educational, economic, and cultural circumstances. Federal education policy directives or climate can also propel standards reviews and adjustments. One way that state systems have managed to maintain continuity between testing years where scores shift dramatically because of standards changes is to create a predictive model for the new scores. This model uses underlying numerical scores available for all Benchmark tests  statistics called a scale scores for each student which can be averaged for each school. Scale scores are typically used to derive student proficiency level statistics and are designed to provide comparability of tests from year to year. The model incorporates factors that would reasonably predict average school scale scores from year to year. The most important factors predicting school test scores are the schools test scores from prior years. In addition, controlling for student family economic status renders predictions across schools more fair. A common linear regression procedure then links the predictive factors and scores across all schools mathematically. What results is an equation that uses a school's previous average student Page UI,4Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 10 of 45 test scale score in a subject such as literacy along with its economic status to predict its current average scale score in the same subject. A simple model or equation for predicting test scores can be created from the information described. Then when actual data for each school are placed into the equation, a predicted test score is generated for each school. In our case, if we know a schools 2003 average literacy score, its 2004 average literacy score, and its economic disadvantage index, a unique 2005 score can be predicted. The equations we derived for literacy and math score prediction are shown at the bottom of Table III.B. 1 and Table 11I.B.2. respectively on the following two pages. States wanting to create sound indicators of whether or not schools are making annual progress build such models and derive predicted school scores. Then each schools actual score is compared to its predicted score. To the extent that a schools actual score exceeds its predicted score, the school is considered to have made progress through the current year. Schools whose actual test scores fall short of their predicted scores are considered to have fallen back and to not have made progress. The individual school statistic describing the difference between its predicted and its actual score is formally called a residual. Positive residual numbers indicate progress. Negative residual numbers indicate slippage - i.e. the actual scores fell short of predicted scores. Larger numbers or more negative numbers indicate larger degrees of progress or slippage respectively. Table IIl.B.l on the following page shows the results of our residual analyses of school level 2005 Benchmark literacy tests scores. Here is what is involved in the presentation: All LRSD elementary schools are listed. The literacy residual score is listed for each school. Pulaski for example scored 2.35 points lower than its predicted score. Dodd scored 11.44 points higher than its predicted score. Deviations from predicted scores of more than about 3.4 points (or about two standard errors) would be considered statistically significant and meaningful. A residual score is listed for each school - the five EY schools, the 12 EY comparison schools, and the other schools. How do EY schools fare in Uteracy? Three of the Extended Year schools have positive literacy score residuals, two of which are statistically significant. The basic meaning of this is that for at least two of these schools, these schools did better than average based on their performance in the two prior years (and controlling for SES). One EY school shows a significant negative residual. The average literacy residual score for EY schools is a positive 2.8. How do Control Schools fare in literacy? Four of the twelve comparison schools show small positive literacy score residuals - none considered statistically significant. Among the remaining eight schools, six have significant negative literacy score residuals. The average residual for the EY comparison schools is negative, -3.72. Page III.5Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 11 of 45 Table III.B.l Literacy Benchmark Residual Scores, Model School PULASKI WILUAMS TERRY BOOKER FULBRIGT OTTER McDERMT CARVER DODD ROCKFLER WAKFIELD WASHING MABEL BASELINE WESTERN KING FAIRPARK FRANKLIN ROMINE WOODRUFF RIHTSELL GEYER BALE MITCHELL CLOVER MEADOW CHICOT WILSON BRADY STEPHENS WATSON Pred.Lit.Score = Literacy Resid -2.35 -5.88 -4.31 -1.98 2.04 6.01 7.9 -5.86 11.44 -5.62 Control Residuals EY Residuals -4.22 9.48 1.17 2.53 Averages -5.12 2.53 -4.19 -6.6 -8.53 -5.18 -15.32 0.46 -1.18 2.92 0.23 -4.69 -3.7225 2.07 15.31 4.27 -7.2 -0.41 2.808 100.1 + (-24.1)SES04 + (.185)UT03 + (.385)UT04 R-Square Mean Scale Score St.Dev. SEM Minimum Maximum SES4 = % free and reduced price lunch LIT03 = 2003 sch. Lit. scale score LIT04 = 2003 school math scale score 0.66 198.28 9.54 1.71 198.29 218.66Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 12 of 45 Table III.B.2 Hathematics Benchmark Residual Scores, Model School PULASKI WILLIAMS TERRY BOOKER FULBRIGT OTTER McDERMT CARVER DODD ROCKFLER WAKFIELD WASHING MABEL BASELINE WESTERN KING FAIRPARK FRANKLIN ROMINE WOODRUFF RIHTSELL GEYER BALE MITCHELL CLOVER MEADOW CHICOT WILSON BRADY STEPHENS WATSON Math Resid 2.3 -24.46 31.88 -25.37 -8.18 4.03 40.6 8.16 33.2 -3.02 -21.04 2.12 4.27 21.37 Averages Control Residuals -31.22 -10.7 -32.64 -31.3 -41 2.13 -25.96 34.54 9.27 15.38 -20.6 9.1 -10.3 EY Residuals 44.09 48.8 23.27 -37.07 -20.14 11.8 Regression: Predicted 2005 Ma Sd.Score = 59.1-(11.85*SES)+.293*MathSS03+.492MathSS04 R-Square Mean Maximum Minimum St. Dev Std.Error 0.47 197.6 276.2 126.9 37.64 6.76 SES4 = % free and reduced price lunch MA03 = 2003 school math scale score MA04 = 2004 school math scale scoreCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 13 of 45 Without sifting this information with too fine a comb, the data suggest that the Extended Year schools modestly outperformed their conqjarison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy tests when test performance in 2003 and 2004 as well as economic status are taken into account. How do EY schools fare in mathematics? Table III.B.2 presents the results of our residual analyses of Benchmark mathematics test scores. A glaring difference between these data and the literacy residual scores is that the numbers are much larger - large positive and large negative numbers show up frequently. The reason for this is that there is a much wider range of scores in mathematics than in literacy, with larger variation throughout the distribution. (The minimum and maximum predicted scale scores, along with standard deviations, are shown at the bottom of each table.) In plain terms, math performance varies much more widely across Little Rock elementary schools than does literacy performance. As shown in the mathematics residual table, three of the EY schools have positive mathematics score residuals, all of which are statistically significant. The basic meaning of this is that these three schools did better than average based on their performance in the two prior years (and controlling for SES). Two EY schools show significant negative residuals. The average mathematics residual score for EY schools is a positive 11.8. How do Control Schools fare in mathematics? Five of the twelve comparison schools show positive mathematics score residuals - all considered statistically significant. All of the remaining seven control schools have significant negative literacy score residuals. The average residual for the EY comparison schools is negative, -10.3. These data suggest that the Extended Year schools significantly outperformed their comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy tests when test performance in 2003 and 2004 as well as economic status are taken into account. General caveat. It is important to remember that outperforming in the residual analyses does not necessarily mean that schools attained higher 2005 Benchmark test scores than others. It that means that schools did better than predicted based on past performance and student family economic status. Conclusion 111.2 Based on analyses of test score residuals, Extended Year schools very modestly outperformed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy test and significantly outperformed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark mathematics test. This result means that EY schools generally performed higher than would be expected from past performance and student demographics and that comparison schools generally fell short of predicted scores. Page III.6Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 14 of 45 Note - the Benchmark Test score trends for African American students between 2000 and 2004 are explored in Section IV. Page 111.7Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 15 of 45 Section IV. Effectiveness of Extended Year versus Comparison Schools LRSD Portfolio of Data In the fall of2005, the Little Rock School District published a draft report titled Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District. This is a rich document that presents statistics related to most of the issues conunonly tracked for schools. The report contains detailed displays of data each school, for each grade level, and for each of five school years, 2001 to 2005. Topics range across issues of attendance, student behavior, student mobility, and student achievement. For many topics, separate tables are presented for African American students. This last feature was attractive to our team, given our mission and the subjects of the litigation. This Portfolio of Data is a valuable resource for anyone wanting to do analyses of individual schools or groups of schools as well as wanting to conduct comparative analyses - across years or across schools. As we read the document, we identified seven mini-studies that the data would support. Each afforded opportunities to compare Exterrded Year schools with our Comparison schools - and to set these against data for all district elementary schools combined. We chose to explore all topics in the Portfolio of Data that would cormnonly be regarded as indicators of the performance or effectiveness of an elementary school. This was the resulting inventory: a. b. c. d. Student mobility. Student attendance. African American student attendance. Student disciplinary referrals. e. Short-term student suspensions. f. African American student performance on Benchmark math tests. g. African American student performance on Benchmark literacy tests. Approach to the analyses. We used the same methods to pursue all seven analyses as follows: We assessed students in grades 3,4, and 5 together. This selection reflected our interest in assessing students who potentially had enrolled for multiple years in the same school in order to benefit from whatever the school had to offer. And combining the grade levels supports indicators of whole school performance. We sought indications of performance-change over the past five years, from the earliest year to the latest year that data were reported. The EY school programs were launched during this time period and their effects stood to show up as changes in the Portfolios indicators, early to present. Page rV. 1Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page16of45 Our assessment of progress or change in each of the seven areas was based on average performance in the two most recent years (2003-04 and 2004-05) with the average performance in the first two years reported (2000-01 and 2001-02). This involved averaging the scores for each two year time period. When looking for trends in multi-year school data, change based on two year starting and ending points is less influenced by fluctuations in the statistics from one year to the next, which can mask patterns of change. We report growth as percentage changes in indicators for each of the seven areas. This choice reflects out interest in comparing these areas of performance in a common metric. Table IV. 1 on the following page shows the results of all seven analyses, and for each of the three groups of schools - all EY schools, Comparison schools, and all district elementary schools. Results. Positive advantages, i.e. higher percentage growth in measures, show for Extended Year schools than for control schools in all seven areas. In two areas, all student attendance and African American student attendance, the reported changes for all three groups are negligible and differences between school groups even smaller. In each of the five remaining areas, EY schools show quite favorably when contrasted with Comparison schools. We discuss each, starting from the leftmost column of Table IV. 1. Student mobility. EY schools showed a decline in student mobility of about 19 percent over the five years. This means that their students tended to stay longer in the same school as the years progressed. Comparison school student mobility remained unchanged over the five years, and the mobility of students across all elementary schools combined decreased by about 11 percent. Student disciplinary referrals. As shown in the fourth column of Table IV. 1, student disciplinary referrals in Extended Year schools declined by about 14 percent between 2000 and 2005. In contrast, student disciplinary referrals increased by 85 percent in Comparison schools and by 44 percent in all schools combined. Sborf-term suspensions. Change patterns in student suspensions paralleled change patterns in disciplinary referrals for the three groups of schools. Extended Year schools experienced a nearly 25 percent decline in short-term suspensions, while suspensions grew in Comparison schools by two-thirds and in all schools by about 34 percent between 2000 and 2005. African American student math proficiency. The percentage of Extended Year school African American students rated as proficient on the Grade 4 Benchmark mathematics test rose considerably in Extended Year schools Page IV.2Tble rv.l Percentage Change In Selected Indicators from 2001 to 2005, Extended Year Schools, Hatched Cempariaon Schools, and All Elementary Schools Student Mobility Average Student Attendance Days African American Student Attendance Student Disciplinary Referrals Short-term Suspensions Share of African American Students Proficient, Benchmark Math Tests Share of African American Students Proficient, Benchmark Literacy Tests EY Schools Comparison Schs. Atl Elem Schools Notes: Growth (o decline) in percentage terms 49.10% 0.13% -11.36% Sig.Diff. 1.63% 1.96% 13.86% I -24.38% I 178.43% I 154.76% EY Schools 1.59% 1.31% 84.98% 66.67% 102.46% 98.02% Comparison Schs. 2.26% 2.01% 43.54% 34.14% 54.61% No Significant differences Significant differences 58.67% All Elem Schools (Significant difference refers to Extended Year Schools vs. Comparison Schools.) 1. Data Source: LSRD: Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District, 2005 2. Benchmark Test proficiency comparisons are 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 (averaged to establish a a baseline) versus 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 (averaged to establish outcome years). 3. The remaining five comparisons compare 2004 and 2005 data to 2000 and 2001 data. 4. Combining two early and two late years respectively for pre- and post- measures provides more stable estimates than single school years, for which values tend to fluctuate due to random influences. O 0) cn CD 4^ do N3 a O O 00 a\u0026gt; 5 O o o c 3 CD  Ca3 CO CD 00 Q ex O O O CD T 0) (Q CD O cnCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 18 of 45 between 2000 and 2004' - by 178 percent. The percentages of African American students scoring at proficient levels in Comparison schools and in all schools also increase - but by lower margins: 102 percent and 55 percent respectively. African American student literacy proficiency. The percentage of Extended Year school African American students rated as proficient on the Grade 4 Benchmark literacy test also rose considerably between 2000 and 2004 - by 155 percent. The percentages of African American students scoring at proficient levels in Comparison schools and in all schools also grew - again by less than the growth attained for the EY schools: 98 percent and 59 percent respectively. Summing up The statistics presented in Table IV. 1 comparing patterns of change across seven performance indicators uniformly favor Extended Year schools over Comparison schools, in five areas substantially so. While it may ultimately prove difficult to link each of these indicators to conditions brought to the schools by virtue of participation in the Extended Year program, the uniformity of the trends reported suggests that some thing or things in common have been productively at work in the Extended Year schools. Conclusion IV.l. Extended year schools show significantly more progress between 2000 and 2005 than Comparison schools in five important indicators: student mobility, disciplinary referrals, short-term suspensions, and African American student proficiency in both mathematics and literacy. Two indicators of attendance rates showed no meaningful change for either group of schools. The magnitude of these changes for EY schools and their consistent outpacing of changes in Comparison schools is a significant indication of positive developments in Extended Year schools. The Portfolio of Data presents Benchmark test proficiency statistics for only four schools years - up through 2003-2004. The changes rqxtrted here are for the time span 2000 through 2004. We noted earlier that Benchmark proficiency scores declined systematically between 2004 and 2005, and declined for all schools because of standards resetting. This change for 2005 is not accommodated in this analysis. Page rv.3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 19 of 45 Section V. Assessing Extended Year School Intersessions A core component of the Extended Year school is the Intersession (IS). These are one or two week special study units that serve to extend the school year by as much as four weeks  into late June each year. The intersession programs vary a great deal  mainly offering special interest topics. They are not designed as academic remediation opportunities. Many regular school teachers take the opportunity to diversify their teaching and to earn extra compensation for conducting Intersession classes. About sixty percent of enrolled students in the Extended Year schools as of spring 2005 had participated in between 1 and 3 Intersessions. As shown in Table V.2 below, about 65 percent of all students in the Extended Year schools and 59 percent of African American students were IS participants. Because the number of non African American students in EY schools amounts account for only about 10 percent of students, these different participation rates imply that the approximately 60 non-African American students participate in Intersessions at very high rates. In this section of our report, we display two ways of assessing the academic importance of intersession attaidance. We must begin with the caution that because the Intersessions themselves are generally not devoted specific to mathematics or literacy skills, we would not expect strong influences on test scores due to the nature of Intersession instruction. Yet all Intersessions involve the use of the English language in a variety of ways. And they most probably incorporate language that is more aligned with school reading, writing, and spoken word than with out-of-school language. Moreover, Intersessions cause students to remain in school and school-like environments of the school year that what students experiences in regular calendar schools. over more Intersessions also keep children in something of an in-school frame of mind for longer school year than what children experience in non Extended Year schools. a Our inquiry results are consistent with an Intersession program with the qualities described above. As we soon present. Intersession attendance within EY schools is associated with small but meaningful academic advantages. Intersessions and proficiency scores  basic comparisons. Table V.l on the following page presents an overview of Intersession participation and the differences in student performance between Intersession attendees (lAs) and non-attendees (NAs). The following are the most important perspectives shown on these issues: Of the 589 grade 3, 4, and 5 EY school students, 342 had attended one or more Intersesskms and 244 had not. The student SES (economic disadvantage) percentages differ by only one point for the two groups. Page V. ICase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 20 of 45 Table V.l All EY Schools, Intercession Participants vs. Non-participants, by selected groups and performance outcomes, Grades 3, 4, and 5\nN=589 LR District All 5 Extended year (EY) schools: Attended Intercession Did Not Attend I.S. N students (Grades 3-5) 5630 342 244 Percent Econ. Disadvantaged 64.0% 82.0% 83.0% % Proficient Literacy 39.5% 26.0% 19.7% % Proficient Math 35.5% 25.1% 22.2% Race/Ethnic Distr: African American White Hispanic Asian, Pacific Is 68.5% 22.3% 4.1% 5.0% 92.7% 4.1% 2.0% 1.2% 88.0% 4.0% 4.4% 3.6% N of students N of sessions 244 90 121 132 0 0 1 2 3 4 pageCase 4:82-cv-00866-\\/VRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 21 of 45 Proficiency scores, using for our purposes the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level in the 2005 Benchmark tests, are higher for lAs than for NAs. In literacy, the advantage for IS attendees is 26 percent proficient versus just under 20 percent proficient for non-attendees. The difference in mathematics is smaller - about 25 percent proficient versus 22 percent. While these differences and distinctions are small, they are consistent with some sort of language effect of Intersession attendance involved with language in various ways but not generally involved with mathematics instruction or math-related experiences. Table V.l also shows the racial/ethnic breakdown of both the lA and NA groups - the attending group was nearly 93 percent Afiican American, while the non-attending group was a smaller 88 percent Afiican American. Also shown in Table V.l are the number of Intersessions taken by children in the attendee group - 132 had taken 3 sessions, 121 had taken 2 sessions, and 90 attendees had taken 1 Intersession among the 2005 students in EY schools. Table V.2 shows contrasts between Intersession attendees and NAs in finer detail than Table V.l, while also showing statistics specifically for African American students as well some baseline comparisons statistics for all LRSD students. In general, similar academic performance advantages for Intersession attendees show for both Afi-ican American and for all students. This makes sense given that about 90 percent of the EY school students are African American. Raw test scores (number of items correct on the 2005 literacy and math Benchmark tests) are shown along with test scale scores and the patterns in these scores parallel those reported for student proficiency. The message in the test comparisons, no matter which scores are used, is the small performance advantage shown for Intersession attendees over non-attendees. While the difference is very small and statistically insignificant, the advantages accruing to Intersession attendance appear to be a little smaller for Afiican American students than for all students combined. After the next analysis which gets at the same questions in a different way, we comment further on the small differences between lAs and NAs shown in Table V.2 data. Correlations of Intersession attendance with achievement indicators. Another way to explore the implications of Intersession attendance is a straightforward look at correlations between attendance (versus non-attendance) on the one hand and available performance indicators on the other hand. This analysis asks the question, does Intersession attendance associate with (or correlate with) higher individual literacy math scores? For this analysis we assigned a 1 to each student who had attended one or or nrore Intersessions and a 0 to non-attendees. We then incorporated more differentiated scales of literacy and mathematics than just proficiency versus non-proficiency. We used literacy and mathematics performance levels scaled 1 through 4 to capture the below basic to advanced range in student performance. We also explored literacy and math test raw scores (numbers of items correct) as alternative indicators of performance. Since the basic Page V.2Tble V.2 Student performance In EY schools by participation In Intercessions\nAll students and All African American Students, Grades 3, 4, and 5. 2005 For nf^renco! All Little Rock Student^^n^ 3-5 All students In Extended Year Schools (NarSSS): Attended Intercession Did Not Attend l.S. N S664 343 249 Percent attending or not: 64.5% 35.5% Percent econ DIsadv. 65.8 82.0% 80.3% % Proficient Literacy 59.5 26.0% 19.7% % Proficient Math 55. S 25.1% 22.2% Average Raw score, 2005 Literacy (sd) 56.5 18.1 50.7 19.2 45.8 20 Average Raw score, 2005 Math (sd) 56 16.6 33 17.7 29.7 17.2 Grade 4 Ave scale score Literacy (sd) 205 52.6 189.1 38.4 188.3 0.28 Grade 4 Ave seels score Math (sd) 207.8 95.5 190.8 108 183.9 108.6 (sd) Indicates standard deviation All African American Students In Extended Year Schools (N=539) Attended Intercession Did Not Attend l.S. 318 219 59.2% 40.8% 84.3% 81.3% 24.6% 23.3% 50 18.1 30.7 16.1 189.7 33.1 180.2 100.3 19.1% 21.0% 45.5 19.8 29.2 16.7 187.8 27.6 179.24. 108.2 page O 0) (Ji (D 4:^ do NO 6 O O 00 05 O) -1 O O O c 3 CD  W LD LD 00 CD Q. O w o o 05 T3 0) co to N) l\\5 O UICase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 23 of 45 concerns surrounding academic achievement are focused on standards and the requirements of No Child Left Behind, the performance level indicators should be considered more important than the raw score indicators. Table V.3 on the following page displays a standard correlation matrix showing relationships among five different variables, including literacy and mathematics performance indicators as well as Intersession attendance. The boxes contain data describing correlations between the scores in each row (labeled on the left side of the matrix), and the scores displayed respectively across the tops of the columns. (The top number in each cell shows the correlation coefficient (Pearsons r), the center number is a standard indicator of statistical significance - any number less than .050 implies a significant correlation, and the bottom number is the number of students involved in the analysis. Note: the asterisks attaching to the correlation coefficients also conform to standard statistical reporting. Correlation coefficients with one asterisk are significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Two asterisks indicate a 99 percent confidence level. Ninety-five percent and higher confidence levels signify that the correlations show real positive relationships between the two scores as opposed to chance or spurious associations.) Correlations show as the number 1 in a diagonal row of boxes result when an indicator is correlated with itself- perfect correlation. As another example of reading from this matrix, literacy performance levels correlate very highly with literacy raw scores\nthe correlation coefficient is .895 and this correlation is significant at the 99 percent confidence level. The main display of interest in the Table V.3 matrix is the bottom row. Reading across, this shows correlations between Intersession attendance and four respective performance indicators: literacy performance level, literacy raw scores, math performance levels and math raw scores. All of these performance indicators derive from the 2005 Benchmark standards tests. Intersession attendance would have occurred largely in spring 2004 and spring 2003. A few sessions would go back as far as spring 2002 for these students. What is shown is fairly straightforward. Intersession attendance correlates positively and significantly with both literacy indicators, and with the mathematics test raw scores. The correlation between Intersession attendance and mathematics performance level warrants about a 0.91 confidence level  approaching statistical significance. While there are positive correlations between Intersession attendance and the literacy and mathematics performance indicators, the correlations are small - all are in the 0.10 range. These small correlations are entirely consistent with the contrasts in proficiency levels between Intersession attendees and non-attendees reported in the previous analysis and shown in Table V.l. Page V.3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 24 of 45 TABLE V.3 INTERSESSION CORRELATIONS WITH PERFORMANCE ALL GRADE 3,4 and 5 EY STUDENTS, 2005 QmbtioDs UnTLEV LTHflEV I^arson Cone btion Sig. (2-ta)kd) K LTTRAW .895* MAPBtfLV .686* MATHRAW .733* intersessicxt yes no .101* UTMW Pearson Cone btion Sig. (2-tailed} N f^arson Corre btion Sig. (2-taibd) N MATHRAW Pearson Cone btion Sig. P-uiled) N 589 .895* .000 589 ,686* .000 589 .733* .000 589 .000 .000 .000 .032 589 595 .679* .000 589 .756* .000 595 589 589 454 .679* .756* .124* .000 589 589 .932* .000 589 .000 595 .932* .000 589 595 .008 460 .080 .089 454 .093* .046 460 inlerscssion yes no T^arson Corre btion Sig. (2-taibd) N .101* .124* .032 .008 .080 .089 j093* .046 454 460 454 460 460 NWPHUTV 1 I I 1 1 \"* Cbrretaiion is signiTcant al the 0.01 level (2- tailed), *. Oxrelation is signiBcant al the 0.05 levd (2- (aikd). LITPFLEV LITRAW MAPERFLV MATHRAW Literacy performance level Literacy raw Score (N items correct) Mathematics performance level Mathematics raw score (N items correct) Intersession Yes/NO Contrasts students who have taken one or more EY intersessions with those who have not participated.Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 25 of 45 Interpretative note. The performance advantages shown in Table V. 1 and Table V.2 are statistically significant, but the differences are small. The differences are real, but there is no certain way of answering an important underlying question. This is whether the differences result from intersession attendance, or whether they simply reflect differences between students who choose to attend Intersessions and those who do not. In typical appraisals of this sort of quandary, the larger are the differences the greater is the importance of the question. So this is not a crucial question facing this evaluation. There is some reason to not be too concerned about the genesis of performance differences shown in this section for Intersession attendees. Under either circumstance, we would be inclined to recommend that students attend Intersessions. As one possibility, the experience would provide a boost to achievement. As another possibility, students who choose to attend Intersessions give themselves an opportunity to associate and work with students who, on average, are doing somewhat better in school. This alternative possibility might also bring advantages to Intersession attendees. Conclusion V.l. Two different analyses point to small performance advantages for students who attend Extended Year school Intersessions in comparison to students who do not attend. Direct comparisons of the percentages of students proficient on the 2005 Benchmark tests point to this conclusion. And our analysis of correlations between Intersession attendance and academic indicators comes to the same conclusion. Academic performance may be boosted by Intersession attendance\nalternatively or in some combined way, the observed differences may reflect just which students choose to attend Intersessions and which students do not. Under either circumstance, a sound argument for attending Intersessions can be made. Page V.4Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 26 of 45 Section VI. Surveys of Parents, Students, and Teachers Specialized Parent Interviews This section reports the results of three years of surveys of Extended Year school parents, students, and teachers. We also conducted a set of in-depth telephone interviews with EY school parents who had parent experience in both EY and regular calendar schools. Some of the children of interviewed parents had transferred schools, some parents had students in both types of schools, and some parents had experienced the conversion of their school from a regular calendar to Extended Year. In all of these instances, parents were in a position to point out differences between the two sorts of school experiences. Survey methods. LRSD research and evaluation staff began surveys of EY school parents, students, and teachers in 2002-2003. The questions in these surveys focused on academic achievement issues as well as on qualities of the EY experience. For this evaluation, we replicated verbatim the multiple-choice questions past year surveys. This provided continuity and opportunities to assess changes in responses over time. The multiple choice questions from these surveys can be seen in Tables VLl.C, VI.2.G, and 17.3.0 below where we present consolidated tallies of three years of parent, student, and teacher surveys respectively. Each of these tables shows all of the survey  questions along with distributions of responses. We also invited parents, students, and teachers to respond in writing to open questions related to differences between EY school and regular calendar school experiences. These open-response questions focused on achievement issues and offered opportunities for respondents to suggest ways to improve EY schools. These open questions were composed with consultation from the LRSD PRE staff who in turn consulted with individual EY school personnel as these questions were written. These questions were concerned mainly with differences between Extended Year schools and traditional calendar schools. The surveys were finalized in late summer of 2005. The surveys were administered to students in grades 3,4, and 5 by LRSD PRE staff who coordinated administration efforts in the five EY schools. Schools sent parent surveys home and collected completed surveys. And EY school teachers completed our surveys directly. For the three-year period, we amassed 525 individual parent surveys, 636 student surveys, and 157 teacher surveys. The teacher survey response rate was close to 100 percent. Parent and student survey returns rates were about 30 percent overall. Page VI. 1Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 27 of 45 Presenting interview data for this draft report. The following 26 pages display a great many statistics and much information generated from our parent student and teacher surveys. We also append to this report 30 pages of survey data showing results for EY schools individually. Here is a guide to what is included, in order: From Parent Surveys Table VI.l.F Table VI.2.F.2 Table VI. l.G Parent written response table Parent comparisons of schools Consolidated parent survey data for eight multiple choice questions 1 page 2 pages 3 pages From Student Surveys Table VI.2.F Table VI.2.G Student written response table. Consolidated student survey data for 11 multiple choice questions 1 page 3 pages From Teacher Surveys Table VI.3.F Table V1.3.G Teacher written response table Consolidated teacher survey data for 12 multiple choice questions 1 page 3 pages From Parent Interviews Detailed displays of quotes and response distributions for 8 questions 12 pages Appendix: Individual school results from parent, student and teacher surveys 30 pages Our final report will go further in its analyses of our survey and interview results than we do in the coming pages. For this Draft Report, we focus on the core issue of student achievement and the differences that the Extended Year calendar may bring to students. We draw on observations and assessments from each table. All contrasts reported are between Extended Year and regular calendar year schools. Page VI.2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 28 of 45 Working notes on survey and interview tables From Parent Surveys Table VI.l.F Parent written response table 1 pages About two-thirds of parents report that EY schools are better when it comes to student academic success. The largest cluster of reasons for this is that shorter breaks cause students to forget less and that staying in school longer helps keep student minds fresh. Parent suggestions for improvement of the EY program are spread across several ideas, although more than half claim there is no need for improvement. Suggestions include more educational opportunities (e.g. as opposed to recreational or hobby-focused Intersessions), more tutoring, better parent information, and better childcare to boost after school and intersession opportunities. Table VI.2.F.2 Parent survey quotes 2 pages This table contains the raw quotes that support the analysis of parent survey comments presented in the previous table. Table VI.l.F Table VI.LG Consolidated parent survey data 3 pages This table displays distributions of parent answers to multiple-choice questions on the parent survey. Tlu-ee years of parent survey data are consolidated for this presentation. The most important observations regarding student achievement from this table include: Just over half of all parents cite higher achievement in EY schools and over 60 percent would prefer that their children continue in EY schools. A large majority of parents believe that children are more interested in school when in EY schools. Half of the parents favor the expansion of the EY model to other schools. From Student Surveys Table VI.2.F Student written response table. 1 page The student quotes reveal mixed feelings on the part of students about whether or not students do better academically in EY schools. Positive answers center on having Page V1.3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 29 of 45 more time in school and having a greater variety of school experiences. Negative answers are spread out, but concentrate somewhat on the fact that some EY students have siblings in regular schools and that the clash of calendars can be disruptive. Table VI.2.G Consolidated student survey data 3 pages Students report more interest in school in EY schools (84 percent) and that the EY school teachers are more patient and helpful (89 percent). These two questions gained more consensus than other questions across all surveys. Most (79 percent) feel that they have more time to secure extra help when its needed. About 56 percent of students claim that they leant more in the EY structure than in regular schools. Students do not favor shorter vacation periods, however. From Teacher Surveys Table VI.3. F Teacher written response table i page As with parents and student, teachers offered comments indicating that students achieve at higher levels in EY schools than in regular calendar schools. The teachers who feel this way report three main reasons: students forget less with shorter TTXivr ivvi uno waj icpvii uucc iiidiii rcdbunb. siuaeiiis lorget summers, the whole schedule produces less stress and less burnout that regular calendars, and it is easier for students to catch up in EY schools if they get behind. Among teachers feeling that EY schools do not present academic advantages, many report that there is essentially no difference between the two types of calendars when it comes to academic achievement\nothers cite attendance problems at Intersessions in the EY schools as holding back what could be higher student performance. Teacher suggestions for improving EY schools include adding professional development opportunities for EY school teachers, extending all schools to the EY model to bring benefits to all and to make school calendars consistent for all children. A prominent suggestion for improvement was adjusting the calendar to have a shorter break in February and a longer break before Intersessions in May. Table VI.3.G Consolidated teacher survey data 3 pages Teachers are less positive than parents or students about the relative academic benefits of Extended Year schooling. Just over one-third of teachers feel that EY schools boost academic achievement. They tend to agree that EY schools bring a wider variety of educational experiences to their students and two thirds believe that students benefit from the Intersessions. A majority believes that EY schools offer more academic continuity. Page VI.4Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 30 of 45 About half of teachers find EY schools less stressful A large majority of teachers report that they benefit from opportunities to earn stipends for optional Intersession employment. Rounding up the surveys There are many questions worth exploring in the survey data we collected. The constituents involved, especially parents and teachers, will probably take interest in the results. Discussions of the surveys may lead to further insights and suggestions for Extended year schools and we will seek feedback before submitting the final report. But we venture one survey-based conclusion at this point regarding our most important subject, student achievement. Conclusion VI.l. The parent, student, and teacher surveys accumulated over three years provide an overall appraisal of comparative achievement conditions in EY versus regular calendar schools. The result is that when reporting academic advantages or on conditions that might contribute to academic advantages, about 60-65 percent of parents and students report higher achievement in EY schools. Teachers report better conditions for learning, but fewer, only about 35 percent, report actual academic achievement differences favoring EY schools when asked this question directly. These survey results are wholly consistent with our data based achievement assessments presented in sections III, IV, and V. The general characterization gained in these analyses was that there are small but statistically significant differences in literacy and mathematics achievement favoring EY students. This applies both for 2005 Benchmark tests and also as we tracked performance trends over the past five years. What the parents, students, and teachers reported supports this result. Parent Interviews Detailed displays of quotes and responses. 12 pages The final entry in Section VI of this report is our report of our parent interviews. The responses to parent interviews will be set against insights reported by parents. students, and teachers from surveys for the final report. The parent interviews, having been conducted in fall of 2005 also serve a contemporary check on conditions in EY schools from the parents perspectives. Page VI.5Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 31 of 45 Appendix School level survey data 30 pages Detailed reports of all survey data by school are shown in the appendix to this report. These data were the building blocks for the consolidated interview data we have focused on for this draft report. These individual school charts may inspire feedback from constituents at specific schools as we proceed to our final report. Page VI .6TABLE VI.l.F Parent Discussion Questions 2005 l.Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students succeed? Why do you feel this way? Yes, Because: Keeps students' minds fresh/they forget less during breaks More time for educatlon/less distractions Keeps them focused on school They learn more My student likes it Gives students who are behind more time to catch up Student gets more vacation time #thls answer 26 21 21 17 3 7 6 total who answered 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 %this answer 19% 15% 15% 12% 2% 5% 4% No, Because: Student is left out from summer activltes and family vacations Student gets burned out Kids in the family are on different schedules Childcare problems for working parent 14 66 11 138 138 138 138 10% 4% 4% 8% 2. How can we improve Year Round Education Schools? More educational activities and field trips More tutoring Childcare for working parents during after school and intersessions More favorable teacher/student ratio Keep parents more informed Good as Is/No Improvements needed 14 17 15 3 12 26 87 87 87 87 87 87 16% 20% 17% 3% 14% 30% page O fl) cn (fl 4s. do ho cS \u0026lt; o o 00 (35 (35 -I 73 O o n c3 CD  CO co co 00 31 ((D2 . O wM O O 05 QT)3 (tQo CO ho O UI Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR TABLE VI.1.F.2 Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 33 of 45 Question 1: Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students succeed? Why do you feel this way?  Because it provides a continuous learning environment and a safe place to be.  I feel that Year Round Education has kept my childrens minds active and they retain more of what they learn.  Educators spend more time teaching rather than re-teaching skills that have been displaced due to long gaps within the summer.  I feel that the short breaks within the school year give the parents, teachers, and --------------  J UX ^14 LOy kVUVllVi aj IKJ students much needed time away from school activities, such as homework, etc., and when school resumes everyone comes back replenished.  I dont like YRE because the program takes away summer vacation from the children and their family.  I think they have more time to know the concept of study in the YRE school.  Its not the length of time at school, its the quality and caring of the teachers and assistants.  The staff are more attentive with students. Intersessions give students the opportunity to do extra educational activities during school hours.  I think the year round school molds kids into loving school and I think it will help a lot of children in the long run because I think the longer you work at something the more things you can accomplish.  Year round schools interfere with our family vacations in the summer. We cannot plan our family activities now as we did before because we knew the months the kids were out of school.  Students should have their summer available to stay away from regular academic studies for fun and refreshment. My kids are fed up with the year round program and are starting to dislike school.  The YRE school has not been beneficial to my child due to the fact that she was never included in the intersessions. She is not performing to the best of her abilities and could have used the extra help. I am very disappointed in the YRE. We were never notified of the intersession in time to sign up.  Its good because the student doesnt have a long period between breaks. This allows the student to remember previous information.  My daughter aint learning nothing anyway. Her teacher is just giving her grades to pass her to the next grade. My daughter is a first grader and she cant read she dont know small words like was, come, is, words like that.  There is no difference. The students spend the same amount of time in school, just different time spans.Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR TABLE VI.1.F.2 Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page34of45 Question 2: How Can we improve Year Round Education Schools?  Making their summer vacation a little longer and start their summer with regular school.  By making intersession available for every child who wishes to attend.  I think they need to have tutors. Like hire students from high school. They help the little ones and they can have some cash.  Have more meetings and have the parents come in and see what the parents are doing in class.  Make conferences with the teachers and parents.  Keep the parents excited about the program and let them know how important it is that parents are visible so our children can develop in a more positive academic manner.  I think they need more teachers and less students in the classrooms because some students struggle more than others and need more attention. They need to have teachers who just work with struggling students, so it wont effect the students who are where they need to be.  Teachers need more time with kids and really teach them what they know. Ive come across a lot of teachers who are not happy doing what they do and its just sad because I get scared that it will make school a bad experience for my daughter.  I think they should stop being so mean and let the children talk at lunch and on the playground.  Revamp the curriculum to coincide with testing.  Make sure VOUr Student.s are wnrHno nn thpir your students working on their educational level. Some students are more advanced than others. They need to be taught on that level any other will stifle what they are learning and they become bored.Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 35 of 45 TABLE VI.l.G CONSOLIDATED PARENT COMPARISONS, EY VS. REGULAR SCHOOL SCHED. My children show a greater interest in their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 395 55 75 525 525 525 525 75% 10% 14% 100% My children like having a number of short vacation periods. Number Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 306 153 64 523 523 523 523 59% 29% 12% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my children. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 313 115 102 530 530 530 530 59% 22% 19% 100% N = My children have achieved at a higher level than in their previous 9-month school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 282 120 130 532 532 532 532 0 53% 23% 24% #DIV/0! Our personal family life activities such as church, scouts, clubs, etc, have not been affected. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 405 75 43 523 523 523 523 77% 14% 8% 100% My children have attended one or more intersessions this year. Number N = Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 383 92 65 540 540 540 540 71% 17% 12% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 36 of 45 CONSOLIDATED PARENT COMPARISONS, EY VS. REGULAR SCHOOL SCHED CONT'D This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 278 118 145 541 541 541 541 51% 22% 27% 100% I want my children to continue in this program. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total Percent 337 111 89 537 537 537 537 63% 21% 17% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total 100 430 530 0 0 429 29 53 511 Number of children in a YRE school 8 16 24 235 183 97 21 536 Number of children enrolled in regular schools before they were enrolled in a YRE school. 0 1 2 3 4+ total 147 168 124 37 23 499Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 37 of 45 CONSOLIDATED PARENT COMPARISONS, EY VS. REGULAR SCHOOL SCHED CONT'D Children attending school on a regular May-August calendar Elementary Middle school senior high 124 81 58 Grade level of children K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 15 148 153 119 120 143 698Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR TABLE VI. I F Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 38 of 45 YRE Schools: Collected Student Quotes Question 1: Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students 0110000/19 f _ _ I __ .O  succeed? Why do you feel this way?  Year round school help us learn for a long time because we go longer.  My year round school is better because we got a computer lab.  Yes. 1feel this way because 1 like being out of school.  No. I think that because when I cousin is out I be still going to school.  No. J feel very good at the regular school and I study more every day there.  Yes. It helps your education and we gel caught up more on fourth grade work.  1 say yes because you can learn more. Also you can get ~c~c .Nsc  Yes. Because you are starling to talk in English and get friends you will know better.  No. the reason why is because we 're always out and we 're hardly learning.  Yes. 1 think il does because you can learn more things about school and learn to do different more education. Also get better at things. kinds of work.  Yes. Why I pick yes because J like doing work.  No. I feel this way because all the other schools are out and we are still in.  I like all yearround because you be out for a month. And plus you get to spend time with your family you get to stay up and night until you feel sleepy.  Yes. I feel this wav because vnu stnv tn feel way you stay in school you learn  No. Mv brother is out of school whUo 7 rtrtt itt My yvhile J am in school. more.  No. My other school was more advanced and if we have short period vacations I forget stuff and lose discipline.  Yes. Because we can go for recess one in the morning in second recess you can gel pizza and candy.  Kes. Because you gel a lot of education in your life. Question 2: How can we improve Year Round Education?  lEe need new teachers to help us learn new stuff.  We could improve with a new playground.  We have to improve by building a new school.  They should have a new playground and new restrooms.  New playground. Urgent. Go on more field trips. And new restroom.  They can let us stay in until June I because then 1 can get out with my  I think they are fine and the year round schools can stay like they are.  ney need to improve because my friends they are telling me school information that I have not cousins. heard about they are smarter than me.  By gelling teachers to help us understand our work.  They got to make new playground.  JVe can improve them by letting someone help you.  I will make a list: Nice teachers some are mean. Kill these bugs, put a new lock on the school lit is looking like a dump.  More intercessions.  You can start by telling everyone in this school about it and start having calendars about year rnunfl U/n on., _1____  . round. We can even send a letter home about it.  It will make it belter if they change it like regular schools.  By not having short vacations and having belter classrooms, better technology, and better lunches.  By letting us play, be out of uniform, and do fun things.  Gel a bigger TV. pageCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 39 of 45 TABLE VI.2.G STUDENT SURVEYS CONSOLIDATED I have been more interested in my education this year. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 524 50 62 636 N= 636 636 636 0 Percent 84% 3% 13% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 243 346 53 642 N= 642 642 642 0 Percent 39% 49% 11% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 370 150 108 628 N= 628 628 628 0 Percent 56% 10% 34% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 329 242 76 647 N= 647 647 647 0 Percent 50% 38% 12% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 525 59 60 644 N= 644 644 644 0 Percent 89% 4% 7% 100%Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 40 of 45 STUDENT SURVEYS CONSOLIDATED CONT'D I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed it. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 493 85 75 653 N= 653 653 653 0 Percent 79% 10% 11% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 474 99 78 651 N= 651 651 651 0 Percent 84% 8% 8% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 408 124 119 651 N= 651 651 651 0 Percent 71% 13% 16% 100% My parents like the extended-year program. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 368 138 140 646 N= 646 646 646 0 Percent 60% 15% 26% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 286 275 73 634 634 634 634 0 53% 24% 24% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 41 of 45 STUDENT SURVEYS CONSOLIDATED CONTD Intersession has helped me be a better student. Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 357 100 120 577 577 577 577 0 62% 20% 18% 100% Gender Male Female Total 291 353 644 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 562 20 54 636 Grade Level 3rd 4th 5th Total 236 234 232 504 Last grade spent in regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 8 7 6 10 9 4 3 47TABLE VI.B.F Teacher discussion questions. 2005 l.Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students succeed? Why do you feel this way? Yes, Because\nN total Percent Less time reteaching/kids don't forget as much over break More extracurricular activites and enrichment Easier for kids who are behind to catch up Less stressful/less burnout for kids and teachers Like the extra time In school Kids need structure during the summer this answer: responses: this answer\n22 49 12 21 50 50 50 50 50 50 44% 8% 18% 24% 4% 2% No, Because: Both are the same--schedule does not matter Students' attendance Is low at YREs/Students leave in the summer Childcare is difficult for parents during breaks Too many breaks create MORE need to re-teach More burnout for teachers and students 11 11 377 39 39 39 39 39 28% 28% 8% 18% 18% 2. How can we improve Year Round Education Schools? Better schedule/Shorter February break longer May break Open Intercession to all students Schedule Trainings and In-Service days for YRE teachers Teachers need more Input on the curriculum and calendar Extend YRE to all schools/make all schools the same Change testing dates 15 5 17 9 12 5 63 63 63 63 63 63 24% 8% 27% 14% 19% 8% page O fl) Ch CD 4^ do cS O O 00 o \u0026lt;L O O CD c3 (D Z3 W CD CD 00 CD CL O W CD CD CT) T3 Q\u0026gt; CQ CD -Cx O cn Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 43 of 45 TABLE VI.3.G Teacher Surveys Consolidated My students show a greater interest in their educational program. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 66 45 50 161 161 161 161 Percent 41% 28% 31% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 104 19 29 152 152 152 152 Percent 68% 13% 19% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 99 37 20 156 156 156 156 Percent 63% 24% 13% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 56 52 52 160 160 160 160 Percent 35% 33% 33% 100% Parents are more involved in their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 24 87 47 158 158 158 158 Percent 15% 55% 30% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 44 of 45 TABLE VI.3.G Teacher Surveys Consolidated CONT'D This program should be expanded to other scohols in this district on an optional basis. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 82 50 25 157 157 157 157 Percent 52% 32% 16% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 77 54 26 157 157 157 157 Percent 49% 34% 17% 100% My students benefit from their intersession(s). Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number 102 21 33 156 156 156 156 Percent 65% 13% . 21% 100% N = The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 87 39 32 158 158 158 158 Percent 55% 25% 20% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 85 55 19 159 159 159 159 Percent 53% 35% 12% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 45 of 45 TABLE VI.3.G Teacher Surveys Consolidated CONT'D The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 69 57 27 153 153 153 153 Percent 45% 37% 18% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number 129 16 14 159 N= 159 159 159 Percent 81% 10% 9% 100% Male Female Total 15 132 147 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 67 72 2 141Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 36 received F/ s DESEGBEgSStoIIITORIIIG Little Rock, Arkansas Family Interviews Year-round - vs - 9-month SchoolsCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 36 LnTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOtS Question 1: What was the reason your child(ren) changed from 9-month to EY calendar? Description Percestage of Responses The school changed horn 9-month to EY. 69% My child transferred horn a 9-month school to an EY school. 25% Multiple children. Both reasons apply. 6% Free Responses: \"We were already in the area.\" (18 responses) \"We moved into the district.\" (4 responses) \"I don't know why the school changed. 1 guess they were just trying something new.\" They've been going for so long, I don't even remember when things changed or why.\" The school changed and we were not happy about it at all. \"I don't really know why the school changed.\" Cloverdale is a much better school than where they were going. The one we were at was pretty awful.\" \"I had one school that one his home school, but my other one was here, so I got him transferred because it's easier for me for dropping them off.\" \"I'm in the neighborhood. I just adopted them, and Plasco Heights didn't have enough room for them.\" They were having problems at Forest Park, and I decided to put them in a black school. There was a larger black student population at Woodruff.\" \"It was in the neighborhood, and I liked the school\" \"We moved closer to this school, so I moved my younger son here, but I still have another child at our old school. /?4SOWS FOR CHANCme TO YEAR-ROUHD SCHOOL DCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 3 of 36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS Question 2: What are the main differences you see between EY and 9-month schools? Desoipfion Percentage o( Responses Schedule difference, neither plus nor minus 58.9% Childcare a problem with EY 11.1% Don't know or no difference 16.87% No difference 5.6% Better learning with EY\nEY better 30.9% Less learning loss in EY 8.3% Intersession noted as difference 8.3% Free Responses: Schedule difference, neither plus nor minus \"They go longer than the tegular school and the summer is much shorter. \"Well, actually the only difference I've noticed is that they seem to be out more than everyone else.\" \"They have more vacations. That's about it' \"The difference is that it seemed like they were out a little more often.\" What I noticed is that they are out more than the public school is.\" \"Naturally they go a little longer and they start earlier.\" \"I actually liked it a lol It seems like the kids are in school a lot longer. I know it just seems that way, but I liked it\" \"Well, obviously they don't have the long summer break.\" Childcare a problem with EY \"The only differences I noticed were that they dont get as long a vacation during the summer, and it's also tough to find a babysitter for the days when they are out The days that she was out was difficult\" (free responses continued on next page) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EY AND 9-MONTH SCHOOLS 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 4 of 36 UTTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS \"What are the main differences,\" continued from previous page. Childcare a problem with EY \"They have less time out, and they have an extra week called Intercession where they do special things. The only thing that is really different is that if you have a middle school kid, it really throws off the balance in the family when they are out for two weeks and you don't have anybody to watch them.\" \"The year round school is so different I don't like it Period. It's important to have their summer open so that you can take family trips Also, the year round school is really hard for working parents. With the 9-month calendar it is easier to restnjcture the family schedule. \"It makes it very difficult for us to do family vacations do trips or plan anything together because our oldest was in high school and they weren't on a year-round calendar.\" \"Academically, I'm a big fan of that school anyway. At the time I wasn't crazy about it because I was working and it was hard to find childcare. Don't know or no difference \"I really can't say.\" \"I dont really know.\" \"All the work seems to be about the same. Maybe a little more of it since they are in school more. I don't really know.\" No difference \"No. I didnt notice anything.\" \"Well, it seems to be doing the same thing. He does his homework\nhe studies. I havent noticed any differences.\" Better learning with EY\nEY better \"The kids learned more. My sixth grader is in the seventh grade now and they are on a regular calendar, and it's the first time he's ever gotten an F in his whole life. He was always on the honor roll before. \"Yes. It seems like they get farther ahead. He seems like he has really learned a lot. \"I love that school My kids loved it I wish they could still go there. I just liked everything about it They learned better, the Resource classes were good, and they really liked the Inter-sessions They whole school was really, really good. l really liked Stephens They were more attentive to the students They learned more. \"It seems, well, it's a little a little different This school has a little more strict rules, which is good. And they go year-round.\" \"In the year-round school I think they were learning more.\" \"The teachers seemed to be more concerned about them there.\" \"It was easier for them to catch up on everything.\" \"I really like it and I think they do, too. They seem like they learn better.\" \"Well, I really think it's good. My kids are really doing better now than before. The teachers really seem to help them a lot more. Less learning loss in EY \"I've seen some good things and some bad things. I don't think the year-round school is such a bad thing. There are some good things to it. I've noticed they don't seem to forget as much because they aren't out for as long a time.\" \"They seem like they remember a little bit more I think.\" Intersession noted as difference \"The only really different is the Intersession part and being in school a little bit longer\" \"They've got all the inter-sessions and all that I like the school and I think they do, too.\" DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EY AND 9-MONTH SC HOCHS 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 5 of 36 LIULE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOtS Question 3: Lets focus particularly on how different schools help kids learn. What do you see as the main differences in student learning in EY vs. 9-month schools? Description Percentage of Responses Do not see a difference 13.9% EY generally better/more learning 80.6% Less learning loss 30.6% Intersession 2.8% Free Responses: bo not see a difference \"No. I don't really think there is a difference.\" \"I dont really know if there is a difference, f mean, he afways seems to do okay.\" \"My kids are extremely smart, so its hard to tell if there's a difference. They always made the honor roll and they still do. \"No, there is no difference in the way that my kids learn. The school work is the same, and they are getting it done.\" \"I didn't see no great improvement in my kids grades being in a year-round school versus a regular school.\" EY generally better/more learning \"Wefl, actually its the school that they are attending. I had better results over at Mabelville Elementary, and its a year-round. But actually, with the year round, of my kids is in gifted and talented, and I think they are educated a little more in the year round.\" \"Actually, she got more into her studies in the year round than I feel like she would have done in the 9-month.\" \"Yes, I think they are constantly learning, so it keeps all the infotmabon fresh.\" \"Yes. They are more advanced.\" \"Actually, I think it is difficult because its year-round, but I do think its a good idea.\" \"I really dont have a good answer. I have a pretty sharp son. I dont know if its because hes smart or if its because of the school.\" \"It seems like they do more work, but 1 dont really know. Maybe it just seems that way since they are in school more.\" \"My son did learn well when he was there, but hes at Washington now and he's doing okay there, too.\" (free responses continued on next page) STUDENT LEARNING DIFFERENCES 4Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WR\\/V-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 6 of 36 LirriE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS \"Student learning differences,\" continued from previous page. EY generally better/more learning T think they leam a little bit more. \"Well. 1 think it helps the kids that they ate there mote. I think they get a lot mote advanced. That has been the case with Cameron. 'I think they are doing just the same. I do think there are more programs for the kids. Like the Resource program and that \"Everything about it \"1 think they are better at getting down on the kids if they don't do their work. \"In the regular school, they got more off days then days in school. In the all-around school they were just teaching them more. Yes I just personally think it has a lot to do with the teachers. I think they are mote motivated to help that child. \"They have more time to do the work because they are going all the time. \"The teachers are really good. I mean if they don't do their work, the teachers get after them. I think that makes a big difference. Less learning loss \"I guess they learned more because they went year-round. They weren't out for a long summer break when they might lose or forget what they had learned.\" \"They seem to remember more.\" \"They don't have a chance to forget as much, I think.\" \"They just seem to remember more. Not having that long summer break, I think, makes it much better.\" \"I don't think there's really much difference. They don't forget as much, 1 guess.\" \"It seems like they know more, the remember more having the shorter breaks. \"It helps them not forget as much. Instead of having that long summer break, they don't have as much of a chance to forget as much.\" \"Well, I think it teaches them a little more. What I mean by that is that they still have the learning going on, and they don't loose it as quick.\" \"I think the main difference is just that they are in school more. They don't have a chance to forget as much and they leam more.\" Intersession \"I think its the Inter-sessions that are good. \"1 guess when they are doing the Intersession. That's different\" \"The Intersession program helps them pick up where they left off. It helps them catch up and not forget things. My three did really well with it STUDENT LEARNING DIFFERENCES 5Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 7 of 36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONrH SCHOOLS Question 4: Are there things about the EY calendar that help kids learn better? Desoipiion Percentage of Responses Kids are in school more. 7% Shorter breaks/vacations. 14% Kids forget less academic content. 29% Shorter gaps in teaching. 3% Kids remember better how to behave in school. 3% Inter-sessions help kids learn more. 12% Teachers 12% No difference noted 20% Free Responses: \"I really don't see a difference. If you had said a magnet school. I might have been able to elaborate a little more. They don't forget as much.\" I can't say, but they should explain the take home lessons more to the students so that we can help more  but that may be on her. Let's not lay the blame on the school. We'll split it\" \"No, academically, my kids are smart enough that they will achieve. There is nothing about the year-round school that is better. I don't like it' That's a tough question. What can I say? All 1 know is that he is a good boy and has good grades so far.\" They are just in more, so they don't forget as much and they have more time to learn new information.\" \"I do think that only being out for five weeks in the summer helps them get back into the swing of things faster. The kids learn a lot more for the next grade. \"I know when I was in elementary school I would come back to school half way clueless after the summer. \"I don't think so. I don't think they really do anything differently. Il's the longer time that makes the difference. \"Summer is not so long, so he seems to remember things better.\" (free responses continued on next page) O' SCHOOL LEARNING EFFECTIVENCSS 6Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 8 of 36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS \"Student learning differences,\" continued from previous page. \"She doesn't seem to forget as much \" \"He doesn't seem to forget as much. He seems to have a short attention span sometimes, so I think it tends to help kids like him.\" \"They seem like they remember better. The intersession program. We really liked that \"I don't know why. It seems like the teachers pay a little bit more attention to them. \"The inter-sessions are good. They are learning all the time, so they just don't have chance to forget \"The shorter breaks are better. 1 like the fact that there are more short breaks rather than one long break. Special programs like the inter-sessions and resource classes are really good. Well, the kids are in school more, and I think that helps. The shorter breaks. 1 liked the inter-sessions.\" \"The teachers, I guess. They just stay on the kids more. \"The shorter break, I think, makes the biggest difference for my kids. \"The teachers just have more time to leach them more. \"The teachers are really good. \"They are in school more, it seems. 1 think its actually about the same number of days, but it seems like they are in more. I like it much better.\" \"They just remember more.\" \"I think the teachers are much better here. They listen, and they really work with the kids. \"They don't forget everything over summer. It's easier on them, in my opinion. fy SCHOOL LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS 8Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 9 of 36 LrmE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS Question 5: In comparing EY to 9-month schools, do you think that children feel differently about school or about themselves in one type versus another? Description Percentage of Responses Yes, a lot 25% Yes, a little. 12% No. 63% Free Responses (note\nonly parents who answered yes are recorded.): \"I think she enjoyed going, but when the other kids were ouE she hated going, and it shorted our vacation time, too.\" \"They don't like it when other families get to go on vacations in the summer and we cannot. We don't like it at all. Penod. The only difference that I noticed is that they were upset because they had to stay longer - everyone else being on break and them being in school.\" \"From my house, in a one mile radius, I can hit three elementary schools with a stone. On my street atone, there are kids that go to all three. So for my boys, it's a real problem when they are on break because no one else is. They are all atone. That sucks.\" \"He likes to be out when the other children are out\" \"When they switched over, the girls were in a lower grade and they enjoyed this more because there are bigger breaks spread out over the year.\" \"At first it bothered her when she had friends that were on summer vacation and she wasn't. But now, I think she likes have more breaks during the year.\" \"This is his last year, and now rt seems to bother him that other kids are out and he isn't But he likes school.\" \"My second grader does not even like school any more, and that is not good at all. She did really well in year-round school, and now she is in a regular calendar and she rsn't doing well at all.\" \"They complain a little about yexr know, that other kids are out and they aren't.\" \"They do complain. 'Why do we have to go so longZ They don't like that too much.\" \"My oldest loves school, and when they are out of school she doesn't really like it She's an A student she is\" \"I'll tell you, they didn't particularly like it but rt worked well for me.\" \"My baby has been in it the whole time, ever since they started, so he doesn't know anything different' \"He does complain when my other is out lor summer, but I think he really, in general, Irkes it a lot\" STUDENT FEELINGS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTH SCHOOL 8Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page10of36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOIS Question 6 (note: only asked of parents who answered yes\" to question 5.): Does your child/children talk about the fact that they are in an EY school? If yes, what kinds of things do they say? Free Responses\n\"No, not that I can say.\" \"They complain about it all the time! \"No. Hes a quiet kid.\" \"Yes A couple of my kids in the past year got to go to some of the things they have during Intersections and they really liked that\" \"He didn't like it because he had to sit inside grandma's house all day. In the end, I think they ought to put all elementary schools in or take them all out.\" Yes. \"Why am I still in school and they are out.\" \"Alt the time. They didnt like the year-round school at first but they are adjusting.' \"Not really. I guess it's just fine.\" \"I think they like it They seemed to like school more when they were at Mabelville.\" Yes. They wanted to stay. They asked why they couldn't stay.\" When there are other kids out in the summer, they complain about that\" \"You know, I have eight kids, and most of them go to regular schools, so my two that are in year-round, you know, they complain when the others ate out But like now, they are out for two weeks and the others are jealous.\" \"No, not that I can say.\" They complain about it all the timer \"No. He's a quiet kid.\" \"Yes A couple of my kids in the past year got to go to some of the things they have during Intersections, and they really liked that\" \"He didn't like it because he had to sit inside grandmas house all day. In the end, I think they ought to put all elementary schools in or take them all out\" 'Yes. \"Why am I still in school and they are ouL\" \"All the time. They didnt like the year-round school at first, but they are adjusting.\" \"Not really. I guess its just fine.\" \"I think they like it They seemed to like school more when they were at Mabelville.\" \"Yes. They wanted to stay. They asked why they couldnt stay.\" \"When there are other kids out in the summer, they complain about that\" \"You know, I have eight kids, and most of them go to regular schools, so my two that are in year-round, you know, they complain when the others are out But like now, they are out for two weeks and the others are jealous.\" STUDENT FEEUNQS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTH SCHOOL 9Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 11 of 36 UTTIE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- S-MONIH SCHOOLS Question 7: Does your child/children receive any specialized education services (gifted programs, ESL classes, remedial classes)? DesaipiiM Pertartage of Responses Gifted and talented 16.2% Music 2.7% Resource classes 2.7% No. 78.4% STUDENT EEEUNCS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTU SCHOOL 10Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 12 of 36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MON1H SCHOOLS Question 8: Does your family utilize before or afterschool childcare programs? Description Percentage of Responses Yes. 10.8% No. 892% STUDENT FEELINGS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTH SCHOOL nCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 13 of 36 Section VIL Conclusions and Implications This section is not included in the draft evaluation report. Section II of this draft contains an outline of preliminary conclusions from the analyses shown in sections III through VI. These conclusions as revised will be elaborated in Section II of the final report and discussed in Section VII of the final report.Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 14 of 36 APPENDICESCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page15of36 TABLE VI. 1.A Cloverdale Parent Survey Results My children show a greater interest In their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 95 23 30 148 148 148 148 64% 16% 20% 100% My children like having a number of short vacation periods. Number IFF Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 81 49 18 148 148 148 148 55% 33% 12% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my children. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 63 50 38 151 151 151 151 42% 33% 25% 100% My children have achieved at a higher level than In their previous 9-month school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 58 53 41 152 152 152 152 38% 35% 27% 100% Our personal family life activities such as church, scouts, clubs, etc, have not been affected. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 105 30 11 146 146 146 146 72% 21% 8% 100% My children have attended one or more intersessions this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 87 40 28 155 155 155 155 56% 26% 18% 100% This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 69 45 42 156 156 156 156 44% 29% 27% 100% I want my children to continue In this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 80 44 30 154 154 154 154 52% 29% 19% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 16 of 36 Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Number of children In a YRE school 1 2 3 4+ total 32 119 151 113 5 25 143 70 50 24 6 150 Number of children enrolled in regular schools before they were enrolled in a YRE school. 0 1 2 3 4+ total 29 52 39 11 8 139 Children attending school on a regular May-August calendar Elementary Middle schoo senior high 40 21 18 Gracie level of children K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 35 51 35 28 36 13 198Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 17 of 36 TABLE VI.2.A Cloverdale Student Survey Results I have been more interested in my education this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 85 8 2 95 95 95 95 89% 8% 2% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 47 48 4 99 99 99 99 47% 48% 4% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 55 22 21 98 98 98 98 56% 22% 21% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 55 33 9 97 97 97 97 57% 34% 9% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 83 11 4 98 98 98 98 85% 11% 4% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed it. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 84 5 10 99 99 99 99 85% 5% 10% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 82 10 7 99 99 99 99 83% 10% 7% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 66 18 15 99 99 99 99 67% 18% 15% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 18 of 36 My parents like the extended-year program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 51 33 16 100 too too 100 51% 33% 16% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 41 47 9 97 97 97 97 42% 48% 9% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 65 12 11 88 86 88 88 74% 14% 13% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4 th Sth Total 46 49 95 72 4 20 96 27 31 27 85 Last grade spent in regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 17 2 20 27 17 8 5 96Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 19 of 36 TABLE VI.2.B Mabelvale Student Survey Results I have been more interested in my educalion this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 4 5 34 34 34 34 74% 12% 15% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 17 13 3 33 33 33 33 52% 39% 9% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 9 1 35 35 35 35 71% 26% 3% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 19 11 5 35 35 35 35 54% 31% 14% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 28 3 4 35 35 35 35 80% 9% 11% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help vrhen I've needed it. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 27 5 2 34 34 34 34 79% 15% 6% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 23 9 2 34 34 34 34 68% 26% 6% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 18 12 3 33 33 33 33 55% 36% 9% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 20 of 36 My parents like the extended-year program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 23 3 7 33 33 33 33 70% 9% 21% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 22 11 1 34 34 34 34 65% 32% 3% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 23 6 2 31 31 31 31 74% 19% 6% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black While Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4th_________ 5lh_________ Total 12 23 35 26 4 4 34 15 20 0 35 Last grade spent In regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 11 4 1 10 6 1 0 33Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 21 of 36 TABLE VI.2.B Mabelvale Student Survey Results I have been more Interested in my education this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 4 5 34 34| 34 34 74% 12% 15% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 17 13 3 33 33 33 33 52% 39% 9% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 9 1 35 35 35 35 71% 26% 3% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to ail Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 19 11 5 35 35 35 35 54% 31% 14% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 28 3 4 35 35 35 35 80% 9% 11% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when Ive needed h. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 27 5 2 34 34 34 34 79% 15% 6% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 23 9 2 34 34 34 34 68% 26% 6% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 18 12 3 33 33 33 33 55% 36% 9% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 22 of 36 I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 22 11 1 34 34 34 34 65% 32% 3% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 23 6 2 31 31 31 31 74% 19% 6% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4th_________ 5th_________ Total 12 23 35 26 4 4 34 15 20 0 35 Last grade spent In regular school Never K 1 2 11 4 1 10Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 23 of 36 TABLE VI.2.D Stephens Student Survey Results I have been more interested in my education this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 127 11 13 151 151 151 151 84% 7% 9% 100% i like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 55 84 12 151 151 151 151 Percent 36% 56% 8% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9.month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 81 36 22 139 139 139 139 58% 26% 16% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 79 58 12 149 149 149 149 53% 39% 8% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 125 11 14 150 150 150 150 83% 7% 9% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed It. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 107 22 23 152 152 152 152 70% 147o 15% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 113 19 21 153 153 153 153 74% 12% 14% 100% I have liked the Intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 91 27 35 153 153 153 153 59% 18% 23% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01 /13/2006 Page 24 of 36 My parents like the extended-year program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 81 31 36 148 148 148 148 55% 21% 24% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 59 67 17 143 143 143 143 Percent 41% 47% 12% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 68 18 40 126 126 126 126 54% 14% 32% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4th Sth Total 68 81 149 132 1 12 145 61 52 32 145 Last grade spent in regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 29 35 13 29 26 10 6 148Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 25 of 36 TABLE VI.2.E Woodruff Student Survey Results I have been more interested in my education this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 42 5 8 55 55 55 55 76% 9% 15% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 37 6 57 57 57 57 25% 65% 11% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 34 16 10 60 60 60 60 57% 27% 17% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 24 24 13 61 61 61 61 39% 39% 21% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 43 9 8 60 60 60 60 72% 15% 13% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed It. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 46 10 4 60 60 60 60 77% 17% 7% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 34 14 10 58 58 58 58 59% 24% 17% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 40 10 9 59 59 59 59 68% 17% 15% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 26 of 36 My parents like the extended-year program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 36 14 11 61 61 61 61 59% 23% 18% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 26 29 7 62 62 62 62 42% 47% 11% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 36 14 7 57 57 57 57 63% 25% 12% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4th Sth Total 27 33 60 56 3 1 60 17 20 21 58 Last grade spent In regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 11 23 6 8 6 5 1 60Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 27 of 36 TABLE VI.S.A Cloverdale Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater Interest In their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 1 4 11 11 11 11 55% 9% 36% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 0 0 11 11 11 11 Percent 100% 0% 0% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 9 0 2 11 11 11 11 82% 0% 18% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have In their previous 9-monlh school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 1 4 11 11 11 11 55% 9% 36% 100% Parents are more Involved In their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 3 3 5 11 11 11 11 27% 27% 45% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols In this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 1 4 11 11 11 11 55% 9% 36% 100% 6 I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 2 3 11 11 11 11 55% 18% 27% 100% My students benefit from their Intersesslon(s). Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 8 0 2 10 10 10 10 80% 0% 20% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 28 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 9 1 1 11 11 11 11 82% 9% 9% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 4 1 11 11 11 11 55% 36% 9% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 8 1 2 11 11 11 11 73% 9% 18% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 10 0 1 11 11 11 11 91% 0% 9% 100% Male Female Total 3 8 11 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 6 6 0 12Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 29 of 36 TABLE VI.3.B Mabelvale Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater interest In their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 10 6 8 24 24 24 24 42% 25% 33% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 18 1 5 24 24 24 24 75% 4% 21% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 7 6 24 24 24 24 46% 29% 25% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 13 4 8 25 25 25 25 52% 16% 32% 100% Parents are more involved in their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 4 9 10 23 23 23 23 17% 39% 43% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols in this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 7 3 24 24 24 24 58% 29% 13% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 13 5 4 22 22 22 22 59% 23% 18% 100% My students benefit from their intersesslon(s). Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 4 6 24 24 24 24 58% 17% 25% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01 /13/2006 Page 30 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 13 3 7 23 23 23 23 57% 13% 30% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 8 3 22 22 22 22 50% 36% 14% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 15 7 1 23 23 23 23 65% 30% 4% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 17 2 4 23 23 23 23 74% 9% 17% 100% Male Female Total 2 20 22 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 3 16 0 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 31 of 36 TABLE VI.3.C Mitchell Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater Interest in their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 3 8 6 17 17 17 17 18% 47% 35% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 5 3 6 14 14 14 14 36% 21% 43% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 10 5 1 16 16 16 16 63% 31% 6% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 1 10 6 17 17 17 17 6% 59% 35% 100% Parents are more involved in their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 0 12 5 17 17 17 17 0% 71% 29% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols In this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 5 10 2 17 17 17 17 29% 59% 12% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 3 11 2 16 16 16 16 19% 69% 13% 100% My students benefit from their Intersession(s). Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 12 2 3 17 17 17 17 71% 12% 18% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 32 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity In academic instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 5 7 5 17 17 17 17 29% 41% 29% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 8 8 1 17 17 17 17 47% 47% 6% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 3 10 3 16 16 16 16 19% 63% 19% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 3 0 17 17 17 17 82% 18% 0% 100% Male Female Total 1 15 16 Ethnicity Black While Other Total 11 4 0 15Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 33 of 36 TABLE VI.S.D Stephens Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater interest In their educational program. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 13 6 35 35 35 35 Percent 46% 37% 17% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 22 8 4 34 34 34 34 65% 24% 12% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 12 6 34 34 34 34 Percent 47% 35% 18% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 16 8 35 35 35 35 31% 46% 23% 100% Parents are more Involved In their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 2 26 7 35 35 35 35 6% 74% 20% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols In this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 13 8 35 35 35 35 40% 37% 23% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 15 4 35 35 35 35 Percent 46% 43% 11% 100% My students benefit from their Intersesslonfs). Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 11 7 34 34 34 34 47% 32% 21% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 34 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity In academic instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 14 5 35 35 35 35 46% 40% 14% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 22 11 2 35 35 35 35 63% 31% 6% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 12 16 6 34 34 34 34 35% 47% 18% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 24 8 4 36 36 36 36 Percent 67% 22% 11% 100% Male Female Total 1 32 33 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 14 18 0 32Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 35 of 36 TABLE VI.3.E Woodruff Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater interest In their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 4 8 23 23 23 23 48% 17% 35% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 2 4 22 22 22 22 73% 9% 18% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 17 4 1 22 22 22 22 77% 18% 5% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have In their previous 9-month school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 9 5 8 22 22 22 22 41% 23% 36% 100% Parents are more Involved In their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 11 5 22 22 22 22 27% 50% 23% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols In this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 4 1 21 21 21 21 76% 19% 5% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 15 4 4 23 23 23 23 65% 17% 17% 100% My students benefit from their intersesslon(s). Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 1 5 22 22 22 22 73% 5% 23% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 36 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provide* continuity In academic Instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 15 3 4 22 22 22 22 68% 14% 18% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 12 6 5 23 23 23 23 52% 26% 22% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 10 6 5 21 21 21 21 48% 29% 24% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 20 0 2 22 22 22 22 91% 0% 9% 100% Male Female Total 2 17 19 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 8 9 1 18\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_807","title":"\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-01/2006-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","School boards","School employees","School superintendents","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/807"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n' BOARD OF EDUCATION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:00 P. M. MEETING AGENDA NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT I. II. III. IV. V. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Thursday, January 19, 2006-5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER, Marty Moore, President INVOCATION, Gregory Fudge, a Glenview Elementary Third Grader, son of Ms. Merlene Honorable FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Special Recognition: 1. Mrs. Mable Mitchell, Retiring NLRSD Board of Education Member 2. Maria Touchstone, Who's Who in the Hispanic Community by El Latino newspaper Superintendent's Honor Roll: I. Ann McKaig, Poplar Street Middle Special Education Aide 2. Wilma White, Poplar Street Middle Special Education Aide VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, December 15, 2005 5 P.M. - Regular Meeting- Page A- 1 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS Page 2 - Board Agenda January 19, 2006 A. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider B. Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report -G. Tucker C. Consider 2004 - 2005 Student Discipline Analysis Report - F. Jackson D. Consider Master Facility Plan Report-J. Massey (Open Public Hearing for Comments on Master Facility Plan) E. Consider Elementary North Central Association Membership - K. Lowe F. Consider Computer Leasing -G. Daniels-Page B - 1 G . Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 2. Consider bid items - Page R - 1 3. Consider building use request - Page S - 1 4. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Regular Board Meeting-Thursday, February 16, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. District Financial Update- G. Daniels XI. PERSONNEL HEARING XII. SUPERINTENDENT'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW XIII. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES December 15, 2005 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, December 15, 2005 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. In public comments: A North Little Rock High School parent spoke to the Board about her daughter being removed from the basketball team. A Ridgeroad Middle Charter School teacher addressed the Board to encourage them to vote for the charter renewal at RRMCS. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:25 p.m. Noah Delashaw, a Pike View Elementary third grader, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Mable Mitchell, Member Absent None Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) and NLRHS-TV (video) taped the meeting. A-1 RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, presented outgoing Board President Teresa Burl with a gavel and the Board thanked her for her great leadership for the past two years. Mrs. Brazear introduced Kathy Heller and Lynn Fortner, Lakewood Middle School teachers as new National Board Certified Teachers. John Riley presented them with a certificate\nthanked them for their hard work and continued dedication to the students of our district. Lisa Meyer, McCain Mall/Simon Properties manager, was introduced as a Partner in Education with the North Little Rock School District. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION John Riley moved to accept the minutes of the November 17, 2005 Regular meeting as printed. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None UNFINISHED BUSINESS . A.V. \"Buster\" Beardsley of Beardsley Finance presented the final documents to the Board to facilitate the special election on March 14, 2006 for debt restructuring for the North Little Rock School District. MOTION Trent Cox moved to adopt the attached resolution with the proposed 2007 - 2008 budget for the purpose of authorizing a special election on March 14, 2006 for debt restructuring. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None Rochelle Redus moved to petition the Commissioner of Education and the County Board of Election Commissioners to call a special election on March 14, 2006. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None NEW BUSINESS Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker presented the report. The committee requests two new policies be added to the classified personnel policies. The first policy is 3.6 - CL Professional Development which was revised from the certified policy 3.6 Professional Development. A-2 MOTION Teresa Burl moved to adopt 3.6- CL Professional Development as presented. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None The second policy is CFC-CL Work Schedules In Case oflnclement Weather. Mrs. Tucker explained the wording needed to be changed for classified staff. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept CFC- CL Work Schedules In Case oflnclement Weather as presented. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None Ridgeroad Middle Charter School Renewal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education, presented information concerning the charter renewal. Mrs. Haynie provided financial and discipline information, test data, surveys of parents, teachers and former students. The Board reviewed and discussed the information and made several inquiries of Mrs. Haynie and other administrators. Some inquired concerning possible modifications about bells being utilized and teachers having using their prep time for planning instead of meetings. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to apply for renewal of the Ridgeroad Middle School's charter with modifications. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Mitchell, Redus, and Riley Cox, Moore, and Teague Mrs. Mitchell requested Mrs. Moore to suspend the meeting for an announcement. Mable Mitchell, Zone 1 Board member, announced after sixteen years she was retiring from the school board. She has enjoyed working with the Board and for the students and staffs of our district. All of the Board members thanked Mrs. Mitchell for her years of service to our district. Mrs. Mitchell exited the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Mrs. Moore called for a recess at 7:05 p.m. The Board reconvened in session at 7:35 p.m. A-3 Elementary Textbook Adoption Committee Recommendation Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education, presented the committee's recommendation of Harcourt for mathematics beginning with the 2006 - 2007 school year. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the committee's recommendation for Harcourt math textbooks in the elementary schools for the 2006 - 2007 school year. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) ABC Infant Toddler Program Proposal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education, also proposed an infant toddler program at Argenta Academy to serve the parents that are students at Argenta Academy. Mrs. Lowe explained the program would be funded with excess ABC funds. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept Administration's recommendation to implement an infant toddler program at Argenta Academy. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Kirspel requested the approval of the consent agenda as printed in the agenda. MOTION Teresa Burl. moved to accept the consent agenda as presented by Superintendent Kirspel. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Extra Curricular Duty Compensation Committee Report Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel and Special Education, explained the committee had been diligently meeting and would have their extensive report ready for the Board in February. A-4 Transitional Academic Facilities Program and Master Facility Plan Jerry Massey, Plant Services Director, updated the Board on the progress of the plans to be submitted to the State in February. Mr. Massey will present his complete Master Facility Plan in January. STUDENT EXPULSIONS Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, recommended Jason Parks, a 10th grade East Campus student, expelled for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of Board policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol. Neither the student nor his parent/guardian was present. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to expel Jason Parks for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) Mr. Acklin recommended Ashley L. Layton, a 10th grade West Campus student, expelled for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of policy 4.22 Weapons and Dangerous Instruments. Her parents requested a closed hearing. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to enter into a closed session for the student expulsion hearing. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) The Board entered into a closed hearing at 8: I 5 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 9:25 p.m. MOTION Scott Teague moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to expel Ashley Layton for one full calendar year for violation of policy 4.22 Weapons and Dangerous Instruments. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) Fran Jackson, Director of Student Affairs, recommended Kathryn Stone, a Lakewood Middle School seventh grade student, expelled for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of Board policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol. Her parent requested a closed hearing. A-5 MOTION Trent Cox moved to enter into a closed session for the student expulsion hearing. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) The Board entered into a closed hearing at 9:25 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at I 0:40 p.m. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to expel Kathryn Stone for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) PERSONNEL HEARING Mr. Reed explained the employee had requested the hearing delayed until the January meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Marty Moore, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-6 N (0)l ET IEI lLIITTlL~ JE(O)CJEC I PTIJIB3ClLCI IC CJ B(I0 )( 0)I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET January 10, 2006 Memo to: From: Subject: Mr. Kenneth Kirspel, Superintendent Greg Daniels, CFO/Clo@ Recommendation for Leasing Computers The Technology Division recommends that the North Little Rock School District begin leasing computers instead of direct purchase. We have received proposals from Dell, NetGain (HP Compaq), and Jeny Rice representing ByteSpeed. We are recommending that we begin the process of leasing computers from Dell Corporation with the acquisition of 1,000 desktop computers and 50 laptops the first year beginning immediately. Year 2 would be a lease of 500 computers and 50 laptops. Year 3 would be a lease of 500 computers and 50 laptops. Year 4 would replace the first year's lease. The leasing program will be a vehicle to transport students and teachers into the 21st century technology. The computer is a valuable tool and not an end in itself. Decision Criteria  How many kids will be helped? Entire student population  Can we sustain it? Yes. Current purchase budgets will be transferred to lease options.  How much will it improve student achievement? A tool to utilize various software in the remediation of core subjects, advanced subjects, etc.  Haw far will it take (move) us toward our vision? A tool that will help us assist students in reaching their maximum potential. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 50V771-8000 B - 1 I North Llttle Rock School District - al Revenue Current Taxes Pullback Delinquent Taxes Excess Commissions Land Redemption Penalties \u0026amp; Interest on Taxes Tuition-Summer School/Day Care Interest on Investments Soft Drink Sales Misc Rev From Local Total Local Revenue Revenue From Intermediate Source I Severance Tax Revenue from State Sources Unrestricted State Equalization Aid Student Growth Funding Other Unrestricted Grants-in- Aid Restricted Regular Education Special Education Early Childhood M-to-M Non-Instr Pgms Misc State e State NUE OPERATIONS d Total Revenu TOTAL REVE Building Fun Capital Outla Food Service Federal Revenue y TOTAL FEDE TOTAL REVE s Unrestricted-PL 874 Title I-B-4 ROTC Satellite EciRes.earch Title-I Title V-A Innovative Pgm Homeless Assistance Carl Perkins - Vocational Title 11-0 Formula Grant Title VI -B Head Start Special Ed Preschool Medicaid Eisenhower Math/Science Title Ill - Eng Lang Acq Title IV-A Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Comprehensive Sch Health Accountability RAL REVENUE NUE December 2005 2005-2006 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-O Actual $13,735,000.00 $6,999,481.59 $12,078,615.58 $6,530,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,410,000.00 $347,986.15 $791,399.09 $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $181,000.00 $0.00 $111,983.42 $42,000.00 $21,958' .62 $44,841.87 $102,500.00 $3,166.07 $18,577.82 $360,000.00 $77,049.78 $305,483.82 $90,000.00 $6,872.25 $34,635.09 $819,990.00 $1,793.00 $52,884.32 $23,420,490.00 $7,458,307.46 $13,438,421.01 $13,000.001 $0.001 $4,693.831 $33,414,099.00 $3,037,645.00 $15,188,225.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 $0.00 $1,750.00 $499,745.00 $6,000.00 $477,085.74 $4,866,499.00 $279,251.00 $2,021,464.00 $2, 155,150.00 $0.00 $1,211,650.00 $4,825,000.00 $403,187.00 $1,897,464.52 $1,805,435.00 $125,327.45 $935,065.10 $136,000.00 $12,160.40 $17,882.33 $47,710,928.00 $3,863,570.85 $21,750,586.69 $71,144,418.00 $11,321,878.31 $35,193,701.53 $46,000.00 $93,583.05 $109,083.05 $1,523,253.00 $560,773.38 $824,521.98 $3,213,000.00 $372,620.46 $1,218,050.79 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $65,549.00 $0.00 $0.00 $120,000.00 $8,595.11 $38,843.53 $180,000.00 $0.00 $180,000.00 $3,175,702.00 $0.00 $0.00 $276,426.00 $0.00 $236,924.00 $180,000.00 $0.00 $183,000.00 $202,587.00 $4,500.00 $155,146.00 $58,407.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1 871,018.00 $980 648.00 $980,648.00 $705,491.00 $239,121.00 $239,121.00 $361,000.00 $44,944.30 $132,393.56 $610,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,976.00 $0.00 $0.00 $73,706.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $65,000.00 $0.00 $12,334.83 $7,964,362.00 $1,281,808.41 $2,162,410.92 $83,891,033.00 $13,630,663.61 $39,507,768.27 0-1 % of Budqet Balance Balance $1,656,384.42 87.94% $6,530,000.00 0.00% $618,600.91 56.13% $150,000.00 0.00% $69,016.58 61.87% -$2,841.87 106.77% $83,922.18 18.12% $54,516.18 84.86% $55,364.91 38.48% $767,105.68 6.45% $9,982,068.99 57.38% $8,306.171 36.11%1 $18,225,874.00 45.45% $0.00 $7,250.00 19.44% $22,659.26 95.47% $2,845,035.00 41.54% $943,500.00 56.22% $2,927,535.48 39.33% $870,369.90 51.79% $118,117.67 13.15% $25,960,341.31 45.59% $35,950,716.47 49.47% -$63,083.05 237.14% $698,731.02 54.13% $1,994,949.21 37.91% $2,500.00 0.00% $65,549.00 0.00% $81,156.47 32.37% $0.00 100.00% $3,175,702.00 0.00% $39,502.00 85.71% -$3,000.00 101.67% $47,441.00 76.58% $58,407.00 0.00% $890,370.00 52.41% $466,370.00 33.89% $228,606.44 36.67% $610,000.00 0.00% $16,976.00 0.00% $73,706.00 0.00% -$4,000.00 $52,665.17 18.98% $5,801,951.08 27.15% $44,383,264.73 47.09% Expenditure Category CERTIFIED SALARIES CERTIFIED BENEFITS CLASSIFIED SALARIES CLASSIFIED BENEFITS TOTAL SALARIES \u0026amp; BENEFITS Purchased-Profrr ech Services Purchased Property Services Other Purchased Services Supplies and Materials Property Other Objects Other Uses of Funds Total Other Expenditures OPERATING FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND BUILDING FUND FEDERAL FUND FOOD SERVICE FUND TOT AL EXPENDITURES North Little Rock School District December 2005 2005-2006 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual $34,874,548.00 $4,359,784.15 $13,932,514.11 $10,107,052.41 $894,971.22 $2,910,445.82 $10,422,770.60 $1,163,456.48 $4,522,738.56 $3,857,441.17 $331,927.07 $1,355,642.85 $59,261,812.18 $6,750,138.92 $22,721,341.34 $977,902.19 $70,575.34 $363,549.05 $979,384.54 $79,678.13 $430,744.57 $2,537,508.99 $143,130.16 $663,102.86 $4,669,020.15 $270,807.69 $2,188,091.09 $274,292.00 $21,575.52 $108,372.50 $1,005,410.84 $14,814.00 $486,980.00 $700,207.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,143,725.71 $600,580.84 $4,240,840.07 $70,405,537.89 $7,350,719.76 $26,962,181.41 $1,599,207.00 $81,025.68 $725, 166.27 $1,676,206.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,635,909.95 $525,143.17 $2,035,212.79 $2,942,736.00 $360,311.40 $1,621,128.66 $86,259,596.84 $8,317,200.01 $31,343,689.13 0-2 %of Budget Budget Balance Balance $20,942,033.89 39.95% $7,196,606.59 28.80% $5,900,032.04 43.39% $2,501,798.32 35.14% $36,540,470.84 38.34% $614,353.14 37.18% $548,639.97 43.98% $1,874,406.13 26.13% $2,480,929.06 46.86% $165,919.50 39.51% $518,430.84 48.44% $700,207.00 0.00% $6,902,885.64 38.06% $43,443,356.48 38.30% $874,040.73 45.35% $1,676,206.00 0.00% . $7,600,697.16 21.12% $1,321,607.34 55.09% $54,915,907.71 36.34% North Little Rock School District FUNCTION  December 2005 2005-2006 Current Function Category Budget Month Actual Y-T-D Actual 11 XX Regular Programs-Elem/Sec $27,427,290.72 $3,139,121.58 $10,494,315.10 12XX Special Education $9,477,206.00 $1,010,559.34 $3,130,019.87 13XX Workforce Education $2,077,304.00 $164,883.33 $755,118.84 15XX Compensatory Education $3,857,957.00 $241,817.42 $763,905.05 19XX Other Instructional $3,200,050.51 $347,328.34 $1,118,567.74 21XX Support Services-Students $7,141,053.00 $650,326.87 $2,182,111.74 22XX Suport Services-Instruction $5,587,492.92 $509,562.02 $1,958,476.92 23XX Support Services-Administration $1,092,984.39 $94,911.22 $392,042.77 24XX Support Services-Sch Adm in $4,337,794.80 $487,723.61 $1,908,077.52 25XX Support Services-Business $673,014.00 $75,067.52 $333,207.75 26XX M \u0026amp; 0 Plant Services $6,521,692.50 $562,445.16 $3,252,294.66 27XX Pupil Transportation $4,141,782.00 $372,309.27 $1,728,456.37 28XX Support Services-Central $1,494,281.00 $162,284.97 $689,008.42 29XX Other Support Services $456,555.00 $49,291.86 $181,291.15 31 XX Food Services $3,615,511.00 $426,537.56 $1,876,891.00 33XX Community Service Operations $71,841.00 $1,067.22 $2,605.22 34XX Other Non-Instr Services $68,243.00 $14,592.09 $49,662.39 43XX Site Improvement Services $0.00 $5,295.00 $5,295.00 46XX Bldq Acq/Constr Services $45,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 47XX Building Improvements $1,676,206.00 $0.00 $0.00 51XX LEA Indebtedness $1,889,564.00 $2,500.00 $522,341.62 53XX Payment to other LEA $1,270,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 55XX Indirect CosUAdmin Charqes $136,274.00 -$424.37 $0.00 GRAND TOTAL $86,259,596.84 $8,317,200.01 $31,343,689.13 0-3 %of Budget Budget Balance Balance $16,932,975.62 38.26% $6,347,186.13 33.03% $1,322,185.16 36.35% $3,094,051.95 19.80% $2,081,482.77 34.95% $4,958,941.26 30.56% $3,629,016.00 35.05% $700,941.62 35.87% $2,429,717.28 43.99% $339,806.25 49.51% $3,269,397.84 49.87% $2,413,325.63 41.73% $805,272.58 46.11 % $275,263.85 39.71% $1,738,620.00 51.91% $69,235.78 3.63% $18,580.61 72.77% -$5,295.00 $45,500.00 0.00% $1,676,206.00 0.00% $1,367,222.38 27.64% $1,270,000.00 0.00% $136,274.00 0.00% $54,915,907.71 36.34% North Little Rock S~hool District SOURCE OF FUNDS - December 2005 2005-2006 . %of Current Budget Budget Source of Funds Category Budget Month Actual Y-T-D Actual Balance Balance 000 Non-categorical $67,849,075.08 $6,722,853.14 $26,114,644.23 $41,734,430.85 38.49% 020 Alternative-Local $7,047.00 $125.00 $580.65 $6,466.35 8.24% 045 Summer School $58,375.00 $0.00 $26,718.25 $31,656.75 45.77% 050 Camp Robinson Work Pgm $44,000.00 $1,581.33 $7,548.70 $36,451.30 17.16% 053 Grr Summer Quest $535.00 $0.00 $0.00 $535.00 0.00% 055 Soft Drink Sales $207,352.31 $10,883.63 $37,648.84 $169,703.47 18.16% 066 Teachers of Tomorrow $0.00 $375.00 $375.00 -$375.00 075 Arkansas Arts Council $0.00 $120.00 $240.00 -$240.00 083 Ark Heritage/Wildwood $640.00 $0.00 $640.00 $0.00 100.00% 090 Yale 21st Century $25,000.00 $1,863.92 $4,923.05 $20,076.95 19.69% 095 ADE Gates Grant $4,283.15 $0.00 $0.00 $4,283.15 0.00% 213 Intensive School Improvement $9,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 0.00% 223 Prof Development Act 59 $521,961.22 $46,976.36 $211,293.97 $310,667.25 40.48% 225 Technology Grant $1,724.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,724.00 0.00% 227 CPEP $71,710.00 $0.00 $18,581.89 $53,128.11 25.91% 245 Pathwise Mentoring $63,969.00 $26,874.43 $32,379.64 $31,589.36 50.62% 250 Act 591 Residential $73,000.00 $1,800.00 $12,250.00 $60,750.00 16.78% 260 Early Childhood Sp Ed $729,627.00 $86,606.72 $282,269.71 $447,357.29 38.69% 271 Gff Advance Placement $4,000.78 $0.00 $204.00 $3,796.78 5.10% 275 Alternative Learning Environment $1,290,745.00 $144,822.26 $448,435.61 $842,309.39 34.74% 276 Enqlish Lanq Learners $68,973.00 $8,439.63 $22,199.32 $46,773.68 32.19% 281 NSLA $2,710,070.00 $468,820.84 $1,052,516.54 $1,657,553.46 38.84%  340 Workforce Start-up $28,090.00 $0.00 $577.65 $27,512.35 2.06% 365 ABC Preschool $2,198,770.08 $215,626.26 $732,621.33 $1,466,148.75 33.32% 381 Smart Start Literacy $80,619.00 $8,051.83 $36,821.05 $43,797.95 45.67% 392 General Facility Funding $564,409.00 $46,212.84 $264,350.95 $300,058.05 46.84% 398 OHS Preschool Improvement $10,711.27 $23.65 $655.96 $10,055.31 6.12% 406 lmprv Lit Thru Libraries $0.00 $4,926.49 $23,068.17 -$23,068.17 430 ROTC $120,000.00 $13,342.76 $49,713.10 $70,286.90 41.43% 441 Title IV-8 21st Century $242,547.76 $30,203.86 $107,514.78 $135,032.98 44.33% 501 Title I-Reg Comp Ed $4,490,638.39 $144,961.91 $540,414.94 $3,950,223.45 12.03% 504 Title I Proqram Improvement $0.00 $0.00 $420.89 -$420.89 520 Title V-A Innovative Program $344,251.00 $0.00 $0.00 $344,251.00 0.00% 523 Title I Readinq First $234,444.00 $29,291.72 $80,064.37 $154,379.63 34.15% 530 Homeless-Stewart McKinney $19,209.00 $598.93 $8,297.45 $10,911.55 43.20% 535 Title V-8 Charter Schools $131,053.54 $54.35 $77,730.85 $53,322.69 59.31% 565 Teacher Quality Enhancement $0.00 $7,700.87 $23,610.85 -$23,610.85 570 Carl Perkins Vocational $196,114.00 $4,544.32 $122,715.56 $73,398.44 62.57% 595 Title 11-0 Ed Technoloqy $61,493.95 $0.00 $0.00 $61,493.95 0.00% 702 Title VI-B PL 94-142 $1,780,741.00 $144,985.18 $472,305.02 $1,308,435.98 26.52% 703 Title Vl-8 Head Start $89,910.00 $8,998.05 $30,484.82 $59,425.18 33.91% 710 Sp Ed Preschool Sec 619 $823,280.00 $75,092.58 $249,593.53 $573,686.47 30.32% 720 Title Vl-8 Sliver Grant $99,254.00 $0.00 ' $0.00 $99,254.00 0.00% 750 Medicaid $288,382.00 $7,396.09 $28,442.42 $259,939.58 9.86% 751 Medicaid Sp Ed Preschool $60,000.00 $4,714.06 $33,534.98 $26,465.02 55.89% 756 Title II-A Improve Teaching $534,343.31 $37,855.50 $147,046.48 $387,296.83 27.52% 761 Title Ill Enq Lang Acqui $11,662.00 $600.00 $1,107.98 $10,554.02 9.50% 781 Title IV-A Drug Ed $73,586.00 $5,773.82 $28,097.45 $45,488.55 38.18% 785 Comprehensive Sch Health $832.37 $832.37 -$832.37 796 Workforce Investment Act $35,000.00 $3,270.31 $10,216.78 $24,783.22 29.19% GRAND TOTAL $86,259,596.84 $8,317,200.01 $31,343,689.13 $54,915,907.71 36.34% 0-4 $80,000,000.00 $70,000,000.00 $60,000,000.00 $50,000,000.00 $40,000,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 NLRSD Actual to Budget Comparison Operating Building Capital Outlay Funds 0-5 Federal Food Service !.!IB udget  Expenses NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PERSONNEL OFFICE Board Agenda - January 19, 2006 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS \u0026amp; RETIREMENTS Thomas Giuisti Roseanne Sallis Patrick Kirwin Nicole Schafer Eletha White NAME: CERTIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES From Active Military Duty Return to Argenta Academy, Alternative Education From NLRHS West Campus, PENolleyballffrack To NLRHS West Campus, PENolleyball NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL Lakewood Middle School, English/Social Studies/Math Effective 1/2/05, Category I, Step 11, 190 days Seventh Street Elementary, First Grade Effective 1/3/06, Category I, Step 5, 190 days NLRHS West Campus, Spanish Effective 1/10/06, Category I, Step 18, 190 days NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS Patrick Kirwin PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Lakewood Middle School, English/Social Studies/Math BA-Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR 5/91 Middle School English/Math/Oral Communications/Coaching Pribilof School District, St. Paul, AK 8/05 - 12/05 EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR 10/96 - 5/05 Danville Public Schools, Danville, AR 8/93 - 5/95 Dr. Ginger Wallace, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services P-1 NAME: North Little Rock School District Board Agenda- January 19, 2006 Nicole Schafer PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Seventh Street Elementary, First Grade EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: BSE - University of Arkansas at Little Rock, AR 5/2000 Middle School Social Studies, Elementary Education K-6 North Little Rock School District, NLR, AR 8/00 - 6/9/04 Tulsa School District, Tulsa, OK 8/04-12/05 Pam Wilcox, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Eletha Williams White PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: NLRHS West Campus, Spanish EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION BA - California Baptist College, Riverside, CA 8/67 Oklahoma License in Elementary Education, Spanish, English Literature, Newspaper, Yearbook, Business English, American Literature, Grammar \u0026amp; Comp, Speech \u0026amp; Drama and Middle School Social Studies Claremore High School, Claremore, OK 2/90 - 10/03 East End School District, Bigelow, AR 8/98 - 5/99 Beggs High School, Beggs, OK 8/88 - 5/89 Nowata Public Schools, Nowata, OK 8/86 - 5/88 Verdigris School District, Claremore, OK 8/83 - 5/86 - Gregg Thompson, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES Jeremy Rollins Walter Faux Bruce Strong, Sr. From NLRHS West Campus, Custodian To Plant Services, Substitute Custodian NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL Transportation Department, Bus Driver Effective 1/5/06, Category 507, Step 46, 190 days Plant Services, Lead Custodian Effective 12/19/05, Category 601, Step 27,252 days P-2 :. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JANUARY 2006 BIDS FOR APPROVAL BID NUMBER : RFP BID NAME : Energy Services Company SOURCE OF FUNDING : LOCATION: JOHNSON'S CONTROLS, INC. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES TRANE OF ARKANSAS ***** * ** *** **** ***** Did Not Meet Specifications Part of all or No Bid Quality Not Recommended Limited Coverage Recommended R-1 JAN. 5.2006 11:21AM /'10.194 P.2/2 ::\u0026lt;:r:::p:. .- Parksa ndR ecreatioDne partment 2700 WillowS treet Voice (501) 791~8538 January S. 2006 Mr. Barry Kine! parksandrec@northlittlerock,ar.gov North Little Rock School District 2700 Popular Street. North Little Rock. AR 72114 Dear Mr. Kincl, Fax (501) 791-8528 I would like to request the use of the NLRHS Football Field for the following dates from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. July I. 2006 July 22. 2006 July 29, 2006 August 26, 2006 September 9, 2006 Thank you for your assistance with this matter. I hope to hear from you soon. I can be reached at (501) 791-BS43. Sincerely, Tina Worrell Recreation Superintendent Sl North Little Rock School of Dance 753-5039 Barry Kincl 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, Ar 72114 Mr. Kincl, I am writing this letter as a request to use the North Little Rock East Campus Auditorium for the dates of Saturday, June 10,2006 (approximately 10a.m.-6p.m.) and Sunday, June 11,2006 (approximately 3p.m.-8p.m.). This is my first choice. My second choice is for the dates of Wednesday, June 14,2006 (approximately 10a.m.-6p.m.) and Thursday, June 15,2006 (approximately 5p.m.- 10p.m.). Sincerely, Karen K. Bowren North Little Rock School of Dance S2 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT AW PELLER \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES INC A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC AAEA AAMSCO ACCESS SCHOOLS ACE GLASS COMPANY, INC. ACE MART RESTAURANT SUPPLIES ACI PLASTICS ADAM ROBINSON ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AEA AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AFFORDABLE COMPUTER PRODUCTS AGS PUBLISHING AHA PROCESS INCORPOARTED AIMEE WRIGHT ALAN CROWNOVER ALEXANDRA PRITCHETT ALICIA YARBROUGH ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN .11.LIGN ALIGN ALISHA HERRING ALISHA HERRING ALL AMERICAN INC. T- 1 .00 456.28 175.68 59.86 65.00 27.00 288.80 172. 00 1,987.50 294.--27 484.48 79.57 68.00 12,703.62 1,317.71 1,162.78 2,102.00 50.00 2,102.00 50.00 2,102.00 416.13 1,677.43 795.00 153.23 104.64 67.28 96.48 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .oo .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .oo .00 115. 05 91.92 1,182.27 CHK. NO. 0 52325 52232 52797 52202 52498 52283 52186 52596 52327 52114 52069 52660 52265 52641 52532 51863 52053 52277 52306 52543 52502 52579 52762 52192 52333 52352 52217 51855 V 52020 V 52030 V 52044 V 52057 V 52062 V 52236 V 52269 V 52281 V 52297 V 52307 V 52324 V 52528 V 52535 V 52547 V 52556 V 52571 V 52577 V 52214 52775 52065 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT ALL AMERICAN INC. ALL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLTEL MOBILE ALPHASMART INC ALPS PUBLISHING AMANDA STUCKEY AMBOY ELEM ACTIVITY FUND AMBOY ELEM ACTIVITY FUND AMERICAN LIBRARY PREVIEW AMERICAN SPEECH-LANGUAGEAMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMY VOLLMAN AMY VOLLMAN ANDREA HAIN ANDREW CALAWAY ANDRIA SMITH ANDRIA SMITH ANGIE COLCLASURE ANGIE COLCLASURE ANGIE HUTSON ANGIE JOHNSON ANITA HOLLAND ANNAN. VAMMEN ANOINTED BY DESIGN AOS LASER SERVICE, INC. APPERSON PRINT MANAGEMENT APPLE COMPUTER INC APPLIED IND TECH ARA CONFERENCE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCOM SYSTEMS ARKANSAS AIR FRAGRANCE COMPANY ARKANSAS ALTACARE ARKANSAS ART CENTER ARKANSAS BUSINESS PUBLISHING ARKANSAS CHORAL DIRECTORS ASSO ARKANSAS COUNCIL OF TEACHERS ARKANSAS COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC ARKANSAS LAMINATION PRODUCTS T- 2 95.00 109.14 70.85 3,080.12 870.00 297.00 3,941.78 990.50 792.30 41. 95 40.52 119.09 152.25 161. 50 3,345.00 12,120.00 375.00 12,160.00 375.00 12,160.00 132.25 67.55 26.60 52.00 71. 33 54.52 63.18 101.80 99.00 38.88 122.50 2.22 178.99 377.55 271.83 259.42 44.31 115. 00 3,699.77 302.16 2,565.00 259.20 49,392.00 280.00 1,700.00 255.00 55.00 20.00 103.55 CHK. NO. 52328 52802 52068 52334 52475 52727 52145 52339 52752 52100 52756 52480 52732 52662 52169 51862 52052 52276 52305 52542 52158 52709 52215 52389 52189 52746 52149 52447 52598 52623 52061 52493 52196 52580 52749 52375 52768 52515 52359 52610 52758 52478 52161 52683 52477 52443 52439 52715 52143 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT ARKANSAS LAMINATION PRODUCTS ARKANSAS READING ASSOCIATION ARKANSAS SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TRAILER ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASHLEY HANAN ASHLEY HANAN ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY AUGMENTATIVE COMMUNICATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BARNES AND NOBLE BARRY KINCL BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BECKERS SCHOOL SUPPLIES BECKY WITCHER BEDFORD CAMERA AND VIDEO BELWOOD ELEM ACTIVITY FUND BENCHMARK EDUCATION COMPANY BENCHMARK EDUCATION COMPANY BENTONVILLE PROMOTIONS BEVERLY KELSO BILL DUVALL BILL DUVALL BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BINSWANGER GLASS COMPANY BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, L.P. BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, L.P. T- 3 130.80 1,260.00 375.00 608,387.68 31,338.90 2,805.44 947.00 1,330.26 1,469.11 44.23 20.24 4,745.87 11,102.43 2,995.20 27. 95 63. 95 29,227.13 50.00 200.00 440,529.17 45,619.82 440,033.61 51,389.49 442,865.16 37,635.38 1,220,293.83 173,326.86 1,198,335.92 195,552.75 1,231,918.99 146,174.34 988.34 103 .13 5,528.36 4,502.02 99.17 253. 97 172.57 111.29 2,229.70 1,963.50 2,391.46 5.22 51.09 8.60 107.26 290.71 890.20 395.15 CHK. NO. 52693 52420 52581 52058 52059 52060 52534 52402 52064 52507 52777 52138 52427 52680 52071 52589 52296 52640 52330 51857 52046 52271 52299 52537 52574 51856 52045 52270 52298 52536 52573 52341 52331 52337 52588 52500 52699 52338 52179 52488 52741 52081 52248 52079 52344 52380 52078 52153 52704 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BOBBY ACKLIN BOILER INSPECTION DIVISION BOONE PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND BRANDY NESSELRODT BRANDY NESSELRODT BRENDA BUTLER BRENDA CREWS BROMLEY PARTS \u0026amp; SERVICE BROWN JANITOR SUPPLY BRYNN HARVISON BUDS N BOWS BUSTER 400 C.T.A. CABOT FLORISTS CABOT FLORISTS CABOT FLORISTS CALLOWAY HOUSE, INC. CAMBIUM LEARNING INC CAMPUS TEAM WEAR INC CAPITOL ADVERTISING CARLTON-BATES CO. CARLTON-BATES CO. CAROLYN GARRETT CARSON DELLOSA PUBLISHING CO CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CENTRAL ARKANSAS TRANSIT CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. CHAMBER THEATRE PRODUCTIONS CHARLES JONES CHERYL HALL CHILD CARE PROVIDERS FUND CI CI'S PIZZA CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CITY YEAR INC CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. CLASSROOM DIRECT CLASSROOM DIRECT CLAUDIA GARRIGUS CLEAR MOUNTAIN CLEAR MOUNTAIN COBB AND SUSKIE LTD. COCA-COLA USA COCA-COLA/DR PEPPER BOTTLING T- 4 275.40 82.29 3,023.00 153.47 111.07 117. 08 84.08 40.00 18.90 153.16 56.00 104.29 460.00 9,116.25 39.91 94.18 224.29 196.19 248.30 55.40 260.33 194.40 428.22 1. 70 68. 68 99.76 18,813.25 550.00 1,652.74 116. 00 44.20 30.62 100.00 125.00 130. 36 42.68 130. 36 130.36 1,000.00 817.50 1,199.00 7,625.61 1,586.50 78.00 264.13 139.88 14,062.50 1,537.50 6,641.76 CHK. NO. 52345 52440 52595 52482 52220 52787 52495 52789 52347 52348 52388 52593 52127 52529 52083 52349 52601 52350 52612 52209 52665 52085 52602 52247 52468 52332 52585 52 697 52721 52132 52252 52162 52457 52 682 52035 52286 52312 52561 52616 52410 52663 52490 52748 52267 52176 52729 52570 52101 52156 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT COCA-COLA/DR PEPPER BOTTLING COMCAST CABLEVISION COMPLETE COMPUTING CONNIE FOX CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CORKYS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CRAB TREE PUBLISNING COMPANY CROW BURLINGAME CO CRYSTAL EVANS CRYSTAL EVANS CUMMINS MID SOUTH LLC CURRICULUM ASSOCIATES INC CWI, PLC DAMARIS PURTLE DANA CHADWICK DANA MCCOY DANA MCCOY DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DAPHNE KNIGHTEN DAPHNE KNIGHTEN DARLENE ROBERTS DARRELL MCCOY DARYL FIMPLE DATAMAX OF ARKANSAS DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAWNE CARROLL DAWNE CARROLL DAYLIGHT DONUTS DEANN ROACH DEBBIE DAVENPORT DEBBIE GREENE DEBBIE ROZZELL DELI PARTNER'S DELI PARTNER'S DELL MARKETING LP. DELTA DENTAL DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT DESIGN IT INC DETCO INDUSTRIES DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS T- 5 5,453.66 46.31 251.56 52.08 206.31 628.35 9,038.04 3,853.49 3,888.74 40.56 24. 72 43.60 2.94 70.95 1,798.20 2,152.50 74.43 302.56 120.04 94.69 20.00 20.00 20.00 14.12 5.15 35.00 40.00 155.74 '31,788.07 458.78 2,238.00 458.78 458.78 56 .12 54.25 22.50 39.37 43.10 51. 72 33.23 67.20 449.25 118. 7 6 55,454.72 252,242.31 739.08 2,448.00 3,335.00 736.28 CHK. NO. 52707 52336 52351 52241 52258 52096 52166 52463 52717 52702 52464 52171 52251 52476 52606 52385 52445 52091 52221 52788 52033 52310 52559 52472 52726 52658 52604 52651 52578 52031 52282 52308 52557 52183 52738 52740 52509 52514 52747 52424 52146 52441 52399 52257 52572 52666 52706 52804 52416 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS DIRECT SCHOOL SUPPLY DONNA RIPPER DONNA STEWART DONNA STEWART DOREEN MICK DOROTHY FARRIS DREW CAMP DWIGHT JONES INC. E-RATE CONSULTING SERVICES EAST CAMPUS ACTIV~TY FUND EASTER SEALS OUTREACH PROGRAM ECOLAB, INC. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF ELAINE BLOCK ELECTRONIC VIDEO SYSTEMS ELIZABETH HART EMILY TAYLOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION ENERGY EDUCATION INC ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, IN F \u0026amp; E CHECK PROTECTOR COMPANY FAIRFIELD LANGUAGE FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FCCLA FCCLA LOCKBOX OPERATION FERRELLGAS FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLINN SCIENTIFIC COMPANY FLOORCOVERINGS INTERNATIONAL FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FOOTLIGHTS FRANKLIN COVEY FRANKLIN COVEY GALE STANLEY GARRETT BOOK COMPANY GENERAL BINDING CORPORATION GENERATION PRODUCTS COMPANY GEORGE TAYLOR T- 6 308.96 112. 32 13. 80 175.03 87.52 52.08 91. 85 112. 94 200.00 6,243.75 619.15 240.00 1,391.39 56.51 1,070.07 52,545.38 52.00 8,592.10 17.47 240.00 387,902.48 10,100.00 6.68  350.00 374.33 1,606.80 54.00 54.00 54.00 168.92 128.16 60.00 280.00 42.01 1,846.66 63.20 440.89 310.68 104.76 122.37 99.97 17. 20 30.14 14.94 35.28 365.03 59.22 598.41 11. 77 CHK. NO. 52669 52185 52266 52086 52603 52254 52191 52230 52094 52776 52731 52182 52092 52608 52093 52356 52244 52080 52107 52412 52264 52329 52317 52799 52423 52354 52027 52292 52554 52364 52614 52125 52222 52684 52613 52363 52335 52700 52040 52319 52568 52607 52373 52597 52237 52763 52362 52106 52369 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT GINGER WALLACE GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX GLORIA SMITH GMS MEETING MANAGEMENT GOLDEN CORRAL GRAINGER GRAINGER GREAT AMERCIAN OPPORTUNITIES GREAT IDEAS FOR TEACHING GRETCHEN LAUIPPA GRETCHEN WILLOUGHBY GRUENYS GRS INC HAESE \u0026amp; HARRIS PUBLICATIONS HARCOURT ASSESSMENT HARCOURT EDU. MEASUREMENT HARCOURT EDU. MEASUREMENT HAROLD D STARK HAROLD GWATNEY CHEVROLET CO. HAROLD GWATNEY CHEVROLET CO. HAROLD GWATNEY CHEVROLET CO. HASLER INC HEALTH ED HELPING HAND CHILDRENS HIGGINS AUTO TRANSMISSION HIGHSMITH INC HOME DEPOT/GECF HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY HOPE FOUNDATION HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NLR HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HOM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL HUM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL HUM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS THEATRICAL IN DYER NEED ENTERPRISES INDEPENDENT MUSIC SERVICE, INC INDEPENDENT MUSIC SERVICE, INC INDEPENDENT SERVICE FINANCE, INFORMATION DOCUMENTS, INC INFORMATION VAULTING SERVICES ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS T- 7 403.08 655.58 778.34 31. 43 740.00 1,129.50 596.78 1,463.49 1,917.18 76.95 600.00 10.00 19.78 2,036.59 286.49 414.20 473.06 97.50 25.00 25.00 25.00 588.60 149.00 2,832.50 1,500.00 85.80 986.83 539.06 399.61 854.07 1,200.00 117.59 405.85 11. 71 55.29 318.37 425.00 425.00 425.00 104.75 154.26 112.16 265.00 138.82 3,410.89 147.40 3,465.00 437.50 3,465.00 CHK. NO. 52470 52200 52760 52229 52394 52725 52436 52687 52370 52164 52503 52239 52617 52408 52455 52512 52784 52521 52043 52322 52569 52753 52656 52190 52150 52374 52696 52194 52195 52446 52342 52208 52770 52376 52621 52622 52028 52293 52555 52793 52582 52456 52711 52564 52340 52368 51861 52051 52275 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE J \u0026amp; SPRINTING J \u0026amp; SPRINTING J A RIGGS TRACTOR COMPANY J W PEPPER AND SON J. L. HEIN SERVICE, INC. JACK T CARTER COMPANY JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACQUELINE SUMLER JACQUELINE SUMLER JAMES BROS. JAMIE EUBANKS JAMIE EUBANKS JANET E. THOMAS P.T. JANET FOSTER JANET FOSTER JANN PHARO JASON GOLDEN JENNIE BOTTS JENNY OBANNON JERRY DOWDY JERRY MASSEY JERRY MASSEY JERRY MASSEY JILL MILLS JILL MILLS JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JONATHAN MOORE JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JUNE HAYNIE JUST FOR KIDS THERAPY SERVICES JUST RIBBONS KANSAS PAYMENT CENTER T- 8 437.50 3,465.00 525.00 2,838.38 64,286.49 7,644.45 136.00 136.00 136. 00 654.68 334.00 157.38 355.00 1,315.00 902.87 162.69 501.12 145.78 2,329.50 54.52 43.86 39.24 1,190.00 1,907.50 1,184.17 271.20 161. 62 14.70 ll0.16 15.70 ll5.59 66.30 148.87 472.00 85.89 32.76 21. 84 258.46 281.37 281. 37 85.00 869.43 2,896.54 869.43 869.43 31.16 585.00 4 ll. 00 46.15 CHK. NO. 52304 52541 52639 52184 52487 52739 52026 52291 52553 52144 52694 52404 52407 52780 52626 52022 52099 52285 52377 52224 52794 52102 52207 52769 52438 52159 52712 52449 52409 52 636 52199 52518 52160 52459 52714 52097 52624 52036 52314 52563 52386 52039 52294 52318 52567 52628 52781 52461 52313 V Natara Johnson Calvin Key Jeffrey Martello Carol Mayerhoff Marsha G. Satterfield William Singleton Vilesia Tatum Tammy Young North Little Rock School District Board Agenda, February 16, 2006 NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED Argenta Infant/Toddler Program, Teacher's Aide Effective 1/24/06, Category 236, Step 67, 185 days Crestwood Elementary, Lunch Aide Effective 1/18/06, Category 260, Step 21, 178 days Administration Annex, Computer Technician Effective 1/24/06, Category 252, Step 135, 252 days Amboy Elementary, Early AM Aide Effective 1/9/06, Category 266, Step 33, 178 days Lynch Drive Elementary, Pre-K Teacher's Aide Effective 1/30/06, Category 242, Step 54, 185 days Indian Hills Elementary, Special Education Aide Effective 12/1/05, Category 240, Step 54, 185 days Lynch Drive Elementary, Lunch Aide Effective 1/20/06, Category 260, Step 18, 178 days Argenta Infant/Toddler Program, Teacher's Aide Effective 2/7/06, Category 242, Step 50, 185 days -P-3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FEBRUARY BIDS FOR APPROVAL BID NUMBER: 06-02-042 BID NAME: Holding Cabinets (14) SOURCE OF FUNDING : Food Service Funds LOCATION : Food Service Department AIMCO PIONEER SUPREME FIXTURE BID NUMBER : 06-02-042B $29,112.70 $28,820.08 $30,222.06 BID NAME: Gas Convection Ovens (3) SOURCE OF FUNDING : Food Service Funds LOCATION : Food Service Department AIMCO PIONEER SUPREME FIXTURE * ** *** **** ***** Did Not Meet Specifications Part of all or No Bid Quality Not Recommended Limited Coverage Recommended $15,881.51 $19,822.80 $17,524.32 R- l- ***** ***** ~HILL ~ ISTCHURCH Friday, February 03, 2006 Mr. Barry Kincl: 20 I East \"C\" A venue  North Little Rock  Arkansas  72116 (501) 753-3413. Fax (501) 771-6718 aaronhulse@aristotle.net  www.parkhillbaptist.org Dr. S. CARY HEARD  PASTOR I am the Minister to Students at Park Hill Baptist Church here in North Little Rock and I have teamed up with many of the Youth Pastors from churches in our community to host REAL ENCOUNTER for all 7th - 12th grade students in the area. I am writing t.o you to request the use of the North Little Rock West Campus Gymnasium for this community wide Christian youth rally that will be held on Wednesday night, September 27, 2006. REAL ENCOUNTER is lead by a professional motor cross rider named Brad Bennett along with the help of a drama team and a band. This event will be free for all students in the North Little Rock and North Pulaski communities. The hosting churches are taking on the responsibility of funding. The event will be promoted through the churches as well as through character based school assemblies that will take place on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of that same week. We are targeting 15 middle and senior high schools in the North Pulaski area, including.all 5 of the schools in Nortlr Little Rock. So far we have confirmed with 8 of the 15. We see the potential for a lot of students attending this Christian youth rally and want to host it in a neutral, non-threatening location that has the capacity to hold a large crowd. Dan Russell and lhave visited.together.and.discussed.the.possibility ofus using the NLR West Campus Gymnasium.: lisf SIIg~tha.t:.l senclaleitetto you for approval of our event-aLWestCampUS-Gym. I loo~forward to visitin~witlhyouo-0boutREAL ENCOUNTER-I hae.included~some materialahout.REAL ENCOUNTER for you to have. I will contact.you.soon. Sincerely, D. Aaron Hulse:- .\\ARON HULSE  MINISTER TO STUDENT S-l - ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT A \u0026amp; A FIRE AND SAFETY COMPANY A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC AAEA MEA MSBO ABILITATIONS ACADEMY SPORTS ACCESS SCHOOLS ACCURATE LABEL DESIGNS ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AEA AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AETNA LIFE \u0026amp; CASUALTY AIMEE WRIGHT ALAN CROWNOVER ALEXANDRA PRITCHETT ALIBRIS FOR LIBRARIES ALICIA YARBROUGH ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALISHA HERRING ALL AMERICAN INC. ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORP ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLISON CALLAHAN - T- 1 .00 731.39 433.28 1,486.15 86.50 192.50 318.80 290.00 115. 00 379.09 1,225.69 1,450.00 139.95 12,626.34 1,317.71 1,186.74 2,102.00 50.00 50.00 1,751.60 58.03 141.56 11. 70 157.00 16.93 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 117. 94 966. 67 285.56 92.65 750.00 3,905.83 3,941.78 57.37 CHK. NO. 0 53372 53192 53417 52914 53397 53086 53453 52981 52896 53471 53267 53048 52962 53204 53426 52972 53082 53251 52806 52909 52816 53272 53145 53061 52805 V 52940 V 52964 V 52976 V 52980 V 53073 V 53084 V 53098 V 53112 V 53197 V 53226 V 53241 V 53245 V 53253 V 53421 V 53452 V 53503 53113 53254 53115 53376 52876 53475 53504 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT ALLTEL MOBILE ALLTEL MOBILE ALPHASMART INC AMANDA WARE AMERICAN ACCESS INC. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMY VOLLMAN ANDRIA SMITH ANGIE COLCLASURE ANGIE COLCLASURE ANITA CAMERON ANNAN. VAMMEN AOS LASER SERVICE, INC. APPERSON PRINT MANAGEMENT APPLAUSE LEARNING RESOURCES APPLAUSE LEARNING RESOURCES AR EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARKANSAS BAG \u0026amp; EQUIPMENJ CO ARKANSAS BUSINESS PUBLISHING ARKANSAS COUNCIL OF TEACHERS ARKANSAS COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH ARKANSAS DEPT. OF EDUCATION ARKANSAS DEPT. OF EDUCATION ARKANSAS DEPT. OF EDUCATION ARKANSAS LAMINATION PRODUCTS ARKANSAS READING ASSOCIATION ARKANSAS READING ASSOCIATION ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIA ARKANSAS SCHOOL PLANT MANAGEME ARKANSAS SPECIAL OLYMPICS ARKANSAg STATK POLICE ARKANSAS STATE POLICE ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER-RETIREMENT~ ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TE.CH. UNLVE.RSITY ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER \u0026amp; CO. ASCD ASCD ASCO HARDWAREC. OMPANY, INC. T- 2 77.88 627.45 20.61 8.38 4,395.00 11,260.00 375.00 375.00 109.24 98.83 61. 21 129.48 26. 43 59.35 377.55 170.93 89.75 87.78 8.00 661.48 76.70 150.50 1,315.00 490.00 80.00 285.70 168.20 30.00 31,182.14 10.00 100.00 444.72 1,225.00 220.00 1,464.00 400.00 100.00 408.00 340.00 400.00 917,592.02 47,383.00 3,950.00 931.12 1,000.00 38,814.88 189.00 69.00 1,170.66 CHK. NO. 52818 53116 53389 52882 53322 52971 53081 53250 53480 534 96 53033 53477 53455 52908 53256 53181 52851 53304 53114 52834 53001 52933 53377 53165 52894 52833 53124 53483 53199 53224 53391 53162 52866 53025 53200 53456 53479 53459 53460 53287 52977 52978 52979 53428 52836 53488 52891 53364 52807 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASPA B-SEW INN BABB BONDING INC BACKGROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BARBARA BROWN BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARRY KINCL BASEBALL EXPRESS INC BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BAUXITE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BECKY WITCHER BEVERLY KELSO BILL DUVALL BILL WHITTEN BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S OFFICE FURNITURE BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOILER INSPECTION DIVISION BONANZA BOONE PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND SORENSON AND ASSOCIATES BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BOUND TO STAY BQUND BOOKS BRANDERS.COM BRENDA BUTLER BROCK MOORE BROMLEY PARTS \u0026amp; SERVICE BROWN JANITOR SUPPLY BUREAU OF EDUCATION \u0026amp; RESEARCH C \u0026amp; W TOOL REPAIR C.T.A. CABOT FLORISTS CALLOWAY HOUSE, INC. T- 3 14.17 4,240.16 3,659.50 150.00 196.04 50.00 200.00 435,215.82 40,027.14 49,632.50 1,153,484.46 149,436.40 190,119.62 3.35 1,122.76 1,426.30 5.00 208.01 489.72 164. 64 10.00 139.70 105.68 59.63 37.52 17.88 304.88 102.60 102.60 225.74 16.18 106.16 68.00 100.00 90.04 165.00 364.67 1,293.11 83.08 1,783.95 47.97 68.88 55.26 77.18 318.00 30.64 9,159.15 106.17 25.45 CHK. NO. 53454 53157 53474 53216 53299 53328 52986 52966 53075 53242 52965 53074 53246 52899 52819 53263 53257 53355 52989 53458 52922 53476 52946 52822 53069 53133 52983 52823 52991 53264 53041 53172 53118 53327 53044 53035 52824 52992 53119 53020 53051 53410 53265 53266 52875 53168 53422 52993 52995 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT CALLOWAY HOUSE, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CDW GOVERNMENT, INC CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CENTERS FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. CHARLOTTE VIRDEN CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP C,HRIST HEALTH PRIMARY CARE CHRISTINE HICKMAN CHRISTINE KEENE EDITING DESIGN CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. CLASSROOM DIRECT CLEAN SOLUTIONS CLEAR MOUNTAIN CLEAR MOUNTAIN CLEAR MOUNTAIN COCA-COLA USA COCA-COLA/DR PEPPER BOTTLING COMCAST CABLEVISION CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATE EXPR\u0026amp;S.S. CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS COSTUME CORNER COURTNEY PHAUP COUSINS VIDEO CRE,WS.\u0026amp;.--. ASSOCIATE,S ,- INC. CROCKETT BUSINESS MACHINES: CUSTOM PRINTING CWT~ P.L-C-- D H L EXeR\u0026amp;S.S INC DAMl\\RLS.. E.URT-LEDAMAR- LSP,.U. RTLE.. DAMARIS PURTLE DAN RUSSELL DAN RUSSELL. DANA CHADWICK DA.N\u0026amp; CHADJtl.LCK DAN~ CHADWICK DANK MCCOY DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN - T- 4 295.09 13,261.76 8,994.00 185.30 218.15 74,624.42 16,340.00 518.29 26. 42 114.99 358.73 117. 00 84.24 270.00 42.68 130.36 130.36 981.00 156.93 1,982.06 25.20 32.90 162.25 1,212.50 899.45 46.28 206.31 52,899.86 1,648.09- 444.33 2,542.55 259.42 1,006.23 900.90 l O 6 , 9 9 9 . 8 6- 129.00 279.04 '.::25:00 59. 89: - 713. 0-CT 123.62' 433.67 98.60 354.12 ~J9. 67 - 141.72 82.40 1Jl.3I 20.00 CHK. NO. 53121 53056 53400 53066 52987 53260 53283 53373 52952 52996 53270 53344 53068 53324 53088 53103 53231 53147 53049 53187 52901 53177 53379 53202 53169 52817 52956 52895 53040 53171 53366 5331-9 53059 53409 53055 5288L 53273' 53008 528A2- 5303Z 53n~r 5 3 3~5'.6- 53222 53223 528:fef 5299 9'- 5T2UT'_ 53505-  53101 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DARLA EARLES DARLENE HOLMES DARLENE KELLEY DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVIS ACOUSTICS DAWN SIMPSON DAWNE CARROLL DAYLIGHT DONUTS DEALERS TRUCK EQUIPMENT DEANN ROACH DEBBIE DAVENPORT DEBORAH COKER DELTA DENTAL DELTA EDUCATION DEMCO DENISE WADLEY DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS DIANE CRITES DICK BLICK DINAH ALLEN DISTRICT VIII FBLA DOROTHY FARRIS DREW CAMP EAST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS ECOLAB, INC. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDUCAITON OPPORTUNITY CENTER SDUCATIONAL RESOURCES EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK-DEP-.O~LTORYO F EDUCATORS PUBLISHiNG. SERVTCE\" ELTRUDIA ADAMS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION ENERGY EDUCATION INC ENTERTAINMENT PUBLICATIONS FAIRY TALE FLORALS FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT FLAGH.QUSE. T- 5 20.00 91. 4 6 387.51 3. 72 2,238.00 458.78 458.78 1,470.00 219.64 45.51 13.50 3,888.48 16.93 21. 96 65.69 55,344.20 224.68 183.10 53.22 89,926.82 3,286.00 319.57 32.30 107.25 32. 4 9 222.00 91.61 80.54 263.06 120.00 1,337.43 131.32 14,400.00 158.65 1,745.34 5r124.77 14,915.60  316.85 468.73 22.00 233.68 388,810.88 10,LO.O.OO 125.00 45.78 :\u0026gt;4. 00 319.86 119. 00 436.24 CHK. NO. 53229 53469 53482 52944 53085 53099 53227 52877 52947 53492 53386 53205 52920 52925 53398 52955 52874 52829 53402 53423 53507 53334 52932 53416 52828 53331 53497 j2934 53219 5338Z 52831 53276 53186' 53282 52832 53000 53122 53277 53464 52884 52850 52961 53255 52915 53405 53094 5312 52898 52880 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FRANK FLETCHER DODGE FRANK WISE FRIENDSHIP HOUSE GALE GROUP GARETH STEVENS PUBLISHING GARY DAVIS GEORGE F CRAM GINGER WALLACE GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX GLORIA SMITH GOLDEN WEST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY GOLDEN WEST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY GOODMAN DISTRIBUTION INC GRADY W JONES CO INC GRAINGER GREAT AMERCIAN OPPORTUNITIES GREG BURL HAND IN HAND DAY CARE HARCOURT EDU. MEASUREMENT HARDING UNIVERSITY HAROLD D STARK HARVEST FOODS #6045 HEADSETS.COM HEADSETS.COM HELPING HAND CHILDRENS HENDERSON STATE UNIVERSITY HENDRIX COLLEGE HIGHSMITH INC HOME DEPOT/GECF HOME DEPOT/GECF HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NLR HOM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL HOM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL I TECH A-V ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT INDEPENDENT SERVICE FINANCE, INDEPENDENT SERVICE FINANCE, INDIAN HILLS ELEM ACTIVITY INFORMATION VAULTING SERVICES ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP T- 6 1,664.87 86.05 86.05 2,758.81 170 .10 32.57 158.30 3,559.22 155.50 539.00 300.33 300.00 260.82 555.67 33. 46 338.09 895.70 43.58 2,390.09 279.61 2,443.48 52. 45 1,500.00 7,368.40 90.00 63.18 70.65 123.90 372. 90 2,240.00 100.00 750.00 130.80 47.60 9.23 1,200.00 3.71 46.63 3,039.42 425.00 193.93 422.14 151.55 147.40 3, 46'5. 00 462.50 462.50 12,997.71 192.42 CHK. NO. 52837 53110 53238 53003 53411 52916 53308 53335 53062 52890 53268 53487 53053 53284 52931 52821 53117 53290 53370 53351 53288 52948 52827 53063 53329 53067 53271 52988 53261 53050 53278 52926 53291 53031 53164 52820 53132 53292 53303 53095 53106 53234 53221 53004 52970 53080 53249 52906 53046 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACKSONVILLE HIGH SCHOOL JAMES BROS. JAMES HUMPHREY JAMES L. BURGE PHOTOGRAPHY, IN JAMES W. WOODARD, JR JAMIE EUBANKS JANET E. THOMAS P.T. JANET FOSTER JANIS MASTERS JANN PHARO JENNY OBANNON JERRY MASSEY JERRY MASSEY JILL MILLS JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JOHN HAYNIE JOHNNY APPLE SEED JONES SCHOOL SUPPLY CO INC JONI WALKER JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JULIE DERDEN JUNE HAYNIE JUNE HAYNIE JUST FOR KIDS THERAPY SERVICES K \u0026amp; E OUTDOOR POWER EQUIPMENT KAIRI CLEMONS KANSAS PAYMENT CENTER KANSAS PAYMENT CENTER KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAREN COLEMAN KATHY VANCE CHAMBERS KATY GEARHART HUNT KAYE LOWE KAYE LOWE KEITH FAULKNER KEN THOMPSON KENNETH A. KIRSPEL KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS T- 7 8,400.79 5,064.48 2,281.74 136. 00 350.00 97.00 60.79 237.33 19.34 79.99 980.00 857.50 188.68 652.50 19.34 58.42 122.85 818.30 42.51 281.37 281.37 101.92 95.40 242.55 144.70 2,896.54 869.43 601.76 5.00 365.00 122.12 210.00 110. 02 124.95 46.15 46.15 809.42 2,724.87 38 9. 4 8 1,040.00 107.02 67.24 27.69 43.20 92.38 65.00 500.00 1,539.29 1,995.75 CHK. NO. 53180 53384 53493 53093 52841 52845 53293 52918 53071 52929 53502 53163 53481 53038 52879 52911 52886 52887 534 67 53105 53233 53213 53321 53362 52815 53096 53109 53237 52945 53203 53294 53406 53415 53470 53104 53232 52844 53006 53134 53060 53484 53457 52826 52994 53239 53176 52930 53193 53155 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KEVA RODGERS KEVIN MARTIN KIDS DIRECTORY LLC KIM REYNOLDS KONE INC KRISTEN MADDOX KRISTIE RATLIFF KROGER #639 KROGER COMPANY/INDIAN HILLS KROGER COMPANY/INDIAN HILLS KROGER COMPANY/INDIAN HILLS KROGER COMPANY/PERSHING KWIK-KOPY PRINTING LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKEWOOD MIDDLE ACTIVITY FUND LARA HUMPHRIES LAURA JENNINGS LCR-M CORPORATION LEDENA STEPHENS LEWIS AND LEE DISTRIBUTING LEWIS AND LEE DISTRIBUTING LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LINDA BENNETT LINDA WILLIS LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LISA WEST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. LONGS ELECTRONICS LORI. ISNER LORMAN EDUCATION SERVICES LOWE'S LOWE'S LOWE'S LOWE'S LRP PUBLICATIONS DEPT. 170-F LUNCHBYTE SYSTEM INC LWM CONSULTING LYNDA SISCO LYNDA SISCO LYNN CHADWICK T- 8 1,073.76 19.50 44.86 275.00 111.31 2,450.14 36.66 18.02 282.34 102.80 19.54 17 .11 20.02 196.12 1,026.70 835.58 638.24 3.59 56.20 295.96 27.23 2,054.20 2,324.00 347.38 33.90 62 6. 32 1,719.35 3,081.87 2.92 78.24 143.85 35.29 562,340.38 54,000.00 18.42 140.67 439.70 500.00 578.00 258.60 105.73 35.35 324.98 192.00 175.00 1,560.00 120.00 120.00 114.23 CHK. NO. 53190 53499 52927 53390 53463 53167 53495 52910 53357 53007 53136 53296 53166 53295 53023 53332 53220 52919 52808 52889 52942 53052 53500 53138 53300 52967 53076 53243 52950 53297 52846 53129 53009 53137 53139 53306 53010 53298 53320 52936 53072 53196 53420 53170 53047 53144 52938 53120 V 53359 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT LYNN FORTNER M J COMMUNICATIONS M J COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS MAGGIE BILLINGS MARCIVE, INC MARDEL CORPORATE OFFICE MARDEL CORPORATE OFFICE MARIA TOUCHSTONE MARJEAN ROWE MARSHA SATTERFIELD M~RSHA SATTERFIELD MARTHA FEWELL MARY HANKINS MARYRUTH BOOKS INC MASON ELECTRIC MATHEMATICS OLYMPIADS FOR MCALISTERS MCINTIRE ENTERPRISES INC MCM MEADOW PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND METRO BUILDERS \u0026amp; RESTORATION METRO FOODS MEYER LAMINATES MICHAELE WARRICK MICHELLE BONES MICHELLE TALLEY MID-SOUTH APPLIANCE PARTS CO. MIKKI EUBANK MINORITY TIMES MITCHS TIRE SERVICE MITCHS TIRE SERVICE MODERN RED SCHOOL HOUSE MUSIC IS ELEMENTARY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY NAEIR NAEIR NANCY C. GREEN NANCY STEWART NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NASCO NASCO NASCO NATALIE DARNELL NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC KIDS NATIONAL HOME CENTER NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE - T- 9 41. 34 440.99 52.32 269.95 200.00 31. 53 111. 83 100.00 212.08 86.35 92.04 94.07 7.25 10. 45 112. 20 201.65 45.99 115. 00 3,032.58 156.59 72. 69 311.80 2,246.75 278.85 118.10 32.00 10.00 19.49 48.75 995.00 340.00 110. 00 288.00 437.25 924.93 1,044.51 108.00 40.00 89.32 296.56 1,231.67 87.40 273.60 34.54 221.78 7.60 89.75 35.78 598.86 CHK. NO. 53466 52935 53194 53275 52937 53301 52814 53258 52907 53461 52893 53039 53141 52941 53014 52849 52888 53498 52839 52892 53179 52809 52885 53367 53089 52838 52943 53302 53198 53191 52912 53393 53143 52843 52852 53305 52872 53160 52897 53486 53128 53285 53013 53140 53307 53262 53012 53309 53371 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT NATIONAL SCHOOL PRODUCTS NATIONAL WILD LIFE FEDERATION NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD-BACKGROUND CHECK NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE NO. LITTLE ROCK EDUCATORS CRED N.O. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM ACTIVITY NORTH LITTLE ROCK CHAMBER OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK HEALTH DEPT NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NOVELL INC OCSE OCSE OCSE OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY, INC. PACHECO OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT PAM GLOVER PARK HILL FLORIST PATRICIA MCMURRAY PEARSON EDUCATION PEDIATRIC THERAPY SERVICES PERFECTION LEARNING CORF. PERMA-BOUND PERMA-BOUND PETSMART PFG LITTLE ROCK T-10 316.62 99.75 5.24 10.49 11,238.36 3,246.18 6,150.00 250.00 499.65 14,685.69 79,750.30 700.98 756.83 22.45 1,500.00 12.00 252.31 195.00 72.00 3,165.34 332.50 52 6. 4 4 329.26 4.69 4.04 191.84 30,545.67 376.91 574.22 54,519.29 2,495.00 2,375.59 2,087.02 2,144.69 g97.86 804.93 879.05 63.50 1,63-7.50 47.20 84.48 69.90 274.46 l,l47.50 70.59 129.00 3,084.91 151.57 2,162.34 CHK. NO. 53310 53011 53015 53311 52869 53350 52928 53413 53427 52959 53424 52853 53313 52904 53312 53494 53314 53388 52854 53016 53315 52963 53097 53111 53240 53316 52835 53002 53126 53281 53383 53087 53100 53228 52883 53037 53361 52870 53404 52951 53018 53184 53185 53407 53348 53131 53289 53378 52858 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT PITNEY BOWES POPLAR STREET ACTIVITY FUND POPLAR STREET ACTIVITY FUND POPLAR STREET ACTIVITY FUND POSITIVE PROMOTIONS POSTMASTER, SHERWOOD POSTMASTER, SHERWOOD PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA PRO-ACT INC OBA PROMOTIONS PLUS PROVIDIAN NATIONAL BANK PROVIDIAN NATIONAL BANK PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY PULASKI TECHNICAL COLLEGE PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS QUALITY PETROLEUM INC QUALITY WHOLESALE BUILDING RADIO SHACK RAYMOND SMITH RAYMOND SMITH REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC REXEL DAVIES REXEL DAVIES RIVER CITY MATERIALS, INC. RIVER VALLEY HORTICULTURAL SABRYNA B WASHINGTON BREWER SAFETY - KLEEN, lNC. SAMANTHA CURRAN SAMMONS PRESTON ROLYAN SAMS CLUB DIRECT SAMS CLUB DIRECT SAMS CLUB DIRECT SANDERS SUPPLY SANDRA CAMPBELL S.z:\u0026gt;.P.ILEAD EATON SAX ARTS \u0026amp; CRAFTS SBC SBC GLOBAL SERVICES INC ..iBG-VAA SBG-VAA SBG-VAA SCANTRON CORPORATION SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS SCHOLASTIC INC SCHOLASTIC INC. - T-11 113.75 690.06 737.67 1,200.00 493.90 76.00 39.00 1,175.21 21. 80 433.60 185.83 144.15 116. 60 1,937.52 2,112.34 20,780.00 5.97 1,303.66 2,054.65 217.89 126.28 659.80 198.20 62.61 121.63 14.10 385.27 277.88 241.50 325.51 41.65 90.63 99.26 50.00 101.32 29.03 102.80 3.92 187.01 89.60 124.91 i,123.00 25.00 25.00 163 .11 400.00 51. 59 664.60 257.58 CHK. NO. 53019 52903 53490 53491 53374 53036 53478 52975 53174 53042 53102 53230 52921 53078 53244 53214 53070 52840 52900 52860 52847 52848 53330 53092 53123 53279 52862 53207 .53208 53195 53462 53130 53021 53148 53209 52923 ::i350o 52949 53337 52990 53472 52973 53083 53252 53022 52861 53403 53024 53369 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCIENCE KIT INC SOE SEARCH SOFT SOLUTIONS INC SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION SEW PERFECT SHANNON DUKE SHARA BRAZEAR SHARA BRAZEAR SHEILA BAKER SHERAH WARNOCK SHERWIN-WILLIAMS SHOWBOARD SHRED-IT SILOAM SPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL SKILLS USA/VICA SOCIAL STUDIES SCHOOL SERVICE SOUTHERN ICE EQUIPMENT SOUTHERN REGIONAL EDUCATION SOUTHERN REPROGRAPHICS, INC. SOUTHWEST SPORTING GOODS CO SPORTIME STAFF DEVELOPMENT FOR STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STAR BOLT \u0026amp; SCREW CO., INC. STERLING PAINT STERLING PAINT STERLING PAINT STEVE CANADY SUNBURST VISUAL MEDIA SUPERIOR SPRING CLUTCH \u0026amp; GEAR SUPERIOR SPRING CLUTCH \u0026amp; GEAR SUPREME FIXTURE CO. SUPREME FIXTURE CO. SUSAN HYDEN SUSAN MILLER SYSCO FOOD SERVICE OF ARKANSAS T \u0026amp; T EQUIPMENT CO. T-SHIRT SHOP TAMMY DEATHERAGE TANKERSLEY FOODSERVICE TASC TASC TASC TEACHER'S DISCOVERY T-12 1,251.08 1,462.42 59.07 1,710.00 15,600.00 675.00 176.25 176.25 1,000.00 5.00 92.60 123.18 23.90 2.95 1,038.44 38.97 55.00 70.00 12.50 26.00 299.27 14.00 52.68 64. 76 756.37 2,125.00 64.34 483.20 75.85 101. 28 621.69 2,849.12 116.57 19.95 412.41 455.64 90.84 5,307.43 131.86 32.88 11,399.26 4 381.50 365.47 713.00 22,497.47 11,632.30 116. 66 116. 66 286.61 CHK. NO. 53026 53338 53135 53387 53318 52974 53108 53236 53325 52960 53215 53375 53414 53058 53150 53149 53182 52859 53401 53339 53408 53274 53286 53151 53146 53064 53153 53342 53154 53156 53345 53473 52865 53158 52864 53336 53210 53346 53468 52917 52871 52813 53175 53005 52924 52968 53077 53247 53358 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT TEACHER'S MEDIA COMPANY TEACHERS DISCOUNT TEACHERS MEDIA COMPANY TEACHERS' DISCOUNT TEACHING RESOURCE CENTER TECH-KNOW INDUSTRIES TELETOUCH THE ARKANSAS ARTS CENTER THE CENTER FOR LEARNING THE FIELD SHOP THE HR SPECIALIST THE MARKERBOARDP EOPLE THE PRINTING DEPARTMENT INC THE SOUTHERN CO. NLR., INC. THE SPORTSTOP INC. THE SPORTSTOP INC. THE TIMES THE TREE HOUSE, INC. THERAPY PROVIDERS, P.A. THOMSON GALE TIGER DIRECT TODD HUFF TOYS R US TRANS AMERICAN TIRE COMPANY TREADWAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC TRI-STATES VIDEO AND TRI-STATES VIDEO AND TRIARCO ARTS \u0026amp; CRAFTS TRIVIA MARKETING TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TURNER DAIRY TWIN CITY TRAILER SALES AND US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION fJ S FUEL US FUEL US NETCOM CORP U.S. PIZZA CO. UALR UALR READING RECOVERY UAPB FOUNDATION UCA UNISOURCE LITTLE ROCK UNITED ART \u0026amp; EDUCATION SUPPLY T-13 212.52 406.06 369.15 190.28 62.59 440.00 105.37 725. 00 140.53 51. 06 97.00 99.00 353.16 264.39 264.94 314.44 66.36 66.00 5,467.50 1,425.91 2,931.92 39.50 90.38 1,226.82 174.55 246.18 34.40 527.34 839.51 15,100.98 15,723.89 12,260.02 29.22 4,261.65 5,809.06 15,893.90 204.03 73.74 120.03 259.27 552.57 235.00 205.52 825.26 910.00 85.00 675.00 4,684.32 37.79 CHK. NO. 53280 53412 53259 53189 53365 53065 52985 53034 53385 53173 53326 53399 53057 53340 53152 53341 53349 53394 53363 52982 53045 52997 53347 52825 53159 52867 53027 53360 52998 53368 53485 53419 52855 52953 52954 52957 53091 53107 53235 52905 53381 53396 53465 53392 52863 53323 53343 52984 53333 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT UNITED LABORATORIES INC UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY UNIV OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA UNIVERSAL INCORPORATED UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VARSITY W PAUL BLUME WALLACE PRESSURE WASHING WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WARD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WARDS NATURAL SCIENCE WEEKLY READER WEEKLY READER WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FCJNIJ WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND WEST CAME.US ACTIVITY FUND WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND. WESTERN FOODS WESTERN PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES WILLIAM V MACGILh \u0026amp; CO '.:ILLIAM V MACGLLL \u0026amp; CO\nn,1 STEPHEN- CRAIN WORLD ALMANAC EDUCATION ~lYNDHAMEM ERALD PLAZA HOTEL XEROX CORPORATION YOUTH HOME-INC 600.40 1,541.42 1,750.00 104.62 2,000.00 2,500.00 4,087.80 4,871.26 239.45 629 .11 65.96 478.47 31,119.30 825.00 825.00 788.95 906.25 1,226.25 72.00 1,680.45 203.17 1,150.55 106.45 331.36 33.05 981. 3 9 684.46 272.16 235.98 241.18 80.00 316-70 80.00 80.00 950.50 131.56 160.25 166.50 142.70 437.88 703.12 2,768.44 5,610.00 CHK. NO. 53418 53425 53125 53188 52812 52811 52958 52856 53017 53142 53206 53317 52969 53079 53248 53269 53217 52810 52913 53054 53183 53225 53395 53501 53352 53028 53030 53353 52902 53043 53178 53218 53380 53489 52878 53029 52873 53354 53090 52868 4 52857 53211 53161 CHECK TOTALS FOR JANUARY, 2006 5,309,981.65 CHECK VOIDS FOR JANUARY, 2006 120.00 - T-14 ' . BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED MAR1 3 2006 OFFIOCFE ESEGREGMAOTINOIHT ORING ass North Little Rock School District Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:00 P. M. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT I. II. III. IV. V. VI. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Thursday, March 16, 2006 -5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER, Marty Moore, President INVOCATION, Chasity Walker, NLRHS Senior, daughter of Joyce Rodgers \u0026amp; Tony Walker FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl. Member Dorothy Williams, Member RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Superintendent's Honor Roll- S. Brazear 1. Gwen Wiggins, LRHS West Campus Teacher 2. \\11\u0026lt;.:.: iel tone. 'ieventh Street Elementary Assistant Prin\u0026lt;..,:i i B. S 11  1.:0J111tion 1. 2()1). ~ ( Varsit) ~. dball Team - D. Russell DJ TI OF MI l TES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. lL r ... y,Febr ary !6,2UU6 5:00 P.M.-RegularMeeting-PageA-1 - Page 2 - Board Agenda March 16. 2006 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Consider New Board Policies CEAC Attendance Incentive. CEAD Sick Leave Redemption, CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive, and CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption (Second and Final Reading) ' - K. Kirspel - Page B - 1 VIII. ACTIO ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Consider Update Report on Desegregation Unitary Status - K. Kirspel Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report - G. Tucker Consider 2006 - 2007 School Calendar - K. Kirspel - Page C - 1 Consider Secondary Summer School Recommendation-June Haynie - Page D-1 Consider Secondary Math Textbook Adoption Recommendation- Page E - 1 - June Haynie Consider Board Policy CFEB Extra Compensation Recommendation - K. Kirspel - Page F - 1 Consider Proposal to Purchase Four Buses - John Haynie - Page G - 1 Consider Architect's Bids for Indian Hills Elementary Asbestos Abatement and Renovation - Page H - 1 - J. Massey Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirs el I. Consider monthly financial repo , Page U - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - I 3. Consider bid items - Page R- I 4. Consider building use request - Page S - I 5. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - I  IX. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Spring Break- Monday, March 27, 2006 through Friday, March 31, 2006 B. Regular Board Meeting - Thursday, April 20, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. 2004 -2005 School Year Audit- G. Daniels Page 3 - Board Agenda March 16, 2006 B. Schedule Date for Financial Workshop -M. Moore XI. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES February 16, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, February 16, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. During public comments, Mr. Bill Bowers, Poplar Street Middle School Principal, invited everyone to attend Poplar Street Middle School Mardi Gras celebration on Friday, February 17, 2006 at Fisher Armory. Many Poplar Street Middle students handed out multi-colored beads. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5 :00 p.m. Ryan Stanley, Lakewood Middle School seventh grader, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams. Member Absent Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) and NLRHS-TV (video) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, introduced Michael Blythe, Kevin Martin and Jerry Dowdy as new members of the Superintendent's Honor Roll. These three computer technicians were nominated by Roy Spradlin, Technology Coordinator, for their handling A-1 the updating of the District's computer system. Teresa Burl and John Riley presented all three with plaques and umbrellas. Suzette Patterson, NLRHS West Campus Art teacher, introduced three of the five T.H.E.A. Foundation scholarship winners for their art work. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRlOR MEETING Chairman Moore explained that during the January 12, W06 meeting the Board moved to appoint Dorothy Williams to fill the rest of Mable Mitchell's term until September 2007. However, by Arkansas state law, she could only be appointed until the next school election which will be in September 2006. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to amend the previous motion and to change the Board's appointment of Dorothy Williams to September 2006. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) John Riley moved to accept the minutes of the January 12, 2006 Special meeting with the change of motion\nJanuary 19, 2006 Regular meeting and the January 23, 2006 as printed. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report Margie Snider presented their report. Mrs. Snider said the committee worked hard and proposed 2 new Board policies-CEAC Attendance Incentive and CEAD Sick Leave Redemption. Also, the committee requested approval of revisions to Board policies CEA Sick Leave and CEAA Sick Leave Bank. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the changes as presented to Board Policy CEA Sick Leave. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) A-2 .. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the changes as presented to Board Policy CEAA Sick Leave Bank. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Teresa Burl moved to accept new Board Policy CEAC Attendance Incentive as presented for a first reading. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) John Riley moved to accept new Board Policy CEAD Sick Leave Redemption as presented for a first reading. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) - Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker presented the report. She explained their committee had also worked on the same revisions to Board Policies CEA - CL Sick Leave and CEAA - CL Sick Leave Bank. She also presented the proposed new Board Policies CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive and CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the changes as presented to Board Policy CEA - CL Sick Leave. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams one (Cox and Redus - absent) John Riley moved to accept the changes as presented to Board Policy CEAA- CL Sick Lewe Bank. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEA: AYS: Burl, Moore. Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) A-3 MOTION John Riley moved to accept new Board Policy CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive as presented for a first reading. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) John Riley moved to accept new Board Policy CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption as presented for a first reading. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Payroll Reduction (Employer Pick-up) Resolution Mr. Kirspel explained that as a requirement by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (ATRS) the resolution would need to be adopted to ensure employees who had previously elected to be non-contributory would now have the option to change to contributory. MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the following resolution. John Riley seconded the motion. Payroll Reduction (Employer Pick-up) Resolution Whereas, Internal Revenue code (IRC) Section 414(h)(2) permits employer \"pick-up\" of the employee portion of contributions to a. retirement plan, thereby resulting in tax deferral of employee contributions\nand Whereas, under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (ATRS) plan conditions, members may be allowed to make additional contributions, back contributions, conversion contributions. repayment contributions or purchased service contributions through payroll reductions Therefore, be it resolved, that as an Employer (as defined in AC.A.  24-7-202) under the A IRS Act. the undersigned shall make all member contributions required by A.C.A.  24-7-206. and that the employees of such Employer may not elect to receive such contributions directly. This resolution shall apply to all teacher and nonteacher employees a\u0026lt;: defined in A.C.A.  24-7-406. Further resohed, that the undersigned shall pick up the member contributions required by A. C A.  24-7-406 from the salary earned by a member after June 30, 2006, and those contributions shall then be treated as employer contributions in determining tax treatment A-4 - under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the Income Tax Act of 1929,  26-51-101 et seq. If a member elects to make additional contributions, back contributions, conversion contributions, repayment contributions, or purchased service contributions through payroll reductions, the undersigned shall pick up the amount required to make such contributions from the employee's salary earned after the employee signs an irrevocable payroll authorization prescribed by the A TRS, and those contributions shall then be treated as employer contributions in determining tax treatment under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the Income Tax Act of 1929,  26-51-101 et seq. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Resolution Certifying the Dedication of Local Resources to Meet District' Share of Financial Participation Mr. Kirspel presented the resolution to certify the dedication of our resources stating that we will meet our share of the financial portion of the proposed projects. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the following resolution. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE DEDICATION OF LOCAL RESOURCES TO MEET DISTRICT'S SHARE OF FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION WHEREAS, North Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the \"District\") proposes to construct and equip new construction projects at the District (the \"Projects\") as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Crestwood Elementary/6002-36/Roofing Improvement Boone Park Elementary/6002-37/HV AC Improvement Amboy Elementary/6002-38/ Roofing Improvement Redwood Preschool/6002-39/Roofing Improvement Snenth treet Elementary/6002-40/Roofing Improvement Rose City Middle/6002-41 /Roofing Improvement Lakc\\\\ood Elementary/6002-42/Roofing Improvement Lynch Drive Elementary/6002-43/Roofing Improvement Nonh Heights Elementary/600 -44/Roofing Improvement Poplar treet Middle/6002-45/1 oofing Improvement East Carnpus16002-46/Roofing Improvement West Campus Fine Ans Building/6002-47/Roofing Improvement \\\\ 'St Campus Science Building/6002-48/Roofing Improvement R1Jgeroad \\liddle Charter/6002-49/Roofing Improvement Boone Pai Elementary/6002-50/Roofing Improvement A-5 16. West Campus Main Building/6002-51/Roofing Improvement 17. West Campus Music Building/6002-52/Roofing Improvement 18. Crestwood Elementary/6002-5 3/ Addition 19. West Campus/6002-54/HV AC Improvement 20. East Campus/6002-55/Cafeteria Restroom Addition 21. Lakewood Middle/6002-56/Addition 22. East Campus/6002-57/HV AC Improvement 23. Lakewood Middle/6002-58/HV AC Irnprove~ent WHEREAS, the District proposes to obtain a portion of the funds to accomplish the Projects from the issuance of one or more series of Bonds to be issued in the approximate principal amount of $6,415,000 (collectively, the \"Bonds\")\nWHEREAS, the Projects have been previously included on the District's Master Plan\nWHEREAS, the District has prepared an application in conformance with the requirements published by the Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation (the \"Application\")\nand WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is for the District to certify its dedication oflocal resources to meet its share of financial participation in the Projects\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the District: Section 1. That the District hereby dedicates its local resources to meet its share of financial participation in the Projects (the \"Local Resources\"). The Local Resources includes (i) debt service on the Bonds which will be paid from the proceeds of a continuing debt service tax voted [ and approved] by the electors of the District at a school election to be held on March 14. 2006, specifically for the payment of these Bonds, and surplus revenues derived from debt service taxes heretofore or hereafter voted for payment of other issues of the District subject to prior pledges of. such surplus revenues, and (ii) funds on hand.] Section 2. That the total estimated cost of the Projects, including professional fees for design and construction management is $10,415,300. Sectio~ hat the Projects conforms with sound educational practices. !\u0026gt;ection 4. That the iects will be in compliance with current acade~ facilities standards co11':1ined1 n \u0026lt;1-..ansaSsc hool Facility Manual, including, without limitation 1 _ riate space utilization of existing academic facilities in the District as determi by rn~ Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation. A-6 Section 5. That the allocation of Projects costs between new construction activities and maintenance, repair and renovation activities is as described in the Application attached hereto. Section 6. That the Projects supports the prudent and resourceful expenditure of state funds and improves the District's ability to deliver an adequate and equitable education to public school students in the District as described in the Application attached hereto. Section 7. That all Resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 8. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus- absent) Recommendations for Professional Services Jerry Massey, Plant Services Director, presented the recommendations for the transitional funding projects which approval will be needed to begin after the March 14 election. MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the professional services recommendations as printed in the agenda. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Board Member Reappointment to Desegregation Team Mrs. Moore explained due to the resignation of Mrs. Mable Mitchell from the Board of Education, a new Board me1 '1er n eded to be appomted to the District's Desegregation Team. MOTIO John Riley moved to appoint Dorothy William as tile new Board member to the District\" s Desegregation 1 eu 11. ere Burl seconctL Ile motion. YEA. NAYS: Burl, Moore. Ptky. Te nd Williams one (Cox anJ Redus - .1 nt) A-7 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR FEBRUARY, 2006 AMOUNT THE BLACK STALLION LITERACY THE BRIDGEWAY THE FIELD SHOP THE FIELD SHOP THE PRINTER WORKS THE PRINTING DEPARTMENT INC THERAPY PROVIDERS, P.A. THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP INC. THOMSON LEARNING TNT SCHOOL SUPPLIES INC. TOYS R US TRACEE RAINEY TRANS AMERICAN TIRE COMPANY TREADWAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC TRIARCO ARTS \u0026amp; CRAFTS TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TURNER DAIRY TWIN CITY PRINTING \u0026amp; LITHO INC US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US BEVERAGE INC US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US FUEL U S FUEL UALR UALR DEPT. OF AUDIO \u0026amp; HEARING UAMS UAMS UNIPACK CORP. UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY-F~S US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY-FMS UTILITY BILLING SF~VICES UTILITY BILLINGS~. VICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES VALERIE KEENER VALERIE KEENER VALIC VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VIRCO MFG. CORPORATION T-16 184.00 4,950.00 102.41 400.41 150.36 349.89 9,675.00 298.50 739.28 199.54 487.03 55.34 3,166.88 65.15 87.35 3,587.84 15,490.54 15,239.05 19,937.07 30.52 4,261.90 5,811.60 15,893.40 1,415.88 204.03 114.53 204.03 94.97 434.04 650.15 825.26 80.00 50,044.80 20.00 27.00 1,531.48 4,173.80 2,648.24 27,115.55 5,423.89 208.35 1,175.50 9.20 281.00 31,144.30 825.00 30,992.63 825.00 3,292.73 CHK. NO. 54016 53739 53740 54126 53613 53794 54116 53958 53573 53607 54246 53636 53998 54092 53713 53738 53935 54125 53962 53699 53509 53539 53541 54025 53446 53554 53862 54190 53941 54139 54147 54263 53923 54188 53700 54198 53512 53871 53872 53658 53903 54060 53526 53860 53434 53565 53846 53971 54093 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR FEBRUARY, 2006 AMOUNT VIRGINIA WALLACE 41. 36 VIVIAN HARRIS 41.15 VIVIAN HARRIS 1,188.00 VIVIAN HARRIS 13. 46 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 3,342.18 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 426.50 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 1,205.16 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 109.29 WANDA BROWN 25.00 WANDA HAWKINS 124.35 WARDS TURF EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 307.67 WEEKLY READER 41. 00 WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND 322.73 WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND 540.00 WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND 80.00 WHITNEY FLETCHER 34.54 WM STEPHEN CRAIN 142.70 WM STEPHEN CRAIN 142.70 XEROX CORPORATION 548.27 YARBROUGH THERAPY SERVICES INC 2,730.00 501 TIRE AND WHEEL 252.41 501 TIRE AND WHEEL 22.35 CHECK TOTALS FOR FEBRUARY, 2006 CHECK VOIDS FOR FEBRUARY, 2006 T-17 CHK. NO. 54268 53749 53750 53936 53786 53948 54151 54278 53670 53793 53956 54250 53758 54133 54272 53823 53444 53861 54029 54155 53615 54009 6,509,223.91 320 .11 BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED APR 19 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING ass North Little Rock School District Thursday, April 20, 2006 . 5:00 P. M. ., NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT I. II. m. IV. V. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Thursday, April 20, 2006-5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER, Marty Moore, President INVOCATION, Anton Beard, Meadow Park Elementary Fourth Grader, son of Ms. Katina Brown and Mr. Floyd Beard FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Special Recognition: 1. State PT A Winners - D. Boone, NLR PT A Council President 2. PTA Reflection Winners-M. Ware 3. Young Arkansas Artist Winners - M. Douglass 3. Duke Talent Search Students -A. Kincl 4. Environmental Excellence Award Winners -K. Collie VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:00 P.M. -Regular Meeting-Page A- 1 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUS~SS Page 2 - Board Agenda April 20, 2006 A. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider B. Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report - G. Tucker C. Consider North Little Rock Public Education Foundation Resolution - K. Kirspel - Page B - I D. Consider Revisions to Salary Schedules -K. Kirspel E. Consider Contract Renewal for Administration, Certified, and Clerical Personnel - D. Reed - Page C - I F. Consider Pre - K and Elementary Summer School Recommendation - K. Lowe - Page D - I G. Consider Resolution Finalizing Bond Issue - G. Daniels -Page E - I H. Consider Approval of the 2003 - 2004 School Year Audit - G. Daniels I. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel I. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 3. Consider bid items - Page R- I 4. Consider building use request - Page S - 1 5. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Lakewood Village Band Night - Friday, April 28, 2006 B. Grand March - Friday, May 6, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at Lakewood Village C. Senior Prom - Friday, May 5, 2006 at 8:00 p.m. - The Next Level D. PTA Post Prom Party-May 7, 2005 from 12:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. at The Fisher Armory E. Regular Board Meeting-Thursday, May 18, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. ., X. STUDENT EXPULSIONS XI. ADJOURNMENT Page 3 - Board Agenda April 20, 2006 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES March 16, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, March 16, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. During public comments, Shawn Key, Education Renewal Zone Representative, addressed the Board. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Chassidy Walker, NLRHS Senior, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member Absent None Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, introduced as new members of the Superintendent's Honor Roll. The first new member is Gwen Wiggins, NLRHS West Campus Teacher, nominated by Gregg Thompson, NLRHS West Campus Principal, for her continuing great work with students and always having a positive attitude. John Riley presented her with a plaque. The second new member is Michael Stone, Seventh Street Elementary Assistant Principal, nominated by Pam Wilcox, Seventh Street A-1 Elementary Principal, for his great work with the students and faculty. Teresa Burl also presented him with a plaque. Mr. Acklin presented Coach Daryl Fimple, NLRHS Girls Basketball Head Coach and all of the Girls Basketball Team as the new AAAAA Arkansas State Girls Basketball Champions. Each athlete and all coaches were given a framed picture of their State Championship photo. All Board members thanked them for representing the District as very \"World Class\" student athletes. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the minutes of the February 16, 2006 as printed. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None UNFINISHED BUSINESS New Board Policies-CEAC Attendance Incentive, CEAD Sick Leave Redemption, CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive, and CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption (Second and Final Reading) - Mr. Kirspel explained that he recommended the adoption of these new Board policies with the exception of changing the second paragraph in CEAC Attendance Incentive: From: The incentive will be paid twice yearly. The first attendance incentive period includes July 1 to December 15. The first attendance incentive will be paid on the last student day in December, at the end of the work day. The second attendance incentive period will include December 16th to June 30th . This second incentive will be paid on the last working day of the employee's contract at the end of the working day. To: The incentive will be paid twice yearly. The first attendance incentive period includes the attendance period associated with the July 15th paycheck through the attendance period in December associated with the December 15th paycheck. The first attendance incentive will be paid on the last student day in December at the end of the working day. The second attendance period includes the second attendance period in December through the last attendance period of the fiscal year. The second incentive will be paid on the last working day of the employee's contract at the end of the working day. A-2 Also, recommending that CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive revised: From: The first attendance incentive period will include July 1 to December 15. This incentive will be paid on the last student day in December. The second attendance incentive period will include December 16 to June 30. This will be paid on the employees last contract day of the year. The Attendance Incentive will be paid at the end of the employees work day. To: The incentive will be paid twice yearly. The first attendance incentive period includes the attendance period associated with the July 15th paycheck through the attendance period in December associated with the December 15th paycheck. The first attendance incentive will be paid on the last student day in December at the end of the working day. The second attendance period includes the second attendance period in December through the last attendance period of the fiscal year. The second incentive will be paid on the last working day of the employee's contract at the end of the working day. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the recommended change in paragraph two for proposed Board Policy CEAC Attendance Incentive. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Trent Cox moved to accept CEAC Attendance Incentive as a second and final reading. Scott Teague seconded the motion. MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept CEAD Sick Leave Redemption as a second and final reading. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Scott Teague moved to accept the recommended second paragraph change for CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Scott Teague moved to accept Board Policy CEAC -CL Attendance Incentive as second and final reading. Trent Cox seconded the motion. A-3 YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Mr. Kirspel explained Proposed Board Policy CEAD - CL Sick Leave Bank needed an addition in item three (3). The addition needs to include (A-drop) which will cover the employees covered by the Arkansas Public Employee Deferred Retirement Option Plan. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the recommended change in Board Policy CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Trent Cox moved to accept Board Policy CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption for a second and final reading. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None NEW BUSINESS Update Report on Desegregation Unitary Status Mr. Kirspel explained that he requested Steve Jones, NLRSD Desegregation attorney, to address the Board concerning our District's unitary status. Mr. Jones spoke with the Board at length to explain things are changing and that he felt like the time may be here to request unitary status from the court. Mr. Jones also stated there are many different phases to the request but he wanted to make sure he had the Board's approval to do so. Mr. Jones stated he would also meet with John Walker, attorney for the Joshua Interveners. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the following resolution with Teresa Burl seconding the motion: To authorize the District's Desegregation Attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones P.A., to initiate discussions with the State of Arkansas for Assistance in seeking unitary status and to seek a judicial declaration that North Little Rock School District is unitary and request release from court supervision in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District\nET AL. USDC No. LR - C - 82 - 8266 WR W /JTR and for other purposes. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None A-4 The Board discussed that a Board member needed to appoint a member to negotiate with Mr. Kirspel and Mr. Jones on behalf of our school district. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to appoint Board President Marty Moore as a member of the negotiating team with Superintendent Kirspel and Attorney Steve Jones. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams NAYS: None Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report Margie Snider stated there were no new proposals and no minutes. Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker stated their proposals with corrections were handled under unfinished business. 2006 - 2007 School Calendar Mr. Kirspel presented the calendar for next school year with revisions. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept the 2006 - 2007 School Calendar as presented. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Secondary Summer School Recommendation June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education, presented the recommendation for 2006 secondary summer school with the list of programs with their funding information. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept Administration's recommendation for secondary summer school as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Secondary Math Textbook Committee Recommendation Mrs. Haynie presented the committee's recommendation for secondary math textbooks. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept Administration's recommendation for the secondary math textbooks as printed in the agenda. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. A-5 YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Board Policy CFEB Extra Compensation Recommendation Mr. Kirspel explained the extra compensation committee had completed their recommendation to him and complimented all of them on their work. He recommended the policy changes as printed in the agenda. ' MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the Administration's recommendation as printed in the agenda with the exception of adding \"and/or\" after the first comma in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Policy CFEB Extra Compensation. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Proposal to Purchase Five Buses John Haynie, Director of Transportation, requested approval of the recommendation to purchase five new buses to keep our fleet updated. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to purchase five new buses. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Architect's Bids for Indian Hills Elementary Asbestos Abatement and Renovation Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services, presented the bids for the asbestos abatement and renovation as printed in the agenda. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the bids for the asbestos abatement and renovation as printed in the agenda. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Consent Agenda Mr. Kirspel recommended approval of consent items listed on pages O - 1 through T - 14. A-6 ,.  MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept the consent agenda as presented. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Mike Cobb of Cobb and Suskie presented the 2004 - 2005 School Year Audit. Mr. Cobb highlighted areas of improvement for the Board and answered questions from the Board. The 2004 - 2005 School Year Audit will be presented for approval at the April Board meeting. The Board decided to have a financial workshop on Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in the Board Room. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Marty Moore, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-7 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the mission of the North Little Rock School District is to provide for achievement, accountability, acceptance, and the necessary assets in the pursuit of each student's educational success, and WHEREAS, the m1ss10n of the North Little Rock Public Education Foundation is to improve academic achievement for students in the North Little Rock public schools through community support\nTHEREFORE, Be It Resolved, on this 20th day of April, 2006, that the North Little Rock School Board supports the North Little Rock Public Education Foundation and its work on behalf of the students of North Little Rock. Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice - President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member Kenneth Kirspel, Superintendent B-1 'I North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Abbott, Robin C. Abdin, Ruba W. Adams, Eltrudia C. Ainley, Becky Alexander, Catherine L. Alexander, Richard C. Allen, Dinah M. Allen, Eva M. Allen, Rebecca Allen, Sylvia J. Allgeyer, David C. Amis, Glen P. Anderson, Deborah A. Arendt, Robin Arnold, Kathleen A. Ashcraft, Allison Badgett, Susan R. Baggett, Michelle Bailey, Rebecca S. Baker, Amber R. Baker, Hope L. Baker, Karen S. Baker, Lorie A. Baker, Sheila M. Balest, Mary A. Bangs, Paige Banks, Rhonda Barber, Melissa Barnette, Stephany Barrett-Smith, Gina L. Barton, Elaine Barton, Raquell Batte, Donna E. Battles, Autreana M. Bazil, Brenda A. Beard, Cheryl Bearden, Karyl S. Beckett, Cynthia L. Beeks, Camille D. Beeson, Gayle Belew, Rebecca J. Bell, Anita J. Bell, Cynthia L. Belton, Pamela Bennett, Jessica M. Bennett, Linda S. Benson, Priscilla L. C-1 Benson, Sheila Beranek, Jennifer Berry, Sherry L. Berryman, Sara L. Best, Abbra M. Beverly, William A. Billings, James M. Billings, Lee Bing, Cheryl Bingham, Judy Bledsoe, Sue A. Bona, Renee Bones, Michelle Botts, Mary J. Boutwell, Steve R. Bowers, Shirley I. Bradley, Paula S. Bragg, Melissa Brainerd, Lori B. Branch, Glenn D. Brazear, Shara B. Brewer, Karen S. Briggs, Mae K. Brinkley, Nancy L. Brixey, Gena Brooks, Elizabeth Brossett, Ramona Broughton, Judy A. Brown, Barbara E. Brown, Debbie J. Brown, Erin R. Brown, Jeffrey D. Brown, Paul W. Brown, Rhonda L. Bryant, Dawnley Bryant, Ruth M. Buch, Archita Bunn, Gary 0. Bunting Jr., Verdell Burks, Amy Burl, Brad G. Burnett, Judy C. Burrall, Sharon S. Burton, Lynn Bush, Jamie Bussard, Alison L. Butler, Brenda S. Butler, Debra L. North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Butts, Carol A Calhoun, Stephanie Callahan, Allison Calva, Tina Camp, Drew C. Cannon, Melissa H. Cantrell, Anthony A Carlson, Emily A Carroll, Dawne M. Casavechia, Natalie D. Casey, Rita K. Cass, Natalie G. Cathey, Kasey Chamberlain, Robert A Chambers, Robbi S. Chandler, Angela Chaudoin, Amanda Chrisman, Tracy Clayborn Jr, Nathan L. Clement, Leslie Clemons, Elizabeth J. Clemons, Kairi Clemons, Peggy J. Cleveland, Joyce Clevenger, Dawna Clifton, Donna Cobb, Karen L. Cochran, Stacy Cochran, Thad M. Cody, Paul Coker, Deborah D. Coleman, Jennifer Collier, Tammy Conner, Jennifer Converse, Erin Cook, Cynthia L. Coombe, Amanda Cope, Natalie Copeland, Jairus L. Copeland, Mary C. Copley, Judi Cottrell, Arthur L. Coulter, S. P. Cowart, Ann M. Cox, Mary B. Cox, Takecia L. Crews, Brenda Crowder, Amanda K. C-2 Crumpler, Clair J. Crunkleton, Mitchell Crymes, Marilyn H. Curran, Samantha Custer, Rosemary P. Dale, Joann D'andrea, Wende Daniels, Diana L. Darby, Randa E. Darnell, Natalie Davenport, Debbie David, Jennifer M. Davis, Barbara Davis, Bettie L. Davis, Danna Davis, Gary L. Davis, Rebecca Davis, Sharon L. De Roche, Charlotte Deal, Dianna J. Dean, Marcia Dearworth, Rebecca Deatherage, Tamara M. Dees, Erin Dehan, Halita Derden, Julie A. Derden, Robert C. Derrick-Coleman, Karen Devore, Rhonda L. Dicus, Sasha R. Ditty, Debra K. Dishmon, Gloria M. Disterdick, Mindi Doolittle, Heidi Doss, Lisa B. Dotson, Jimmie S. Douglas, Melissa Douglass, Kimberlee D. Douglass, Mauri T. Drake, Rosemarie Dreher, Billie A Duke.Shannon Duke, Stephen Duncan, Stacy Dunn, Sherry M. Earles, Darla Eason, Jennifer East, Mary C. North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Eaton, Ashley Edmonds, June M. Eldred, Sharon L. Elliott, Linda K. Ellis, Theresa Ellis, Ulanda Engelkes, Erin Ervin, Margaret A. Evans, Crystal P. Evatt, Emily Everley, Caleb M. Ewart, Kay T. Faith, Susan Farrar, Melissa G. Farris, Dorothy Felton, Teri L. Fendley, Susan C. Ferguson, Mary L. Fimple, Amanda Fimple, Daryl L. Fiser, Elizabeth Fitzpatrick, Gwenn Fleming, Sean J. Fletcher, Whitney Floyd, Molly M. Floyd, Vanessa L. Ford, Kenya Fortner, Lynn L. Fortune, Shay Foster, Janet L. Fox, Connie France, Jennifer Frazier, Robin A. French, Terri Fricioni, David R. Frodyma, Judy Fuller, Stephen Fulmer, Lila A Furlough, Loretta J. Fuselier, Anita K. Gardner, Nona L. Gardner, Rebecca W. Garlington, Shirley Garrett, Carolyn F. Garrigus, Claudia M. Garrison, Janet Gaskalla, Diedra E. Gereaux, Amber D. C-3 Gibson, Elaine B. Gibson, Roger E. Gieringer, Christy Gill, Marc Gilliam, Melanie Gilliam, Suzanne Girone, Daniel L. Giuisti, Thomas M. Gladwin, Marla J. Golden, Jason S. Goodwin, Randi M. Gordon, Shandria L. Gott, Janice Gray, Anita K. Gray, Kathy C. Green, Michele S. Green, Nancy C. Greene, Debra K. Greenfield, Debra K. Grice, Andrea S. Grissom, Kimberly D. Grossmann, Linda Gump, Barbara E. Hadley, Telisa Hain, Andrea Hale, Kathryn D. Hall, Cherryl Hall, Cheryl (. Halliburton, Carla D. Hamlin, Sheri L. Hammonds, Gwendolyn M. Hampton, Cynthia Hampton, Jacqueline Hanan, Ashley Hancock, Melissa Hankins, Raymond L. Hanks, Carolyn S. Harris, Linda K. Harris, Nina C. Harris, Tracy A Harris, Vivian Harrison, Paula Hart, Elizabeth Hart, Lyndli P. Hartl, Elsa M. Haver, Gary L. Haver, Sharon HawkinsW, anda North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Hayden, Mary G. Hazeslip, Heather Heath, Honnye Heathcock, Rebecca S. Heller, Kathy L. Henderson, Patrick M. Hendrickson, Don Hensley, Pamela J. Henson, Sandra K. Herring, Alisha Herring, Melissa Hickey, Anne M. Hickman, Catricia D. Hicks, Mary E. Higgins, Debra S. Hill, Kimberly Hobbs, Thurman A Hoggard, Ashely G. Hogue, Kelli Holcomb, Meredith Holiman, Carol Holland, Anita Z. Holland, Kathy J. Holley, Schula M. Holt, Michelle Homan, Danniell N. Homan, Rosetta M. Hoover, Audrey Hopper, Jacqueline Horton, Darla K. Horton, Deborah J. Howard, Amanda Howell, Lou A Huddleston, Jeffrey R. Huels, Michael Huels, Shannon Huey, Cathie Huff, Todd Huffman, Leslie Humphries, Lara Hunt, Kathryn J. Hunter, Christie A Hurd, Joe Huston, Kristen M. Hutson, Angie Hutson, Bryan Hyden.Susan Hynum, Kathleen K. C-4 llochi, Kristine Ingalls, Ashley A lsgrig, Kimber L. Ivory, Lorine Jackson, Susan E. Jaros, Melissa L. Jarry, Cecelia Jennings, Claudette Johnson, Angela Johnson, Ozetta Johnston, Cathy L. Jones, Cassandra Jones, Elizabeth A Jones, Ellen M. Jones, Faith R. Jones, George S. Jones, Sandra A Jones, Shelly R. Jorgensen, Alaina Jorgenson, Lizbeth A Joshua, Leslie L. Joshua-Smith, Stacy Kaiser, Patricia A Keaton, Michelle Keeling, Paula S. Kelley, Darlene Kelly, Letitia M. Kelton, Amy Killingsworth, Jeffrey B. Kimbrell, Jennifer L. Kimbrough, Rebecca A Kirby, Cynthia D. Kirchner, Lessie Kite, Kathi J. Kleitsch, Pamela A Klippert, Sharon R. Klucher, Christy Klucher, Michael A Koettel, Patti A Koller, Tim Krebs, Leslie L. Kremers, Barbara E. Kron Jr, Richard T. Lanes, Quilla Lang, Janet Lann, Cynthia A. Larkan, Gina R. Larson, Pat A. . 'I North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Lasley, Sandra K. Lassiter, Jennifer R. Lathrop, Pamela Lawhon, Jill M. Le, Vu N. Lee, Barbara Lee, Deedra 8. Lefear, Bill Leger, Gwen Leirer, Kendra Lewis, Kathryn M. Lewis, Lisa Lewis, Rebekah H. Lincoln, Jennifer M. Loftis, Dorothy J. Lofton, Artis T. Lofton, Clara A Lofton, Joyce A. London, Cynthia C. Long, Gaye L. Looney, Lynne W. Lowrance, Anna Lupton, Cynthia Lutz, Deborah Luzzi, Dawna K. Mac Millan, Lindsay A Madden, Carrie J. Maddox, Kristen L. Malone, Frances N. Mann, Deanna Mann, Melonie Manning, Carrie J. Markham, Julia R. Marsh, Michael S. Marshall, Nancy L. Martin, Leslie Martin, Sally Martin, Terri S. Mascuilli, Sam J. Masterson, Deborah A Mathews, Joshua D. Matthews, Bettianne H. Matthews, Kristy Matthews, Mary D. Matthey, Lora Maxam, Denise Maxwell, Jimmy L. May, Susan H. C-5 Mayerhoff, Carol L. McAlister, Sara McAdams, Carol A McAfee, Marjorie E. McAlpine, Marva L. McCollum, Diana K. McCoy, Dana McCoy, Gretchen McCrannie, Wanda G. McGehee, Shari L. McGill, Natalee McGinley, Donnas K. McKinley, April McLean, Valerie C. McMahan, Mary P. McMillen, Martha B. McPherson, David M. McP herson, Jo E. McRae-Miller, Edwina Mcspadden, Susan F. Melvin, Brenda Merrell, Lisa Mick, Doreen K. Miller, Patrick A Miller, Susan M. Mills, Stephen W. Monnot, Katy D. Monroe, Megan Montgomery, Nancy A Moore, Brock Moore, Donald R. Moore, Ely D. Moore, Kendrick R. Moore, Nancy H. Moorehead, Kennith D. Moran, Claudia Murdaugh, Dottie Murdock, Jill Murphy, Olivia Murphy, Pilar Muse, Kelli L. Myers, Dorothy I. Nannen, Leann 0. Nash, Vandy M. Naylor, Janet S. Needler, Michelle Nesselrodt, Brandy Neumeier, Shanon K. North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Neville, Andrea M. Newburg, Jessica R. Nichols, Joyce J. Nichols, Staci A. Nilz, John Noah, Judy G. Noland, John M. Norman, Virginia L. Nutz, Chasity A. Oberle, Sandra J. O'dell, Connie J. Orobona, Steven Otwell, Sharon Pack, Delinda Papineau, Deborah A. Park, Jennifer Parker, Brenda Parker, Edward 0. Parker, Renita G. Parker, Sandra K. Parr, Perry L. Parrish, Julie Parsley, Carrie A. Patterson, Suzzette R. Pearce, Kristan N. Pearce, Lori A. Pearson, Kimberly Peck, Cassandra M. Pendergraft, J.B. Pennington, Cheryl G. Pepper, Kayce Perkins, Marla C. Perry, Corrie Petty, Tammy L. Phaup, Courtney Phillips, Shauri Pierce, Judy K. Pierce, Marie L. Pitts, Christen B. Ploszay, Jane Ploszay, Joy Ponder, Anne S. Pool, Harriett S. Pope, Charles E. Porter, Steven Powell, Ami B. Powell, Betty Powell, Holly H. C-6 Powell, Karen L. Pride, Anita Priest, Lena Priester, Rebecca M. Pritchett, Alexandra T. Purtle, Damaris K. Quarry, Cindy A. Quattlebaum, Judith A. Rainey, Tracee L. Ralston, Laura Ratliff, Sherry A. Redden, Clara L. Reed, Mary A Reed, Rebecca Reed, Stacy L. Reeder, Tammy Reeves, Kimberly Reyes-Lovins, Elena Reynolds, Brouke Reynolds, Kimberly N. Rhodes, Natalie L. Rice, John W. Rigsby, Wilene Ripper, Donna A. Ritchie, Suzanne E. Ritter, Shelly L. Roach, DeAnn Robbins, Sarah L. Roberts, Tammy L. Rodgers, Keva Rogers, Mala J. Roper, Carol S. Rowe, Marjean Rozzell, Debora A. Runsick, Amber Russenberger, Cynthia Rynders, Michael E. Sallis, Roseanne Sandefur, Randy H. Schafer, Nicole Schimmel, Holly B. Schnarr, Loretta K. Scott, Marcia L. Scott, Marilyn M. Scott, Melinda Seidl, Catherine Sela, Melissa Selhorst, Prisca ., North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Seratt, Amber D. Serbousek, Mary C. Setzler, Morgan Sexton, Cortney Shadid, Joy R. Sheehan, Nancy Sheffield, Kellie L. Shelton, Anita Shimek, Becky Shipman, Meredith Shoemaker, Patricia A Showalter, Laura Siems, Maribel Sifford, Deborah K. Simon, Charlotte H. Simpson, Dawn T. Sisco, Lynda Skiba, Carol L. Skinner, Adonna Slattery, Leslie D. Smith, Andria Smith, Anita J. Smith, Beth A Smith, Lori Smith, Melinda Smith, Nannette L. Smith, Sammye L. Smith, Sheila A Smith, Shelly Smith, Sherry B. Smith, Tammy J. Sneed, Mary E. Snider, Margie A Somers, Amy Southwell, Jan Spadaro, Sara Spainhour, Billy Speyer, Bethany Stafford, Brooke Stafford, Kimberly S. Stamp, Maria Standley, Larry Standley, Mildred M. Stane, Dawn Stanfield, Joyce L. Stanley, Gale Stanley, Kimberly R. Stark, Harold D. C-7 Starks, Brigetta L. Steadman, Vicki L. Stewart, Linda P. Stewart, Nancy L. Stickland, Nelda R. Stogsdill, Lora Stone, Abigail Story, Arclista J. Sullivan, Jennifer Sumler, Jacqueline Summons, Dorie T. Sutherlen, Letitia Sutterfield, Lagatha Symancyk, Amanda A. Talley, Johnny J. Tate, John P. Taylor, Mary C. Taylor, Paul D. Thomas, Bryan K. Thomas, Majoice Thomas, Vicki L. Thompson, Elizabeth Thompson, Phylis Y. Tillery, Jane A. Toney, Connie M. Torres, Valerie D. Touchstone, Maria Tucker, Kevin Turner, Donna M. Tyler, Amity Ushery, Jennifer A Valentine, Terri Vammen, Anna N. Vance Chambers, Kathy V. Vancleve, Marcia Vandiver, Katherine Vanpelt, Amy L. Vasquez, Paula J. Veasey, Cora A. Vickers, Margaret Virden, Charlotte S. Vollman, Amy C. Wadley, Denise Wadley, Kristin Waits, Klevon Waldorf, Eric Walker, Joni L. Walker, Joyce M. North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Walker, Mary L. Wallace, David J. Walls, Melissa Ward, Kimberly J. Ward, Lindsey Ware, Amanda A Warford, Bob Warnock, Sherah Wasson, Michele R. Watson, Esther M. Watts, Roy K. Weaver, Kathy J. Weimer, Jessica Welch, Mary C. Wells, Kassandra R. Wesson, Allison J. West, Lisa L. Whisnant, Karla R. Whisnant, Stanley A White, Michael C. Whitehead, Jacqui P. Whiteside, Carolyn R. Whitlock, Valarie K. Whitten, Robin D. Whitten, William H. Wickliffe, Sandy Wiggins, Gwen K. Wiles, Mary A Williams, Bettye M. Williams, James \"Jay\" R. Williams, Jeanne Williams, Joye P. Williams, Linda I. Williams, Meredith K. Williams, Sandra W. Williams, Sheila Williams, Sherrye Williamson, Danyial Willis, Don Wilsey, Linda A Wilson, Candace L. Wilson, Christie Wilson, Jada Winter, Charla D. Witcher, Mary R. Winters, Laura Wood, Crystal Woodard, James W. C-8 Woodard, Victoria Woods, Cynthia D. Woods, Pheleisa Woodsmall, Amy L. Woody, Pilar Woolqridge, Melanie Wright, Anita P. Wyeth, Victoria L. Yager, Tiffany B. Yarbrough, Alicia Young, Casey Young, Emily L. Zeiser, Juel North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - April 20, 2006 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR THE 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Acklin, Bobby J. Alexander, Karen L. Asti, Martha K. Bowers, Billy A Broadway, Lenisha Calvin, Jonathan D. Cameron, Anita K. Canady, Steven C. Chadwick, Dana G. Chadwick, Susan L. Cherry, Mavis V. Cohen, Perry I. Colclasure, Angela M. Coleman, Rosie A Crites, Diane Danaher, Kevin H. Daniels, Gregory N. Dillinger, Rellia A Edrington, Jody L. Faulkner, Caroline Ferguson, Pamala Gallot-Knighten, Daphne Gillison, Sara F. Hartwick, Barbara J. Hassell, Loretta M. Haynie, John C. Haynie, June Jackson, Francical J. Jasper, Thelma Jennings, Laura 8. Jones, Charles L. Jones, Rickey E. Kelso, Beverly A Kincl, Barry L. Kirspel, Kenneth A Lowe, Kaye Martin, Brenda K. Martin, Letitia R. Massey, Jerry D. McMurray, Patricia C-9 Melton, Cynthia S. Mitchell, Brent S. Pharo, Jann Ratliff, Kristie A Rich, Larry G. Russell, Danny B. Satterfield, Marsha L. Shurley, Susan G. Smith, Gloria A Smith, Sheryll D. Snowden, Dana K. Stone, Micheal A Tackett, Dana L. Taylor, George Thompson, Gregory J. Thornton, Carol T. Turner, Winston B. Wallace, Virginia M. Warren, Shedrick J. Wilcox, Pamela A Wilson, Linda H. Woods, Richard E. Wright, Aimee T. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APRIL 20, 2006 CLERICAL PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR THE 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR ADAMS, ARETHA M. AMICK, KAREN Y. ANDERSON, DONNA S. ARENDT, CONNIE M. ARMAN, MARY K. ARMSTRONG, JACQUELYN D. ARNOLD, SHEILA A BARNETT, JUDY K. BAUGHER, KA THY M. BOARDMAN, PETREVIA A BRAY, CHERYL P. CAMPBELL, MURIELENE CARROLL, ELIZABETH A CHAPMAN, NORA L. CLARK, LA TONY A Y. COCHRAN, THERESA L. COLLINS, SANDRA K. CUMMINGS, L. C. CURRAN, NANCY L. DAHLBERG, RHONDA G. DANIELS, PEGGY DUCKERY, CARYN S. EUBANK, MICHEELA J. GATES, JUDIE A GILES, LINDA C. GLOVER, PAMELA D. GODWIN, ELIZA A HARPER, LINDA B. HAYGOOD, AMY K. HERNDON, MARY R. HESS, CARMA L. HICKMAN, CHRISTINE HOLMES, DARLENE V. HOLT, BRENDA S. HUDSON, NELL C. JACKSON, PAMELA M. JONES, PATSY Y. KILBURY, NANCY J. KINCL, CAROLYN L. KIRBY, SHEILA K. LANCASTER, LAURA L. LAWSON, DANETTE LIVELY, BOBBYE LIVELY, PATTI A C-10 LOVENSTEIN, RITA C. MCCARROLL, ROBINETTE MEEKS, JANA K. MITCHELL, LAMONICA R. MONK, CAROL MORRIS, NANCY E. MORRIS, TAMI R. NEWTON, ROSALYN J. OLIGER, JANELLE PARKER, VICKIE L. PETTIT, SHERRI PHILLIPS, TAMMY M. PLATT, YOLANDA A PORTWINE, FELICIA A PROCTOR-PERSON, ARETHA RICHBOURG, MARY S. RODGERS, JANET L. RODGERS, JOYCE M. RUBLE, JANET L. SARTIN, LOU A SARTIN, MALYNDA C. SHUFFIELD, MARY E. SIMS, MARVA D. SMITH, DOLLY A SMITH, SANDRA L. STOKES, PHYLLIS B. TEMPEL, SANDRA K. TERRY, LISA A THIBAULT, BETTY J. TILLMAN, MARGARET B. TUCKER, GLENDA L. URTON, PAULA K. WASSON, DOYALENE WATSON, BRENDA K. WILLIAMS, TONYA L. WILLIS, LINDA K. WILLOUGHBY, BRENDA WIRGES, ELIZABETH WISE, LINDA G. WONN, PATRICIA D. WOOD, SANDRA G. YOUNTS, KAREN L. ZAKRZEWSKI, MARY J. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO: MR. KEN KIRSPEL FROM: KA YE LOWE, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION SUBJECT: ELEMENTARYSUMMERPROGRAMS DATE: APRIL 13, 2006 Proposed Elementary Summer Programs Seventh Street Elementary Arkansas Reading First Summer Reading Camp Dates: June 5-June30, 2006 Student Hours: 8:00 a.m.-11 :30 a.m. Students Served: Eighty (80) Seventh Street Students, maximum, in grades K-3 Funding Source: Arkansas Reading First Grant Description: Four master teachers work collaboratively with four literacy coaches in providing intensive instruction for struggling readers. Breakfast will be served each morning. The site will also serve as a laboratory for professional development for K-3 teachers, literacy coaches, administrators, and K-12 special education teachers. Student transportation will be provided by the district. Budget: Budget Item Amount Fringe (22.6%) Number Total K Teacher - Erin Engelkes $5 000 $1,130 1 $6,130 1st Teacher - Ruba Abdin $5,000 $1,130 1 $6,130 2nd Teacher - Christie Wilson $5,000 $1,130 I $6,130 3rd Teacher - Laura Showalter $5,000 $1,130 I $6,130 K Coach - Joni Walker $5,000 $1,130 I $6,130 1st Coach - Fran Harris $5,000 $1,130 1 $6 130 200 Coach - Denise Houghton $5,000 $1,130 1 $6,130\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_1031","title":"\"CompassLearning in the Little Rock School District\" by Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee","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":["2006-01"],"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--21st Century","Little Rock School District","University of Memphis. Center for Research in Educational Policy","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"CompassLearning in the Little Rock School District\" by Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee"],"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/1031"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition 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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_953","title":"Report: Annual 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":["2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School enrollment","School facilities","Education--Finance","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Annual 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/953"],"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\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_703","title":"\"Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District\"","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the 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/703"],"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\nUniversity of Memphis. Center for Research in Educational Policy\nCREP ' Center for Research itt Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy Research Brief The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free\n1-866-670-6147 SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School DistrictII II II CREP ' Caiierftr Research in Educational Policy II II Center for Research in Educational Policy The Unwersity of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Research Brief II SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District II II II II II II January 2006 n II IB Lyle Hull Davis, Ph.D. Ying Huang Center for Research in Educational Policy n John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University Gail Weems, Ph.D. University of Arkansas at Little RockII II RESEARCH BRIEF: SMART/THRIVE IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II II II M M Background SMART and THRIVE are programs designed by two veteran Little Rock School District (LRSD) teachers. In 1999, the programs were implemented in LRSD, designed to serve at-risk students. These programs have been funded in part by the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program and the National Science Foundation. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I, respectively. The programs intentions/goals are to: a) provide a solid foundation for Algebra, b) encourage mathematical exploration\nc) make mathematics fun\nd) enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics\nand e) create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level mathematics courses. The SMART program meets for two consecutive weeks during the summer. The THRIVE program meets every other Saturday during the Spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. Purpose, Plan and Participants M HI ni Purpose This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to: a) examine the extent to which the programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students\nb) provide cumulative evidence of SMART/THRIVE implementation practices and c) document perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as the level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. Research Questions IH IH Seven research questions provided the focus of the evaluation. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. Evaluation questions were\n1. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? IH 2. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? 3. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? IH 4. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? IH 5. 6. IH What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 7. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 1n n Plan n The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. To determine how effectively SMART and THRIVE were meeting the needs of African American students, a cadre of qualitative and quantitative measures were used. II Evaluation Measures II Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. Administration procedures and descriptions of instrumentation are provided below. IB Direct Classroom Observation Measures  School Observation Measure (SOtvf'): Examines frequency of usage of 24 instructional strategies. IB  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA)-. Provides measurement of the degree of learner engagement in cooperative learning, project-based learning, higher-level questioning, IB experiential/hands-on learning, student independent inquiry/research, student discussion and students as producers of knowledge using technology.  Math Addendum: Rates teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. IB Surveys Student Survey. Collects participant impressions and perceptions regarding the satisfaction, shortcomings, strengths and influence of SMART and THRIVE programs. IB  Parent Survey. Collects parent perceptions and impressions regarding availability (access), influence, transportation and opinions of SMART and THRIVE. IB  Algebra I Teacher Survey. Collects Algebra I teacher perceptions and impressions of influence of program on student performance as well as global awareness and opinions of SMART and THRIVE. IB  SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey. Collects SMARTfTHRIVE teacher perceptions and impressions regarding professional development, influence of technology, influence of program on student performance and overall opinions of the program. Focus Groups II  Student Focus Groups: Collects program participant impressions and perceptions regarding the influence of each program on Algebra I achievement, test scores, and self-confidence about math. Also collects information about SMART and THRIVE program weaknesses, strengths and needs. IB  Mentor Focus Group: Collects high school SMART mentor impressions and perceptions of SMART program strengths, weaknesses, needs, and influence on students. n student Records  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in light of achievement data. Participation rates are reported as well. 2n V student Academic Performance n Math Benchmark Test (2003 - 2004): The Benchmark Test is a state-mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items. fl fl End of Course Exams (EOC) 2004-2005: The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion- referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. fl  ITBS Math Subtests: The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation. This test is norm-referenced. fl  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: The curriculum-based tests are measures of student ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. fl Procedure fl fl To examine the quality of teaching and extent to which students were engaged in learning, CREP researchers conducted a series of random observations during the THRIVE program. Targeted observations were conducted in February and March of 2005 using the SOM, Math-addendum, and RSCA instruments. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. fl To examine teacher, student, and parent perceptions, surveys and focus groups were designed and lead by CREP researchers. fl To examine effects of SMART and THRIVE on achievement, data from a variety of norm-referenced, criterion-referenced and informal tests were collected. District and state student performance measures were administered in late spring. Historical records of prior student Benchmark performance were collected through the district database. fl Table 1 summarizes the data collection procedure. fl  fl 3d fl Table 1. Data Collection Summary fl Type of Measure Instrument Number Completed/Data Source Total Description fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl Targeted Classroom Observations Surveys Focus Groups Achievement T ests Attendance Data SOM  RSCA Math AdderxJum SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams (Spring, 2005) ITBS Informal curriculumbased measures (specific to SMART/THRIVE) SMART 2004 Atterxiance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 5 19 5 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE 21 Participants 2 Participants See Table 2 210 students (88% African American) 143 students (84% African American) *A series of observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During a one hour period, one* RSCA form was completed every 15 minutes. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers. THRIVE parent sun/eys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental pennission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group inten/iew lasted approximately 45 minutes. Mentors from the SMART 2004 program were contacted by researchers. Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol modified to capture mentor perceptions to conduct an onsite, 45-minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by indeperxJent entities and distributed throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students One observation session was comprised of three rather than four observation segments due to scheduling constraints. 4IB n Participants KM HR The primary context of observations, focus groups and surveys was the 2005 THRIVE program. Additional attendance data were collected from the 2004 SMART program. Survey and focus group responses concerning both programs also were collected. Both programs served students from the following middle schools: Cloverdale, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, Mablevale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest. Students from the following high schools were also served: Central, Fair, Hall, McClellan, and Parkview. Table 1 provides a breakdown of students, mentors, teachers and parents who participated in surveys and focus groups. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the student achievement samples. n The sample sizes used for achievement comparisons varied depending upon the availability of achievement data. The following table illustrates the student populations as they relate to comparison or SMART/THRIVE programs. Due to the relative small total number of 8* grade, non-African American students participating in SMART/THRIVE (n=11), eighth grade comparisons were only made for African American students. I Table 2. Description of Subject Pool H s* grade ECX) Comparison 82 Thrive SMART SMARTS THRIVE 15 48 African- American 32 M 9^ grade EOC aggrade ITBS 581 790 NonAfrican- American 150 356 African- American 70 72 NonAfrican- American 14 12 African- American 13 17 NonAfrican- American 0 0 African- American 23 23 NonAfrican- American 3 2 n Findings M Direct Classroom Observation Results Targeted Observations II n 11 Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the five observation sessions revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed Student Learner Expectations (SLE). Team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was observed during the sessions. The Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning during the observation sessions. Teachers were also noted promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. The RSCA results suggest that the THRIVE program integrated technology into the curriculum. Average or above average implementation (e.g., level of intensity, meaningfulness, quality) was noted for activities associated with higher level thinking strategies, teamwork and independent technology use. Survey Results I Student Survey The overall trend in response types was positive for survey items pertaining to THRIVE and SMART. Regarding THRIVE, students demonstrated high levels of agreement for items probing self-confidence, comfort level, growth related to problem solving skills, and overall satisfaction with the program. Two areas in 5 h H u n which some students showed some disagreement were related to generalization and application. Students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program on the open ended portion of the student survey, but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Responses to items pertaining to SMART indicated agreement among students for items pertaining to preparedness, motivation, and application. Open-ended items also suggest overall satisfaction with SMART\nhowever, a number of student suggestions were made about changing the time during which the summer program met. Parent Survey H U H Responses from the 35 parents who responded to the THRIVE parent survey suggest that they have positive feelings towards the program. Agreement or strong agreement was consistently noted across all survey items. No negative responses to the items were reported. The 21 SMART parent respondents provided similar information, particularly for those items reflecting their satisfaction with the teachers, their childrens preparedness for Algebra I. and their comfort level with the program meeting time. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Neutral responses were noted for one item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. Parent perceptions measured with analysis of open-ended responses reflected an overall satisfaction with both programs. When asked specifically about transportation, the majority of parents did not cite it as an issue\nhowever, some parents reported access to transportation being inconsistent. Algebra I Teacher Survey  11 Algebra I teachers responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers responding to THRIVE items and the 25 Algebra I teachers responding to SMART items were globally positive. These teachers agreed that both programs had improved students self-confidence and positively impacted student achievement\nhowever, they responded more neutrally to items probing the programs influence on childrens problem solving ability and influence on general Algebra I instruction. When asked specifically about whether they felt SMART and THRIVE had had an impact on achievement differences among races, a small percentage disagreed, approximately one third responded neutrally or did not know, and the remaining 48% agreed. Ml SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey Ml Ml SMART/THRIVE Teachers responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE and SMART programs. Two items for which some teachers responded neutrally were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. No negative responses were noted among the items\nhowever, some teachers indicated that the limited time available for teaching was considered a shortcoming for both SMART and THRIVE. Focus Groups Ml Student Focus Group  w Students perceptions of both programs suggest that there is a generally positive feeling towards SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the consensus among the twenty-one students who participated in the focus groups was that SMART and THRIVE bolstered math skills and boosted confidence. Despite some mild distaste for required meeting times (Saturdays and during the summer), most student participants indicated that both SMART and THRIVE had reinforced Algebra I skills and provided a fun. relaxing context for learning. Many students noted that the programs had provided new strategies for problem solving and made Algebra I less daunting. There were no outwardly negative comments made. 6 I Il II Mentor Focus Group II II Two high school student mentors who had participated in SMART, 2004 provided input about the SMART program primarily. The mentors viewed SMART as a preparatory program focused on reviewing prealgebra principles. Both mentors, however, also noted that SMART provided a unique environment in which competition helped motivate students and make math more enjoyable. The mentors global perception of the program was that SMART allowed students to get a head start on Algebra 1 principles with a simultaneous boost in confidence. II Attendance II II Collectively, the 2004 SMART program served 210 students for which attendance data were available and the 2005 THRIVE program served 143 students for which data were available. Compared to the general population served by the district (69.0% African American), SMART and Thrive programs served a higher percentage of African American students (88.0% SMART\n84.8% Thrive\n89.6% Both). The attendance rates for SMART yielded an average rate of 97% (range: 94%-100%) and the attendance rates for Thrive yielded an average rate of 90% (range\n81%-100%). Achievement I II II The results provide evidence that, in 9** grade, the SMART program, the Thrive program, or the combination of the two programs were associated with substantial improvements in the achievement on the Algebra I EOC exam. The strongest evidence was noted among students who participated in both programs. Eighth grade students participating in any combination of the programs were less likely than their non-parficipant peers to perform at basic or below basic proficiency levels on the Algebra I EOC exam. More specifically, African American students in both eighth and ninth grade who were enrolled in any of the three program configurations were more likely to perform at proficient or advanced levels of proficiency than the nonparticipant comparison group. Gains were also noted on the program-specific assessments for the SMART and Thrive programs. No significant differences between comparison and SMART/THRIVE students nor racial differences were noted among scores from the ITBS. n Conclusions n Each of the major research questions will provide a framework around which the conclusions for the present study will be structured. II Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? n Student-level achievement analyses show that participation in SMART. Thrive and a combination of programs is associated with improvements in achievement when compared to non-participating students. Specifically, our interpretation of these outcomes focuses on the extent to which these differences in achievement relate to growth among African American students. II n Findings suggest that participation in any of the program configurations was associated with a major reduction in the achievement gap between African American students and students of other races, from a one standard deviation deficit on 2003-04 Benchmark scores to virtually no difference on 2004-5 Algebra I EOC scores. For 2004-05 S' graders, the results suggest a positive effect of the programAfrican American students attending any program configuration were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced levels than peers who did not attend. Although results were favorable for African American students enrolled in both programs, no statistically significant effects were noted from ITBS scores for race or program, demonstrating that although SMART and Thrive have a direct and significant impact on curriculum-based performance measures, they have a lesser influence on standardized, norm-referenced math achievement performance. In light of the current goal in increasing achievement among African American students, particularly in the domain of mathematics, the results from EOC and Benchmark exams are highly important. These results 7 are encouraging as implementation of the SMART and THRIVE programs seems to have had a positive impact on African American student achievement. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Il a Overall, the level of participation for both programs was high. The majority of students enrolled in SMART, THRIVE or both programs missed no sessions, yielding average attendance rates of 90% or above. Additionally, data from classroom observations suggested a high degree of student engagement and participation across classrooms within the THRIVE program. Given the demographic characteristics of the participants, the significant quantitative relationship between participation and student achievement gains, and the high participation rates among participants, the results provide evidence that SMART and THRIVE have a positive impact on participation among African American students and that participation has had significant influence on achievement. II What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? If During classroom visits, the majority of observed instructional strategies were couched in a collaborative teaching model focused on higher level thinking skills and student grouping. Students were observed utilizing technology throughout their lessons and were highly engaged during observation sessions. Teachers frequently posed hypothetical questions to groups to accommodate use of higher-level thinking skills and generate more varied student responses. Even when students were engaged in independent seatwork, which was rare, teachers were observed circulating among various student groups, requesting more in-depth questioning strategies in their problem solving approaches. Additionally, students were frequently observed encouraging fellow students in preparation for competition while working in collaborative groups. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? M U U SMARTfTHRIVE teachers responded positively to survey items for both programs. Teachers generally believed that the core components of both programs supported student learning, particularly among students who were struggling to perform well in Algebra I classes. Additionally, they reported feeling comfortable with expectations and resources, noting that having opportunities to collaborate with other teachers and utilize competition to motivate students were essential to success. Teachers cited time constraints as a recognized weakness across both programs. The general consensus was that they wanted more time to develop deeper skills among students and to reinforce concepts taught in Algebra I classrooms. None of the respondents expressed feelings of dissatisfaction with either program and demonstrated the highest percentage of positive responses when compared to other groups (students, parents, Algebra I teachers). What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? ai Algebra I teachers were generally positive in their reaction to both SMART and THRIVE programs, representative of an overall feeling that SMART and THRIVE facilitated student learning and generalized to the K Algebra 1 classroom. Algebra I teachers noted observed improvements among students participating in SMART/THRIVE and globally agreed that the programs effectively enabled students to use technology in the Algebra I classrooms. A number of Algebra I teachers indicated that both programs needed to reach a larger and broader group of students. There were no indications that Algebra I teachers disliked SMART or THRIVE\nhowever, there was some evidence that some respondents felt that the programs did more to supplement what was being taught in Algebra I classrooms than cultivate more meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts. I 8 h sa am What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n Students were somewhat mixed in their reactions to SMART and THRIVE, although they were generally positive. While most of the students believed that SMART and/or THRIVE helped them with Algebra I class, others indicated mild dislike for time spent doing academics during summer and/or Saturdays. Students perceived the programs as motivating, fun, and globally helpful. It was rewarding to note that despite some dislike of the programs scheduled meeting times, most students indicated a desire to continue with the programs modifying very little about the actual instructional delivery. These comments were corroborated by comments students made during focus group sessions. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n Parents' reactions to both programs were globally positive. Specifically, parents commented that the motivational, fun nature of the programs was fostering an interest in math among students. H M M The change that parents requested most was that the program be expanded both in breath/scope and duration. None of the parents cited negative features\nhowever, some parents requested more rigor within the curriculum. When asked specifically about transportation, a concern of SMART/THRIVE program heads, the majority (84%) of parents indicated that it was not a problem. Of the parents who did indicate that transportation was a problem, inconsistency of service was cited as the primary issue. The majority of parents felt comfortable sending their children to the programs during the summer and/or on Saturdays, particularly because transportation on those days/during that time did not conflict with work or other activities that typically dominated school days. II Compliance Remedy Questions Recommendations M n A series of recommendations have been designed to provide guidance for future implementation of SMART and THRIVE programs. The recommendations primarily focus upon two broad areas in which the Little Rock School District could take additional action to ensure proper implementation of SMART/THRIVE as they relate to academic improvement among African American children: 1. Expansion 2. Accountability n Program Expansion II M  A recurring theme among surveys collected during this evaluation related to a general desire to expand both programs. Specifically, teachers and parents generally called to extend the duration and frequency of the programs as well as expand the programs to meet the needs of larger and broader groups of students. Before expanding the frequency and duration of each program, the district would be well-served to explore effective ways to recruit students and teachers to expand the programs.  An expanded program would have to include more SMART/THRIVE teachers directly proportionate to the number of students added to the program. The success of the program is in part dependent upon the amount of flexibility afforded to each teaching team as well as the ratio of teachers to students. If more students are added without adding more teachers, the design of the SMART/THRIVE model will be compromised. u  Given the unique cooperative teaching model used in the program, pre-program professional development and staff training of new SMART/THRIVE teachers would be paramount to successful expansion. Specific focus on technology use and development of higher level 9 b a If If thinking skills would help further develop the current model. Additionally, the level of problem solving and critical thinking used in SMART/THRIVE classrooms would require new SMART/THRIVE teachers to receive training aimed at fostering these skills in the context of Algebra. Current and new SMART/THRIVE teachers would benefit from professional development aimed at applying algebraic concepts in authentic contexts (i.e.. real world application) and/or simulations. If If If  Currently, THRIVE meets every other week during the Spring semester. The district should consider expanding the number of participating students and teachers by using alternating Saturdays to accommodate the same numbers of students per THRIVE session rather than simply making each session bigger. For example, if the district were to add 100 additional THRIVE students and proportional numbers of teachers, they would be less likely to disrupt the current model by creating two groups of THRIVE students meeting on different Saturdays during each month. The numbers, therefore would remain more manageable and the staff more effective in delivering instruction and fostering learning rather than discipline during competition and class time. SMART could potentially integrate two, two-week summer sessions to serve more students. al If If  In light of budgetary constraints, the prospects of expanding SMART/THRIVE programs could be limited potentially\nhowever, LRSD should examine alternative funding opportunities to bolster prospects for expansion. The following list, although not exhaustive, provides examples of alternative funding sources that potentially match the goals and purposes of SMART/THRIVE: American Society of Engineering Education, The National Science Foundation, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, the Spencer Foundation and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Some grant opportunities could foster potential secondary opportunities for qualified African American students to participate in further research and competition. The purpose in seeking these grants is bifurcate in nature: to obtain funding for expansion\nto explore further opportunities aimed at enriching mathematics and fostering motivation among African American children If If  Transportation costs and availability must be considered if the programs are expanded. Although evidence of negative experiences with transportation was minimal among respondents within the 2004-2005 subject pool, the district will need to determine the extent to which access to transportation limits participation. Appropriate measures should be taken during recruitment to disclose availability of transportation and ensure that availability is viable. II Accountability II  Attendance rates among SMART and THRIVE participants were extraordinarily high\nhowever, for the purposes of longitudinal studies, it would be instrumental to follow participants through graduation to examine longitudinal effects of the programs on math achievement. Future studies might examine indepth analyses of participants to determine what factors impacted their achievement significantly. n  Additional data such as graduation rates, enrollment in advanced math courses and school attendance should be examined longitudinally once students complete SMART and THRIVE programs. A Efforts to recruit former SMART/THRIVE students as high school mentors should be made to foster continuity within the program and make students gainfully aware of future effects. n  Future comparisons of SMART/THRIVE students should continue to disaggregate assessment results by race and ethnicity to effectively examine the progress of African American students in SMART/THRIVE relative to their peers. A 10 I 0 a II  Given the limited research on proven programs, intensification on research of this program through long-term studies is recommended. If positive. SMART/THRIVE may have potential to serve as a leader in developing effective Algebra programs for African American children. Expectations of Program Modifications II II II Findings from the recent evaluation were globally positive. In light of these findings, SMART/THRIVE has value in raising student achievement among African American students in LRSD. With regard to change in the instructional design of the programs, little guidance is provided and change is not recommended. However, future modifications would include programmatic expansion to serve a larger, broader group of students. Offerings to African American students should remain paramount. Additionally, given the limited amount of research on successful programs with at-risk populations across the country, further, more intensive research of SMART/THRIVE programs would provide the district not only with a model that can be easily replicated, but also information about factors that set SMART/THRIVE apart from classroom Algebra and pre- Algebra classes. Finally, the district will need to examine the sustained achievement, retention and Il coursework decisions of SMART/THRIVE participants to determine whether the growth noted among participants during the program is sustainable. I II n II II I II II n I 11 a 11 M CREP ' CtHter for Reteareh in Educational foUcy n Center for Research in Educational Policy Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE a The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-86\u0026amp;67\u0026amp;6147 In the Little Rock School District a TECHNICAL REPORT a a a CREP Ce/iU/ for Research in E^ueaiional Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free\n1-866-670-6147 Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District TECHNICAL REPORT January 2006 Lyle Hull Davis, Ph.D. Ying Huang Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University Gail Weems, Ph.D. University of Arkansas at Little Rockp EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background SMART and THRIVE are programs designed by two, veteran LRSD teachers. In 1999, the programs were implemented in LRSD, designed to serve at-risk students. These programs have been funded in part by the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program and the National Science Foundation. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I, respectively. The programs intentions/goals are to: a) provide a solid foundation for Algebra, b) encourage exploration\nc) make mathematics fun\nd) enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics\nand e) create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level courses. The SMART program meets for two consecutive weeks during the summer. The THRIVE program meets every other Saturday during the Spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. Purpose, Plan and Participants Purpose This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to: a) provide cumulative evidence of SMART/THRIVE implementation practices\nb) examine the extent to which the programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students\nand c) explore perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. Research Questions Seven research questions provided the focus of the evaluation. The primary research question focused on the extent to w4iich SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. Evaluation questions were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 1Plan The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. To determine how effectively SMART and THRIVE were effectively meeting the needs of African American students, a cadre of qualitative and quantitative measures were used. Evaluation Measures Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. Administration procedures and descriptions of instrumentation are provided below. Direct Classroom Observation Measures  School Observation Measure (SOM^)'. Examines frequency of usage of 26 instructional strategies.  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA)'. Provides measurement of the degree of learner engagement in cooperative learning, project-based learning, higher-level questioning. experiential/hands-on learning, student independent inquiry/research, student discussion and students as producers of knowledge.  Math Addendum'. Rates teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Surveys  Student Survey. Collects participant impressions and perceptions regarding the satisfaction, shortcomings, strengths and influence of SMART and THRIVE programs.  Parent Survey. Collects parent perceptions and impressions regarding availability (access), influence, transportation and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  Algebra I Teacher Survey. Collects Algebra I teacher perceptions and impressions of influence of program on student performance as well as global awareness and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey. Collects THRIVE teacher perceptions and impressions regarding professional development, influence of technology, influence of program on student performance and overall opinions of the program. Focus Groups  Student Focus Groups: Collects program participant impressions and perceptions regarding the influence of each program on Algebra I achievement, test scores, and self-confidence about math. Also collects information about SMART and THRIVE program weaknesses, strengths and needs.  Mentor Focus Group: Collects high school SMART mentor impressions and perceptions of SMART program strengths, weaknesses, needs, and influence on students. Student Records  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in light of achievement data. Participation rates are reported as well. Student Academic Performance  Math Benchmark Test (2003 - 2004) scores were analyzed. The Benchmark Test is a state- mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiplechoice and open response items. 2if  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2004-2005 scores were analyzed. The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion-referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic.  ITBS Math Subtests scores were analyzed. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation. This test is norm-referenced.  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: The curriculum-based tests are measures of student ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. Procedure To examine the quality of teaching and extent to which students were engaged in learning, CREP researchers conducted a series of random observations during the THRIVE program. Targeted observations were conducted in February and March of 2005 using the SOM, Math-addendum, and RSCA instruments. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. To examine teacher, student, and parent perceptions, surveys and focus groups were designed and lead by CREP researchers. To examine effects of SMART and THRIVE on achievement, data from a variety of normed, criterion-referenced and informal tests were collected. District and state student performance measures were administered in late spring. Historical records of prior student Benchmark performance were collected through the district database. Table 1 summarizes the data collection procedure. i 3 I 0 a Table 1. Data Collection Summary I Type of Measure Targeted Classroom Observations SOM Instrument TC---------------------- Number Completed/Data Source Total fl RSCA Math Addendum 5 19 5 Description A series of observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During a one hour period, four* note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. Mentors from the SMART 2004 program were contacted by researchers. Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45-minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Achievem ent T ests Math Benchmark Test 2003-2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams ITBS See Table 2 Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distribute throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005. Attendance Data SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students (88% African American) 143 students (84% African American) Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students i H *One observation session was comprised of three rather than four observation segments due to scheduiing constraints. Participants The primary context of observations, focus groups and surveys was the 2005 THRIVE program. Additional attendance data were collected from the 2004 SMART program. Survey and focus group responses concerning both programs also were collected. Both programs served students from the following middle schools: Cloverdale, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, Mablevale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest. Students from the following high schools were also served: Central, Fair, Hall, McClellan, and Parkview. Table 1 provides a breakdown of students, mentors, teachers and parents who participated surveys and focus groups. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the student achievement samples. in The sample sizes used for achievement comparisons varied depending upon the availability achievement data. The following table illustrates the student populations as they relate to comparison of or 4- I SMART/THRIVE programs. Due to the relative small total number of 8* grade, non-African American students participating in SMART/THRIVE (n=11), eighth grade comparisons were only made for African American students. Table 2. Student Populations 8'*' grade EOC 9\" grade EOC S'\" grade ITBS Findings Comparison 82 African- American 581 790 NonAfrican- American 150 356 Thrive SMART SMART \u0026amp; THRIVE 15 48 32 African- American 70 72 NonAfrican- American 14 12 African- American 13 17 NonAfrican- American 0 0 African- American 23 23 NonAfrican- American 3 2 Direct Classroom Observation Results Targeted Observations Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the five observation sessions revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed Student Learner Expectations (SLE). The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. The Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning during the observation sessions. Teachers were also noted promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. The RSCA results suggest that the THRIVE program integrated technology into the curriculum. Average or above average implementation (e.g., level of intensity, meaningfulness, quality) was noted for activities associated with higher level thinking strategies, teamwork and independent technology use. Survey Results Student Survey The overall trend in response types was positive for survey items pertaining to THRIVE and SMART. Regarding THRIVE, students demonstrated high levels of agreement for items probing setf-confidence, comfort level, growth among problem solving skills, and overall satisfaction with the program. Two areas in which some students showed some disagreement were related to generalization and application. Students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program on the open ended portion of the student survey, but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Responses to items pertaining to SMART indicated agreement among students for items pertaining to preparedness, motivation, and application. Open-ended items also suggest overall satisfaction with SMART\nhowever, a number of student suggestions were made about changing the time during which the summer program met. Parent Survey Responses from the 35 parents who responded to the THRIVE parent survey suggest that they have positive feelings towards the program. Agreement or strong agreement was consistently noted across ail survey items. No negative responses to the items were reported. The 21 parent respondents provided 5 I at similar information, particularly for those items reflecting their satisfaction with the teachers, their childrens preparedness for Algebra I, and their comfort level with the program meeting time. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Neutral responses were noted for one item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. Parent perceptions measured with analysis of open-ended responses reflected an overall satisfaction with both programs. When asked specifically about transportation, the majority of parents did not cite it as an issue\nhowever, some parents reported access to transportation being inconsistent. Algebra I Teacher Survey I n I Algebra I teachers responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers responding to THRIVE items and the 25 Algebra I teachers responding to SMART items were positive. These teachers agreed that both programs had improved students self-confidence and positively impacted student achievement\nhowever, they responded more neutrally to items probing the programs influence on childrens problem solving ability and influence on general Algebra I instruction. When asked specifically about whether they felt SMART and THRIVE had had an impact on achievement differences among races, a small percentage disagreed, approximately one third responded neutrally or did not know, and the remaining 48% agreed. SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey SMART/THRIVE Teachers responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE and SMART programs. Two items for which some teachers responded neutrally were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. No negative responses were noted among the items\nhowever, some teachers indicated that the limited time available for teaching was considered a shortcoming for both SMART and THRIVE.  Focus Groups student Focus Group Students perceptions of both programs suggest that there is a generally positive feeling towards SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the consensus among the twenty-one students who participated in the focus groups was that SMART and THRIVE bolstered math skills and boosted confidence. Despite some mild distaste for required meeting times (Saturdays and during the summer), most student participants indicated that both SMART and THRIVE had reinforced Algebra I skills and provided a fun, relaxing context for learning. Many students noted that the programs had provided new strategies for problem solving and made Algebra I less daunting. There were no outwardly negative comments made. Mentor Focus Group Two high school student mentors who had participated in SMART, 2004 provided input about the SMART program primarily. The mentors viewed SMART as a preparatory program focused on reviewing pre-algebra principles. Both mentors, however, also noted that SMART provided a unique environment in which competition helped motivate students and make math more enjoyable. The mentors global perception of the program was that SMART allowed students to get a head start on Algebra I principals with a simultaneous boost in confidence. Attendance Collectively, the 2004 SMART program served 210 students for which attendance data was available and the 2005 THRIVE program served 143 students for which data was available. Compared to the general population served by the district (69.0% African American), SMART and Thrive programs served a higher 6percentage of African American students (88.0% SMART\n84.8% Thrive\n89.6% Both). The attendance rates for SMART yielded an average rate of 97% (range: 94%-100%) and the attendance rates for Thrive yielded an average rate of 90% (range: 81%-100%). Achievement The results provide evidence that, in 9* grade, the SMART program, the Thrive program, or the combination of the two programs were associated with substantial improvements in the achievement on the Algebra I EOC exam. The strongest evidence was noted among students who participated in both programs. Eighth grade students participating in any combination of the programs were less likely than their nonparticipant peers to perform at basic or below basic proficiency levels on the Algebra I EOC exam. More specifically. African American students in both eighth and ninth grade who were enrolled in any of the three program configurations were more likely to perform at proficient or advanced levels of proficiency than the non-participant comparison group. Gains were also noted on the program-specific assessments for the SMART and Thrive programs. No significant differences between comparison and SMART/THRIVE students nor racial differences were noted among scores from the ITBS. I Conclusions Each of the major research questions will provide a framework around which the conclusions for the present study will be structured. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Student-level achievement analyses show that participation in SMART. Thrive and a combination of programs is associated with comparative improvements in achievement when compared to non-participating students. Specifically, our interpretation of these outcomes focuses on the extent to which these differences in achievement relate to growth among African American students. II Findings suggest that participation in any of the program configurations was associated with a major reduction in the achievement gap between African American students and students of other races, from a one standard deviation deficit on 2003-04 Benchmark scores to virtually no difference on 2004-5 Algebra I EOC scores. For 2004-05 8** graders, the results suggest a positive effect of the program^African American students attending any program configuration were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced levels than peers who did not attend. Since 8* graders do not comprise the majority of SMART/THRIVE participants, further analysis of these students sustained achievement would be interesting. Although results were favorable for African American students enrolled in both programs, no statistically significant effects were noted from ITBS scores for race or program, demonstrating that although SMART and Thrive have a direct and significant impact on curriculum-based performance measures, they have a lesser influence on standardized, norm-referenced math achievement performance. fl In light of the current goal in increasing achievement among African American students, particularly in the domain of mathematics, the results from EOC and Benchmark exams are highly significant. These results are encouraging as implementation of the SMART and Thrive programs seems to have had a positive impact on African American student achievement. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Overall, the level of participation for both programs was high. The majority of students enrolled in SMART. Thrive or both programs missed no sessions, yielding average attendance rates of 90% or above. Additionally, data from classroom observations suggested a high degree of student engagement and participation across classrooms within the Thrive program. Given the demographic characteristics of the participants, the significant quantitative relationship between participation and student achievement gains, and the high participation rates among participants, the results provide evidence that SMART and Thrive 79 have a positive impact on participation among African American students and that participation has had significant influence on achievement. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? n During classroom visits, the majority of observed instructional strategies were couched in a collaborative teaching model focused on higher level thinking skills and student grouping. Students were observed utilizing technology throughout their lessons and were highly engaged during observation sessions. Teachers frequently posed hypothetical questions to groups to accommodate use of higher-level thinking skills and generate more varied student responses. Even when students were engaged in independent seatwork, which was rare, teachers were observed circulating among various student groups, requesting more in-depth questioning strategies in their problem solving approaches. Additionally, students were frequently cited encouraging fellow students in preparation for competition while working in collaborative groups. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? SMART/THRIVE teachers responded positively to survey items for both programs. Teachers generally believed that the core components of both programs supported student learning, particularly among students who were struggling to perform well in Algebra I classes. Additionally, they reported feeling comfortable with expectations and resources, noting that having opportunities to collaborate with other teachers and utilize competition to motivate students were essential to success. Teachers cited time constraints as a recognized weakness across both programs. The general consensus was that they wanted more time to develop deeper skills among students and to reinforce concepts taught in Algebra I classrooms. None of the respondents expressed feelings of dissatisfaction with either program and demonstrated the highest percentage of positive responses when compared to other groups (students, parents. Algebra I teachers). What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Algebra I teachers were generally positive in their reaction to both SMART and THRIVE programs, representative of an overall feeling that SMART and THRIVE facilitated student learning and generalized to the Algebra I classroom. Algebra I teachers noted observed improvements among students participating in SMART/THRIVE and globally agreed that the programs effectively enabled students to use technology in the Algebra 1 classrooms. A number of Algebra I teachers indicated that both programs needed to reach a larger and broader group of students. There were no indications that Algebra I teachers disliked SMART or THRIVE\nhowever, there was some evidence that some respondents felt that the programs did more to supplement what was being taught in Algebra I classrooms than cultivate more meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Students were somewhat mixed in their reactions to SMART and THRIVE, although they were generally positive. While most of the students believed that SMART and/or THRIVE helped them with Algebra I class, others indicated mild dislike for time spent doing academics during summer and/or Saturdays. Students perceived the programs as motivating, fun, and globally helpful. It was rewarding to note that despite some dislike of the programs scheduled meeting times, most students indicated a desire to continue with the programs modifying very little about the actual instructional delivery. These comments were corroborated by comments students made during focus group sessions. 8What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents reactions to both programs were globally positive. Specifically, parents commented that the motivational, fun nature of the programs was fostering an interest in math among students. The change that parents requested most was that the program be expanded both in breath/scope and duration. None of the parents cited negative features\nhowever, some parents requested more rigor within the curriculum. When asked specifically about transportation, a concern of SMART/THRIVE program heads, the majority (84%) of parents indicated that it was not a problem. Of the parents who did indicate that transportation was a problem, inconsistency of service was cited as the primary issue. The majority of parents felt comfortable sending their children to the programs during the summer and/or on Saturdays, particularly because transportation on those days/during that time did not conflict with work or other activities that typically dominated school days. Compliance Remedy Questions Recommendations A series of recommendations have been designed to provide guidance for future implementation of SMART and THRIVE programs. The recommendations primarily focus upon two broad areas in which the Little Rock School District could take additional action to ensure proper implementation of SMART/THRIVE as they relate to academic improvement among African American children: 1. Expansion 2. Accountability Program Expansion A recurring theme among surveys collected during this evaluation related to a general desire to expand both programs. Specifically, teachers and parents generally called to extend the duration and frequency of the programs as well as expand the programs to meet the needs of larger and broader groups of students. Before expanding the frequency and duration of each program, the district would be well- served to explore effective ways to recruit students and teachers to expand the programs.  An expanded program would have to include more SMART/THRIVE teachers directly proportionate to the number of students added to the program. The success of the program is in part dependent upon the amount of flexibility afforded to each teaching team as well as the ratio of teachers to students. If more students are added without adding more teachers, the design of the SMART/THRIVE model will be compromised. Given the unique cooperative teaching model used in the program, pre-program professional development and staff training of new SMART/THRIVE teachers would be paramount to successful expansion. Specific focus on technology use and development of higher level thinking skills would help further develop the current model. Additionally, the level of problem solving and critical thinking used in SMART/THRIVE classrooms would require new SMART/THRIVE teachers to receive training aimed at fostering these skills in the context of Algebra. Current and new SMART/THRIVE teachers would benefit from professional development aimed at applying algebraic concepts in authentic contexts (i.e., real world\" application) and/or simulations.  Currently, THRIVE meets every other week during Spring semester. The district would be well- advised to expand the number of participating students and teachers by using alternating Saturdays to accommodate the same numbers of students per THRIVE session rather than simply making each session bigger. For example, if the district were to add 100 additional 9THRIVE students and proportional numbers of teachers, they would be less likely to disrupt the current model by creating two groups of THRIVE students meeting on different Saturdays during each month. The numbers, therefore would remain more manageable and the staff more effective in delivering instruction and fostering learning rather than discipline during competition and class time. SMART could potentially integrate two, two-week summer sessions to serve more students. In light of budgetary constraints, the prospects of expanding SMART/THRIVE programs could be limited potentially\nhowever, LRSD should examine alternative funding opportunities to bolster prospects for expansion. The following list, although not exhaustive, provides examples of alternative funding sources that potentially match the goals and purposes of SMART/THRIVE: American Society of Engineering Education. The National Science Foundation. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, the Spencer Foundation and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Some grant opportunities could foster potential secondary opportunities for qualified African American students to participant in further research and competition. The purpose in seeking these grants is bifurcate in nature: to obtain funding for expansion\nto explore further opportunities aimed at enriching mathematics and fostering motivation among African American children Transportation costs and availability must be considered if the programs are expanded. Although evidence of negative experiences with transportation was minimal among respondents within the 2004-2005 subject pool, the district will need to determine the extent to which access to transportation limits participation. Appropriate measures should be taken during recruitment to disclose availability of transportation and ensure that availability is viable. Accountability  Attendance rates among SMART and THRIVE participants were extraordinarily high\nhowever, for the purposes of tracking, it would be instrumental to follow past participants to examine longitudinal effects of the programs on math achievement. Future studies might examine in-depth analyses of participants to determine what factors impacted their achievement significantly. Additional data such as graduation rates, enrollment in advanced math courses and school attendance should be examined longitudinally once students complete SMART and THRIVE programs. Efforts to recruit former SMARTfTHRIVE students as high school mentors should be made to foster continuity within the program and make students gainfully aware of future effects. Future comparisons of SMART/THRIVE students should continue to disaggregate assessment results by race and ethnicity to effectively examine the progress of African American students in SMART/THRIVE relative to their peers. Given the limited research on proven programs, instensification on research of this program through long-term studies is recommended. If positive, SMART/THRIVE may have potential to serve as a leader in developing effective Algebra programs for African American children in failing schools. Expectations of Program Modifications Findings from the recent evaluation were globally positive. In light of these findings. SMART/THRIVE has value in raising student achievement among African American students in LRSD. With regard to change in the instructional design of the programs, little guidance is provided and change is not recommended. However, future modifications would include programmatic expansion to serve a larger, broader group of students. Offerings to African American students should remain paramount. Additionally, given the limited amount of research on successful programs in failing schools across the country, further, more intensive research of SMART/THRIVE programs would provide the district not only with a model that can be easily 10replicated, but also information about factors that set SMART/THRIVE apart from classroom Algebra and preAlgebra classes. Finally, the district will need to examine the sustained achievement, retention and coursework decisions of SMART/THRIVE participants to determine whether the growth noted among participants during the program is sustainable. 11Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District Research Report: 2004-2005 INTRODUCTION The Little Rock School District contracted with the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) 'J at The University of Memphis to collect formative evaluation data in schools implementing SMART/THRIVE. This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to examine the extent to which the SMART/THRIVE programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African American students. Additionally, the evaluation explores perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I. It was designed as an intervention for rising and current S- and 9*'-grade students who are entering or will be enrolled in Algebra I. Applications for SMART are disseminated through the Sth grade teachers for any rising 9th grade student who has not taken Algebra I. Eligible rising 9th grade students who are registered to attend high school in the LRSD and will take algebra are selected on a first come-first served basis. Seventh-grade math teachers are asked to recommend students, particularly African American or Hispanic students, who have the potential to be successful in Algebra I in the Sth grade. Students who participated in SMART are invited to participate in THRIVE. After a designated enrollment period, remaining seats are opened to any student taking Algebra I. Applications for these remaining seats are disseminated by the Algebra 1 teachers. The programs intentions/goals are to: Provide a solid foundation for algebra, encourage exploration Make mathematics fun Enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics Create the confidence necessary to pursue higher-level math courses The goals encompass two components: pre-algebra instruction for two weeks during the summer (SMART Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (THRIVE Program). Instruction in both 12programs utilizes small class sizes (fewer than 18) with two teachers per class. Each program currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African American student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. Various local grants have funded both programs since 1999. Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training (SMART) provides opportunities for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed for success in Algebra 1. SMART is a two-week half-day summer institute for eligible rising S' and 9* grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra 1. SMART serves approximately 200 students each year. Each SMART classroom consists of a qualified mathematics teacher. one high school mentor who demonstrates outstanding mathematical skills and a positive attitude, and no more than seventeen SMART students. Each teacher uses a variety of strategies and tools to enhance their instructional delivery. Activities include real-life situations requiring the use of math skills. SMART students are exposed to and become familiar with a range of technological tools. The most popular tool used is the Tl- 84 Plus graphing calculator. SMART students learn how to use the calculator to further and deepen their knowledge of mathematics. In addition to the TI-84 Plus calculator, students use the Calculator-Based Laboratory (CBL) and the Calculator-Based Ranger (CBR) to solve problems and perform experiments. Students who successfully complete the SMART program receive a free TI-84 Plus graphing calculator, a SMART T-shirt, and a certificate. Instructional delivery and structure within the THRIVE program is virtually identical to that noted within SMART sessions\nhowever, students do not have a high school mentor acting as a facilitator. THRIVE serves approximately 150 students, many of whom generally have been enrolled in SMART during the previous summer. Students currently enrolled in Algebra I meet bi-monthly on Saturdays during the spring semester from 8:45 a.m. - 12:25 p.m. The sessions are divided into 45-minute instructional blocks with learning activities prescribed for each block. The last block consists of two classes competing in a mathematics game/competition featuring the material covered that day. Teaching methods mirror those used in SMART, but integrate more advanced content and focus on material covered in Algebra I classrooms across the district. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Seven research questions provided the structure around which the evaluation was developed. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMARTfTHRIVE programs improved and/or 13remediated math achievement among African American students. A substantive supplemental question addressed the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students. Additional attention was focused upon academically focused time and student engagement as well as parent, student, teacher and Algebra I teacher perceptions of the programs. The questions are listed below and are followed by a brief explanation of the areas addressed in the present evaluation. PRIMARY EVALUATION QUESTION Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? A treatment-control student pre-test/post-test designed was employed for this evaluation. The analysis controlled for pretest, ethnicity and population free lunch status. Four types of Algebra I students were compared: a) no program/comparison, b) SMART program only, c) THRIVE program only and d) both SMART and THRIVE programs. The pretest data was collected from the 2003-2004 Math Benchmark Test and the posttest data was collected from the 2004-2005 Math Benchmark Test. Additional test information gathered for treatment-control comparison includes the 2004-2005 ITBS Math subtests and Algebra I End of Course Exams (EOC). Descriptive data from SMART and THRIVE participants were derived from pre- and post-test program exams. All standardized tests were administered by and throughout the Little Rock School District. Pre- and post- test program exams were administered through SMART and/or THRIVE and should be considered supplemental. SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Attendance data from the SMART program of 2004 and the THRIVE program of 2005 were examined. In addition to descriptive information, the levels of participation were analyzed in light of student achievement. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? This question was addressed through classroom observations using an instrument focused on 26 research-based teaching strategies associated with increased academically focused instructional time and technology use within the classroom. Three additional math-specific items were designed to gather 14observation data about math-specific instructional practice. Five random observation visits were conducted during the THRIVE program sessions. 3. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 were addressed through use of self-report surveys, including objective and open-ended items. Demographic data was also collected and analyzed. In addition, three student focus groups were created during which students perceptions of program strengths\nweaknesses and overall satisfaction were collected, and then analyzed. PARTICIPANTS Currently, SMART/THRIVE serves students from the following eight Little Rock School District middle schools: Cloverdale: 82% African American student population\nDunbar: 61% African American student population\nForest Heights: 77% African American student population\nHenderson: 82% African American student population\nMablevale: 81% African American student population\nMann: 52% African American student population\nPulaski Heights: 57% African American student population\nSouthwest: 94% African American student population. Students from the following high schools also were sen/ed: Central: 51 %, Fair: 81%, Hall: 75%, McClellan: 91%, and Parkview: 51%. Of 274 eighth- and ninth-grade students who participated in SMART, THRIVE, or both programs, matching district demographic data were available for 258 (94.2%). Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of demographic and grade-level data for the various subsamples of SMART, THRIVE, and Comparison students in the study. These programs served a higher percentage of African American students than existed in the student population at large (69.0%): 88.0% of SMART students. 84.8% of THRIVE students, and 89.6% of students attending both programs were African American. Of the 258 students with matching data, 125 attended SMART only, 66 attended THRIVE only, and 67 attended both 15 \\programs. Most students attending SMART only were ninth graders (83.2%), while the majority attending THRIVE only were eighth graders (66.7%). About equal percentages of eighth graders (53.7%) and ninth graders (46.3%) attended both programs. Whereas the district percentage of female students in eighth and ninth grades was 50.1%, the programs served a much larger proportion of females: 63.2%, 66.7%, and 59.7% for SMART, THRIVE, and both programs, respectively. Table 1 Percentage of Students Served by Race: SMART/THRIVE and Comparison PROGRAM Total Am Indian Comparison 0.2 SMART 0.0 THRIVE 0.0 BOTH 1.5 0.3 Asian 1.7 0.0 6.1 1.5 1.7 African American Hispanic Other 69.0 88.0 84.8 89.6 70.2 4.8 0.8 3.0 4.5 4.6 1.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 White 22.9 7.2 6.1 3.0 21.8 Total n 3726 125 66 67 3984 Note. Comparison group is all eighth and ninth grade students not served by either the SMART or THRIVE programs. Table 2 Program Attended by Grade Level PROGRAM Total GRADE 08 09 Total Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Comparison 1727 46.3% 1999 53.7% 3726 100.0% SMART 21 16.8% 104 83.2% 125 100.0% THRIVE 44 66.7% 22 33.3% 66 100.0% BOTH 36 53.7% 31 46.3% 67 100.0% 1828 45.9% 2156 54.1% 3984 100.0% EVALUATION DESIGN The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. A mixed-methods design was employed to address the research questions. Results are primarily descriptive in nature\ninferential statistics from 16achievement analyses are discussed. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected by trained observers. The observers administered and collected surveys to THRIVE teachers and students and conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors. The majority of the time was spent observing classrooms using the School Observation Measure (SOM) described below. Observers also conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors and administered or distributed surveys to students. teachers, Algebra I teachers and parents. Additionally, achievement data from students participating in SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 was collected and analyzed by CREP. Details about all of the instruments and evaluation procedures are provided in subsequent sections INSTRUMENTATION To address the questions proposed in this mixed-methods evaluation, data from achievement tests. student records, classroom observations, surveys, and focus groups were collected. Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 - 2005: The Benchmark Test is a state-mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as advanced, proficient. basic, and below basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2002-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .84 - .87.  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2005: The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion- referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2001-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .81 - .88. 17 ITBS Math Subtests\nThe Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation. The ITBS test is a norm-referenced. The ITBS information is proprietary and, therefore. estimates of reliability and validity could not be obtained. SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: These curriculum-based tests measured students ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems. graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. STUDENT RECORDS  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in comparison to achievement measures. CLASSROOM OBSERVATION MEASURES The data collection instruments for classroom observations were the School Observation Measure (SOM), including three math-specific items designed to better tailor the instrument, and the Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA). The SOM and addendum items were designed to gather information about instructional practices and classroom activities. The RSCA was used to gather more detailed information about the level of student engagement during target activities throughout target observations. The instruments used for classroom observation are described below. School Observation Measure (SOM): School Observation Measure (SOM\"). The SOM was developed to determine the extent to which different common and alternative teaching practices (e.g., direct instruction, cooperative learning, student inquiry, experiential learning) are used by teachers (Ross, Smith \u0026amp; Alberg, 1999) in typical (non-evaluative) classroom contexts. During each recording session, notes were completed every 15 minutes in different classrooms for a total of four at the end of one, 60-minute observation period. Researchers objectively recorded the relative use, non-use and frequency of 26 observation items covering a variety of classroom practices. Additionally, researchers recorded the extent to which high academically focused instructional time and high student attention/interest were observed. At the conclusion 18of a one-hour targeted visit, a trained observer summarizes the frequency with which each of the strategies was observed, yielding one SOM Data Summary Form. The frequency is recorded via a 5-point rubric that ranges from (0) Not Observed to (4) Extensively Observed. Two global items rate, respectively, the academically-focused instructional time and degree of student attention and interest. A reliability study by Lewis, Ross, and Alberg (1999) found that pairs of trained observers selected identical SOM categories 67% of the time and rated within one category 95% of the time. Math Addendum: Because the program under evaluation was specifically a mathematics program. three additional observations items unique to mathematics were developed. The items were written by a member of the research team with an Arkansas teaching certificate in mathematics based on the standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). The three items addressed the teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Each item was rated as 1 indicating not observed to 5 reflecting strong application. Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA): This Rubric (Ross \u0026amp; Lowther, 2002) is applied in conjunction with SOM visits to determine the quality and depth of teacher applications of selected strategies (e.g., cooperative learning, higher-order questioning, project-based learning, and technology as a learning tool). These strategies reflect emphasis on higher-order learning and attainment of deep understanding of content. Such learning outcomes seem consistent with those likely to be engendered by well designed, real-world linked exercises, projects, or problems utilizing technology as a learning tool. Each item includes a two-part rating scale. The first is a four-point scale, with 1 indicating a very low level of application, and 4 representing a high level of application. The second is a Yes/No option to the question: Was technology used? with space provided to write a brief description of the technology use. The RSCA was completed as part of SOM observation periods. The RSCA reliability results indicate that observer ratings were within one category for 97% of the whole-school observations and for 90% of the targeted observations (Sterbinsky \u0026amp; Burke, 2004). A RSCA was completed at the end of each targeted classroom observation. 19  SURVEYS H Four surveys were developed by the evaluation team to collect data pertaining to the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE Program. The specific audiences around which the current evaluation focused were parents, Algebra I teachers currently teaching in Little Rock schools, SMART/THRIVE teachers, and students currently enrolled in THRIVE. Items were designed to address both the primary and secondary research questions of the study and to glean open-ended perceptions from the four data collection groups. Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included as were open-ended questions about both programs. Program-specific items were presented to gain general and specific knowledge about both programs as separate entities. This also eliminated the need for respondents to complete two separate surveys. Each survey was divided into three sections. The first section was used to collect demographic information specific to each group. The second section was comprised of objective items specific to the research questions and each program (SMART and THRIVE). In the final section, the respondents were presented with four, open-ended questions which probed strategies, strengths, weaknesses and general additional comments for each program. Responses across all surveys were scored through the use of Likert-type ratings ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). Demographic information was also collected. Drafts of all surveys were presented at the evaluation team meetings in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants suggestions. Surveys are found in Appendix A. FOCUS GROUPS m Two sets of focus group protocols were developed by the evaluation team. Students were asked their perceptions of the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE program. SMART mentors also were asked their impressions of program effectiveness. Additionally, participants were also asked to report their perceptions of program impact. Student and Mentor protocols were similar, but tailored to their specific audience. Question drafts were presented at an evaluation team meeting in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants suggestions. PROCEDURES Data for this evaluation were collected during the spring of 2005. Targeted observations were conducted during late spring, 2005 using the SOM (including 3 math-specific addendum items) and RSCA 20 - instruments. Surveys, focus groups and program-designed achievement tests were also administered during this time period. The classroom observations were conducted during February and March, 2005. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different ri days. Student performance measures were administered in late spring. Table 3 summarizes the data collection procedure. Table 3 Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Instrument Targeted Classroom SOM Observations RSCA Number Completed/Data Source Total 5 19 Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants Achievement fests MaSi Benchmark Test Attendance Data 2003 - 2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams ITBS ......SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students 143 students Description Observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During the observation period, note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Four^ sets of observation notes were completed for each SOM. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Four RSCAs were completed for each SOM. ItOTS specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher sun/eys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers. THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers. Algebra 1 teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes.  Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45-minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors^_____ ___________ Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distributed throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005. Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students. Data were collected from program heads and sent to researchers. Note: One SOM session was cut short due to scheduling, yielding 3 observations sheets and 3 RSCAs. ACHIEVEMENT TESTS End-of-course (EOC) Algebra I test scores were used as 2004-05 outcomes for 9* grade students. with 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores used as a covariate. No covariate was available for 8* grade students, because no comparable district or state tests were administered to 7* graders in 2003-04. 21  The End of Course Exams were administered at the end of the academic year to all students enrolled in Algebra I during the 2004-2005 school year. The ITBS exam was administered only to 9* grade students, thus outcomes for this exam were available only for 9*^ graders. With no 8* grade scores available, 2003-2004 Benchmark scores were used for covariate comparisons. Additionally, curriculum-based pre- and postprogram exams were administered on the first and last day of both programs. Both pre- and post-program-designed exams were comprised of 20 items, asking students to simplify, evaluate, graph, and solve equations. The SMART exams were geared to test pre-algebra and early algebra content and the THRIVE exams were designed to examine content expected of students completing Algebra I. The pre-program exams and post-program exams were identical. These exams are provided in Appendix B. CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS Trained observers completed a series of classroom visits to collect frequency data regarding observed instructional practices, use of technology and level of student engagement. Classroom teachers were advised that the observers would be present throughout the semester, but were instructed to deliver lessons as usual. A targeted procedure was used for the present study given that the observations were of the THRIVE sessions rather than of a school-wide, cross-categorical program. The majority of the observations were conducted by one researcher, with the second researcher observing for one SOM to examine inter-rater reliability. The inter-rater reliability for the joint observation was high\nobservers selected identical SOM categories 88% of the time and rated within one category 100% of the time. The standard SOM procedure involves evaluation of an entire school by visiting 10-12 randomly selected classrooms for 15 minutes each. However, the goal of this evaluation was to examine the practices within a single program, where all classrooms were participating in the same activities at the same times, not assess an entire school. Therefore, procedures were modeled from those used by Lowther, Ross, and Morrison (2003) in their examination a school laptop computer program. A total of five SOM observations were conducted. Both the RSCA and the Math Addendum items were completed at the same time. A total of 19 RSCAs were completed because one observation session was interrupted by a scheduled class dismissal. 22 I d M SURVEYS d E The program teacher surveys were administered and collected by researchers on March 5, 2005 during a faculty meeting. Student surveys were administered and collected by researchers during a March 5 class. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed via district mail. Parent surveys were distributed through students and collected by teachers before being sent to CREP for analysis. Additional parent surveys were administered and collected by a member of the research team at the student Math Fair. FOCUS GROUPS During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups, each of which lasted 45 minutes. The mentors were contacted individually by researchers via phone, mail and email. Two of the seven mentors responded and attended. The mentor focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. RESULTS The results of this evaluation are presented below and synthesized to address each research question in the Discussion section. These results are presented by measurement strategy\nhowever, the findings are synthesized across instruments to reflect each research question in the Discussion section of this report. SCHOOL OBSERVATION MEASURE (SOM) As noted previously, observers focused on the 26 instructional strategies provided in the SOM using a standard five-point rubric (0 =not observed, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, and 4 = extensively). The results are presented with a full, categorical breakdown in Table 4. Four strategies were observed occasionally to extensively at a frequency level of at least 75% or higher. These strategies include team teaching (100%), cooperative/collaborative learning (100%), use of higher-level questioning strategies (80%), and teacher acting as a coach/facilitator (100%). The data indicates that students were engaged in collaborative learning situations with high teacher support where they were asked to use problem solving and critical thinking skills to solve problems. Strategies that were observed occasionally to extensively during 40-60% of the sessions included direct instruction (lecture), higher level instructional feedback (40%), experiential hands-on learning (40%), independent inquiry or research (40%) and student 23M discussion (60%). Student discussion heavily dominated the instructional context (60% observed frequency) M with teams of students working together to solve problems and propose new ideas. Some individual seat work and independent research was observed (40% each respectively), however, these frequently were noted to lead into a group-based activity in which individuals proposed ideas to a team that was used to create a corporate answer to problems proposed by the teachers. Sustained reading was observed in one classroom. fl Technology was heavily used (80%) as teachers relied upon graphing calculators and problem solving with H technology as an integral part of the curriculum. Teachers demonstrated different ways to solve problems and/or work towards solutions via calculator and multi-media use. High academically focused time was fl observed extensively (80% of the time) as was high student engagement (in 60% of the observation sessions). Since the evaluation context was an Algebra I Saturday supplementary program with specific model parameters, some instructional strategies within the SOM were not observed. These strategies included individual tutoring, ability and multi-age groupings, work centers, integration of subject areas, project-based learning, independent seatwork, sustained wzriting/composition and systematic individual instruction. Generally, the aggregated data reflect efficient use of class time with teachers using a team teaching approach to deliver instruction to collaborative teams of students. The aforementioned math addendum items served to capture specific strategies used frequently among math teachers. Results from observations showed that THRIVE teachers frequently emphasized conceptual understanding over rote learning 60% of the time observed. Teachers also demonstrated connections between math and daily life frequently in at least 60% of the observations. One additional strategy of high interest was teachers cultivation of students confidence, flexibility and inventiveness in doing mathematics. This was observed frequently among 80% of the observations. None of the math-specific strategies were observed extensively. 24 n Table 4 II School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary for Little Rock-SMART/THRIVE Project N = 5 H II II II n n The extent to which each of the following was used or present in the school...________ Instructional Orientation Direct instruction (lecture) Team teaching Cooperative/collaborative learning Individual tutoring (teacher, peer, aide, adult volunteer) Classroom Organization Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers (for individuals or groups) Instructional Strategies Higher-level instructional feedback (written or verbal) to enhance student learning Integration of subject areas (interdisciplinary/thematic units) Project-based learning Use of higher-level questioning strategies Teacher acting as a coach/tacilitator Parent/community involvement in learning activities Student Activities Independent seatwork (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments) Experiential, hands-on learning Systematic individual instruction (differential assignments geared to individual needs) Sustained writing/composition (self-selected or teacher-generated topics) Sustained reading Independent inquiry/research on the part of students Student discussion Technology Use Computer for instructional delivery (e.g. CAI, drill \u0026amp; practice) Technology as a learning tool or resource (e.g., Internet research, spreadsheet or database creation, multi-media, CD Rom, Laser disk) Assessment Performance assessment strategies Student self-assessment (portfolios, individual record books) Summary Items High academically focused class time High level of student Percent None Percent Rarely Percent Occasionally Percent Percent Frequently Extensively 20.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 100.0 20.0 100.0 100.0 80.0 40.0 40.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 attention/interest/engagement________________________ Note: One SOM is comprised of approximately 8 classroom visits. 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 60.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 60.0 25 n RUBRIC FOR STUDENT-CENTERED ACTIVITIES (RSCA) IB The RSCA results reflect the percentage of observed sessions in which selected strategies are II observed at least once. The quality of the application and the percentage of sessions in which technology was used with the observed strategy are also recorded. A descriptive summary of the RSCA results is presented in Table 5. IB The RSCA results suggest that the level of application with which THRIVE program teachers applied certain instructional practices, particularly with regard to cooperative learning and higher-level questioning strategies was high. Additionally, students evidenced appropriate use of technology (calculators, multimedia. and spreadsheets) in self-directed activities to create new knowledge. The most notable area of technology use was among cooperative learning groups, where students collaboratively utilized multimedia, calculators and graphing applications to solve problems\nteachers often helped direct collaborative groups. Project-based learning was not observed and although student discussion, experiential hands on learning, and independent research were applied, the level of application was limited or somewhat limited without technology use. Additionally, aggregate results suggest that technology was used in more than a third of the instances during which 5/7 remaining student-centered activities were observed and in over 25% of the instances during which 6/7 remaining activities or strategies were applied. 26 II Table 5  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA) N = 19 Student-Centered Activities Not Limited Observed Application Somewhat Limited Somewhat Strong Application Application Strong Application Technology In Use * Cooperative Learning 8.7 13.0 8.7 21.7 47.8 60.9 II Project-Based Learning 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Higher-Level Questioning Strategies Experiential Hands-on Learning Independent Inquiry/Research Student Discussion 26.1 56.5 56.5 56.5 0.0 4.3 8.7 17.4 30.4 39.1 4.3 26.1 4.3 0.0 8.7 21.7 30.4 17.4 13.0 39.1 4.3 0.0 39.1 30.4 Students as Producers of Knowledge Using 30.4 8.7 21.7 39.1 0.0 Technology 'Percentages Indicating Observed Levels of Application 'Rating Scale: 1= limited application: 4=strong application * See addendum description of technology use  SCHOOL OBSERVATION SUMMARY Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the observations revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed SLEs. The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. During the teaching sessions that were observed, the Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning. Furthermore, this practice facilitated frequent instances of promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. 27 SURVEY RESULTS  Four surveys (Algebra I Teacher, Student, Parent, SMART/THRIVE Teacher) were administered in late March, 2005. Results for each of the four instruments were examined independently. Demographic  characteristics of the respondents are representative: however, not all respondents completed the demographic section of the surveys. Additionally, the total number of respondents to THRIVE items varied from the total number of SMART respondents across questionnaires. Demographic differences are described n for each group. Finally, item percentages across surveys did not always total 100% because of missing input from some of the respondents (i.e., there were questions to which some people did not respond). PROGRAM PARTICIPANT SURVEY THRIVE total of 142 students responded to items pertaining to THRIVE and 70 students responded to items pertaining to SMART\\ Of the 138 THRIVE respondents who reported their ethnicity, 77% specified African American, 7% specified Multi-Ethnic, and 4.2% specified Asian. The remaining categories of Caucasian (3.5%), Hispanic (2.8%), and Other (2.1%) were specified less frequently. A total of 63.4% of the respondents were female\n35.9% of the respondents were male. Of the 70 students responding to SMART questionnaire items and specifying demographic information, 38.6% were female and 61.4% were male. Regarding ethnicity, 82.9% of the SMART respondents specified African American, 4.3% specified Caucasian or Hispanic respectively, 2.9% specified Multi-Ethnic and 1.4% specified Other or Asian. Table 6 contains the results for THRIVE and SMART objective survey items. These results are summarized in text below. Summaries of the open ended questions are shown in subsequent Tables. The overall trend in response types was positive\nfifty percent or more students indicated agreement or strong agreement across all items. Well over eighty percent of students responding to the survey reported that team competitions made THRIVE classes more fun. Over seventy-five percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE made algebra more enjoyable and instilled confidence in doing well on the algebra Benchmark Exam. Over sixty percent of student respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE improved their self-confidence about math, helped them feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class.  Because some students participating in the THRIVE program did not participate in SMART during the previous summer, differences between respondent numbers were expected. 28 n II and facilitated problem solving through calculator use. A total of 66.6% of respondents indicated that THRIVE IB teachers helped them with problems they were having in their regular algebra class. At least one half (50.0%) of the students responding to the survey indicated that THRIVE helped improve their algebra grades and II helped them understand how to apply algebra concepts in real life. In contrast to the positive trend in responses across items, two areas in which some students showed disagreement were related to n generalization and application. This is somewhat consistent with responses noted within the open ended II portion of the student survey where students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. II Additionally, more students responded neutrally to items pertaining to content, grades and application when compared to responses for items related to motivation, fun and self-confidence. II Table 6 II Student Survey - THRIVE N = 142 THRIVE items II 1. Because of THRIVE, I have learned how to use a calculator to help solve algebra problems. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 67.6 Percent Neutral 23.9 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 8.5 II 2. THRIVE makes algebra more enjoyable. 77.5 20.4 2.1 3. II 4. II 5. 6. II 7. 8. THRIVE has helped me get good grades in algebra. I think I will do well on the algebra Benchmark Exam because of THRIVE. In THRIVE, I have learned how algebra can be used in real life. THRIVE has made me more confident about math. My THRIVE teacher helps me with problems I am having in my algebra class. I feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class. 50.0 78.9 55.6 66.2 66.2 74.7 40.9 16.2 33.8 24.7 25.4 21.1 8.5 4.2 10.6 7.8 8.5 4.2 9. Team competitions make THRIVE classes fun. 87.3 6.3 2.8 29 a n II SMART II Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement for items pertaining to the SMART portion of survey were consistently above 75%. Of the 70 respondents, over 85% agreed or strongly agreed that II SMART helped prepare them for Algebra I in the fall, and 80% agreed or strongly agreed that SMART made algebra more fun. Seventy-eight percent agreed or strongly agreed that the SMART program helped them II remember math skills from the previous year. Students agreed or strongly agreed that they were motivated to II go to their SMART classes and that the program helped them apply math to solve real-life problems across 75% of the surveys. Fewer students indicated neutral or negative responses for the SMART survey items II than noted among THRIVE survey responses. Of those that indicated disagreement or strong disagreement, the item noted most frequently (4.3%) was related to application (We learned how to use math to solve real- II life problems.). Overall, the trend towards agreement with items probing the attributes of the programs was positive. Table 7 presents detailed results for the SMART student survey. II Table 7 II Student Survey - SMART N = 70 II SMART Items 1. II 2. II 3. 4. II 5. SMART helped me remember the math skills I learned last school year. SMART made algebra more fun. In SMART, we learned how to use math to solve real-life problems. I was motivated to go to my SMART class during the summer. Because of SMART, I was prepared to begin Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 78.6 Percent Neutral 18.6 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 2.9 81.4 75.7 75.7 88.6 14.3 15.7 18.6 5.7 1.4 4.3 1.4 1.4 il OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES THRIVE students had an opportunity to respond to four, open-ended questions as part of the survey. Student impressions of the SMART program were polled across all students even though SMART was not in session and not all students participated in it during the previous summer. SMART and THRIVE were evaluated separately using the same questions to preserve the integrity of their differences. Student responses are summarized below. 30I H 11 Question 1: Students were asked to comment on what they liked about the THRIVE program. The II majority of responses reflected an appreciation of the programs use of competition and a sense that the program made math more fun/enjoyable. Additional comments suggested that students enjoyed having a II program that allowed for review and expansion of concepts taught in the regular Algebra I classroom. Students also noted that they enjoyed the teachers and felt comfortable asking for clarification when II necessary. Additionally, snacks and rewards were notably cited as positive influences of THRIVE. Table 8 II summarizes what students liked about THRIVE. TABLE 8 II What do you like about THRIVE? II Description II II II II II Makes math fun Uses competition/games in Provides expansion/review of math concepts Clarifies/Remediates confusing concepts Teachers are good/likeable Snacks People/friends in THRIVE classes Class size/Format Money/Rewards NA - responses did not pertain to question Enjoy using a calculator Provides a head start for following week in class Improves self-confidence/provides comfortable place to learn Class Time/Format TOTAL Frequency 42 37 18 17 17 14 11 8 7 7 4 3 3 2 190 Percentage 22% 19% 9% 9% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 100% II Question 2: When asked what they would change about the THRIVE program, the ovenwhelming majority of students responded that they would make no changes. Students who did comment on needed II changes mostly cited a later start time or a more compressed time period (e.g., two hours rather than four hours) as potential prospects. Non-specific time changes (e.g., change time, time, different time) were also H noted among open-ended comments but coded separately due to the large number of students commenting on previously cited specifics about THRIVE hours. Table 9 provides an illustration of student comments. The Hi miscellaneous category captured unique comments made by individual students (e.g., field trips, guest speakers. Physical Education). 31 I TABLE 9 What would you change about THRIVE? Description No change Less time Later start time Miscellaneous Class format/more varied activities Longer breaks Non-specific time change Snacks/lunch Enhance competition More time More peers/neighborhood school Rewards Earlier time Teacher changes TOTAL Frequency 57 17 14 11 10 8 8 8 5 4 3 3 2 2 152 Percentage 38% 11% 9% 7% 7% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 100% Question 3: Students were asked to comment on how THRIVE has helped them over the course of the semester. Most comments suggested that THRIVE helped students enhance comprehension of general algebraic concepts. Many students also indicated that THRIVE helped improve their grades and improved their understanding of how to use a calculator to solve and graph equations. Additionally, students' comments suggested that THRIVE reinforced specific concepts (e.g., graphing equations with polynomials) and made the students feel that they were staying ahead in weekly algebra classes. Of 150 responses, three indicated that THRIVE was not helpful\nnone indicated that it was detrimental. Table 10 summarizes the results. TABLE 10 If THRIVE has helped you, how has it helped you? Description Enhanced comprehension of algebra Improved grades Use of calculator Reinforced specific concepts in algebra Helps stay ahead in math Builds confidence/makes math more positive Miscellaneous (individual answers) Negative-Did not help TOTAL Frequency 63 20 18 16 14 8 8 3 150 Percentage 42% 13% 12% 11% 9% 5% 5% 2% 100% 32 II l\u0026lt; Questions about SMART were analyzed. Response rates across SMART questions, although Il somewhat different, do not vary significantly. Question 4: When asked to identify the most appealing aspects of SMART, most comments were If positive, yet nonspecific in nature. Examples included responses that alluded to liking everything about the program or how the program helped me (in general)\". A number of students (13%) noted that SMART II prepared them for math in the fall and reduced anxiety when entering first year algebra. Calculator use and II team competition garnered notably high response rates (13% and 12% respectively). Some students made specific comments about the positive influence of the SMART teachers and others made comments about rewards delivered through the program. Response categories are provided in Table 11. TABLE 11 What do you like about SMART? Description Nonspecific positive responses (e.g.. Everything\nHow it helped me) More prepared for math/ reduced anxiety Using the calculator Team competitions The teachers Reinforcement and rewards Social aspects/visiting with peers from other schools The snacks Games and content delivery NA (e.g., I did not go to SMART\nI do not know) Format/time/class size TOTAL Frequency 31 11 11 10 5 5 5 3 2 2 1 86 Percentage 36% 13% 13% 12% 6% 6% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% 100% Question 5: Students also provided information about what aspects of the SMART program they would change. Over sixty percent of the responses favored no change. Of the remaining responses, 23% indicated a time change as appropriate. Of those, the large majority of comments suggested a later starting time rather than a reduced time period. One student noted a desire to reduce the amount of time spent at SMART. A few students who did not participate in SMART simply indicated such\nno additional comments were recorded among these respondents. The remaining responses indicated a desire to enhance the program by adding team competitions, extending the time during which SMART was available, and providing more applied skills for use in everyday situations. Data are summarized in Table 12. 33 TABLE 12 IVhaf would you change about the SMART program? Response No change Time Snacks NA (I did not go to SMART\n1 like Math) More team competitions More applied skills Extend time/day and/or hours________ TOTAL Frequency Percentage 41 15 3 3 2 1 1 66 62% 23% 5% 5% 3% 1% 1% 100% Question 6: When asked about how SMART helped students, the overwhelming majority of comments identified the programs purpose in preparing students for Algebra I as most important. Many responses also indicated the use of a calculator as instrumental in helping students solve algebra problems. Additionally, students noted that SMART helped improve their grades and built confidence in math. TABLE 13 If SMART helped you, describe how. Response Made me feel prepared Use of calculator Built confidence in math Improved grades NA(I did not go to SMART\n1 liked THRIVE) Reinforced specific concepts Miscellaneous (I would like field trips) Increased engagement/interest TOTAL PARENT SURVEY THRIVE Frequency Percentage 41 11 6 6 3 1 1 1 70 59% 16% 9% 9% 4% 1% 1% 1% 100% A total of 35 parents responded to survey items pertaining to THRIVE. Of those, 57% were female and 40% were male. A total of 80% of parent respondents indicated that their child was African American, 8.6% specified Asian and 2.9% specified Caucasian, Hispanic and Other respectively. No parental respondents specified Multi-Ethnic as the ethnicity of their child. 34 n II Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement were consistently above 80% across all survey il items. Overall, parents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE was a good program (94%), that they felt comfortable having their child attend classes on Saturdays (91.4%) and that they felt teachers in the program II helped their children feel successful in math (91.4%). The neutral responses that were noted were made in response to items pertaining to childrens attitudes about math and improvement in grades. No negative II responses to the items were reported. Table 14 provides a summary of the responses. H Table 14 11 Parent Survey - THRIVE N = 35 THRIVE items 11 Percent Strongly Agree/Agree Percent Percent Strongly Neutral Disagree/ 1. II 2. 3. II 4. 5. II 6. II II II II n The teachers in this program make my child feel that he/she can succeed. Because of this program, my child is more motivated to complete algebra homework. This program has helped improve my childs attitude about math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes on Saturdays. Because of this program, I have seen an improvement in my childs Algebra I grades. Overall, I think this is a good program. SMART 91.4 88.6 82.9 91.4 80.0 94.3 5.7 8.6 17.1 5.7 14.3 2.9 Disagree 0.0 Percent Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A smaller number of parents (21) responded to the five survey items pertaining to SMART. Of those, 61.9% were female and 33.3% were male. Eighty-five percent of parental respondents cited their childs ethnicity as African American. The remaining respondents indicated Asian (4.8%) or Other (4.8%) as their childs ethnicity. Ninety percent of parent respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement when asked whether SMART did a good job of preparing children for Algebra I in the fall and improving childrens perception that they could succeed in math. Results are noted in tables 15 and 16. Slightly over 85% of respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement with items related to whether SMART improved their childs attitude about math and whether they felt comfortable sending their children to classes during the summer. A total of 35 h II n 76% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that the program classes were easy for their children to attend. n None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Of those that responded neutrally, the highest number (14.3%) were noted for the item pertaining to whether SMART had II improved attitudes about math. No parents indicated negative responses for any of the items. II Table 15 II Parent Survey- SMART N=21 SMART Items II 1. II 2. 3. II 4. 5. II Because of this program, my child felt like he/she could succeed in Math. The summer classes were easy for my child to attend. This program helped improve my childs attitude about Math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes during the summer. This program did a good job of preparing my child for beginning Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 90.5 Percent Neutral 4.8 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 Percent Dont Know 0.0 76.2 85.7 85.7 90.5 4.8 0.0 4.8 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES II Question 1: When asked to provide their impressions of THRIVE, many parents responses described II it as a motivating math program (19%) targeting childrens math skills. Numerous comments suggested that parents characterize THRIVE as a program that improves general math skills (19%) and/or focuses on II problem solving and/or critical thinking (15%). A number of parents comments also reflected an awareness of the programs use of motivating games and competition to foster interest in math (15%). The balance of the II comments were positive and reflected an awareness of THRIVE as a supplemental alternative to the weekly Algebra I curriculum. II II 36 H bII II TABLE 16 II Please tell us your impression of the THRIVE program. What do you see as taking place during the sessions? II II II II Description Helps child feel fulfilled/motivated about math Helps child improve math skills Focuses critical thinking and problem solving Integrates games and fun into math Non-specific positive commendation Practical application Provides individualized tutoring provides review of school curriculum Class format: small groups and team competition TOTAL Frequency 5 5 4 4 2 2 2 21 27 Percentage 19% 19% 15% 15% 7% 7% 7% 7% 4% 100% II Question 2 and Question 3: Questions 2 and 3 addressed parents opinions of THRIVE. One third of the comments made about parents positive opinions indicated that it was motivating. Parents also noted that II they liked how THRIVE provided additional help (17%) and made efforts to improve specific math skills (12%). n Some parents reported global positive experiences and satisfaction with THRIVE (14%). Table 17 provides additional data regarding what parents liked about the program. II Regarding parents opinions about whether aspects of THRIVE should be changed, 29% recommended no change and/or responded positively about the program. Of the comments requesting n change, one third recommended expanding the breadth and length of the program. Specifically, these parents made note that more time (23%) should be allocated for THRIVE and that more students (10%) should be II involved. Table 18 provides additional information about isolated comments for changing THRIVE. II II n 37 II II TABLE 17 II What did you like about the THRIVE program? Description Frequency Percentage II II II II Motivating Provides additional help Non-specific positive commendation Improve math skills Class size, time, format Learning new strategies Games Parent gatherings Prepares for benchmark exam Teaches calculator skills TOTAL 14 7 6 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 42 33% 17% 14% 12% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% 2% 100% II II TABLE 18 If anything, what would you change about the THRIVE program? II Description Frequency Percentage II II II II II No change Extend time/meet more frequently Expand program to more students More challenge Expand into summer Expand program to after school Get credit Later start Measurement of progress More communication between parents and teachers More funding More hands on learning More structure Transportation\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_1071","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","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":["2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"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/1071"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda RECEIVED JAN 2 6 2006 DFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Director's Meeting JANUARY 2006 :c \u0026gt;m  -0 \u0026lt;no C: :c -0 ..... ~~ ::,m \u0026gt;(\") ..... g Oz z =. \"'a z \"' Date: . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 26, 2006 To: Board of Directors From: Re: LRSD Administrators, Employees and Community Partners Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Electronic Board Meetings / On-Line Agenda You may notice that this month's agenda looks a little different than what you usually receive. Effective with this meeting, board members are implementing NovusAgenda and will begin conducting their monthly board meetings utilizing state of the art technology. Each board member will receive and view their agenda on their home or LRSD laptop computer. The meetings will be paperless! If you have been receiving a copy of the monthly agenda, you will be asked to access your agenda in the future by going to http://boardmeetinqs.lrsd.org. You will then link to the appropriate section of the website. The three links on this page are as follows: Board - The Board of Directors site is password protected in order that we may provide them with confidential information that is related to personnel issues, employee or student hearings. Public - The Public site contains all information that you have normally received in a printed agenda and will be active t_he day prior to the meeting. Agenda - This link is provided for District personnel who create and configure items for presentation to the Board. It is also password protected. Anyone who has a computer with internet access will be able to receive the monthly board agenda. We will save thousands of dollars each year on printing, binding and delivery costs. If you have any trouble accessing your appropriate on-line site, please contact my office and speak to Beverly Griffin, 447-1005. ,... r\na (\") \u0026gt; I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 26, 2006 5:30 .p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: IV. A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Dodd Elementary School, partnering with Stagecoach Grocery \u0026amp; Deli Dodd Elementary School, partnering with Transamerica Worksite Marketing Otter Creek Elementary School, partnering with Home Bank of Arkansas Pulaski Heights Elementary School, partnering with Carol Jenkins, Realtor Terry Elementary School, partnering with Arkansas Heart Hospital Washington Magnet Elementary School, partnering with Pi Omicron Chapter of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Quarterly Legal Update C. Arkansas Facilities Master Plan - Public Hearing D. Student Assignment Report E. Budget Update F. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects G. Internal Auditors Report H. Technology Update n \u0026gt;-o i= ill -\u0026lt; C o:i:: oz ~~ m-\u0026lt;\n:o..,\n- oCz: on r- -\u0026lt; r- \u0026lt;5 nz ~Cl) r- :\u0026lt; r\n: o n -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; Regular Board Meeting January 26, 2006 Page2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes - Special Meeting, 12-08-05 Regular Meeting, 12-15-05 VI. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES A Second Reading: Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements with Regulations B. US Department of Education - Grant Submission: Teaching American History VII. ADMINISTRATION A Arkansas Facilities Master Plan VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES A Personnel Changes IX. FINANCE \u0026amp; SUPPORT SERVICES A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT ,... (\") \u0026gt;-o ~~ ... c: 0 3: oz\n:a\u0026gt; c\n:a m-\u0026lt;\n:a-., -c:: o\n,..:. an..z. r- \u0026lt;5 nz ,~... \"' .,, =:\n,\n, n~m~ oc\ni::c:: .m.. ,~... g~ l\n~ cnm -\u0026lt;\n:a \"'\"'\n,\n, \u0026gt;m in~ C.,,: :\n.,.\n., :-\u0026lt;lil nm =I (\") ~8 Oz z =I \"'o z \"' :,.\u0026lt;..\n,\n, (\") \u0026gt; I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME TO GUESTS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION IV. LRCTA C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: January 26, 2006 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Partners in Education BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. RATIONALE: The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives FUNDING: Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the board approve the following partnerships: David 0. Dodd Elementary School and Stagecoach Grocery \u0026amp; Deli David 0. Dodd Elementary School and Transamerica Worksite Marketing Otter Creek Elementary School and Home Bank of Arkansas Pulaski Heights Elementary School and Carol Jenkins, Realtor Terry Elementary School and Arkansas Heart Hospital Washington Magnet Elementary School and Pi Omicron Chapter, Omega P!\u0026gt; f  Fraternity, Inc. PREPARED BY: Debbie Milam, ViPS Coordinator f) c\":\": ,t.o... ~ ~::,: \".m...' ~\"' :,:,Z \"\"C)  \u0026gt; z\"' ~\n= ::::i\n\"' ,::, .m -\"\u0026lt;' Cl m C: z 0-1 C) \u0026gt; m\"' .... \"' ~ ci ~~ ...,m m~ \"m' \"0\" .\"..'. c:: ,.... .\"n..' . \u0026gt; David 0. Dodd Elementary Partners in Education with Stagecoach Grocery \u0026amp; Deli David 0. Dodd Elementary will provide: I .Art teacher will provide work from students at Dodd at various times 2.Invitations for Field Day, Career Day, and Economic Mini Mall 3. Post Stagecoach Grocery \u0026amp; Deli's lunch menu in the Teacher's lounge 4. Acknowledge grocery employee's birthdays from students 5. Send David 0. Dodd ewsletter quarterly Stagecoach Grocery \u0026amp; Deli will provide: I .Provide a guest speaker for Career Day 2.Sponsor the Birthday Table for students one time, for (1) month approximately (20) students 3.Provide ice for Field Day \u0026amp; School Picnic 4.Provide door prize for staff member ( ex. Free lunch) once a semester (2 times) 5. Post the David 0. Dodd Elementary Newsletter David 0. Dodd Elementary- Transamerica Work.site Marketing Partners in Education Proposal Partnership Activities 2005-2006 School Year Dodd Activities 1. Dodd. staff will identify children who have a need for tutoring and will arrange the scheduling with the TWM employee. 2. The counselor at Dodd will notify the employees ofTWM to schedule speakers for Career Day. 3. The Dodd Newsletter will be sent quarterly to a TWM contact for display at the TWM office and to notify the employees of upcoming events at Dodd. 4. The Dodd Media Specialist will provide an opportunity for TWM employees to work with the newspaper staff to prepare the newsletter for publication. 5. The Art Specialist will assist the Dodd students in creating decorations for the offices atTWM. 6. The David 0. Dodd choir will perform for the TWM employees at the TMW building during the holiday season. TWM Activities l. Provide Dodd with two employees per month for 30 minutes to one hour that would listen to or read to class or children in rooms selected by the school\nconsider rotation of grades. 2. Provide guest speakers and assist in sponsorship of Career Day. 3. Provide employees who are available to tutor children. Scheduling will be worked out based on needs of Dodd and availability of TWM staffing. 4. Provide demonstration of \"First Aid\" techniques or safety skills to students. 5. Exhibit students' art work in the TWM Employee Break Room 6. Provide one staff training session in the spring and one staff training session in the fall on an agreed upon subject, such as time management, stress management, computer training, etc. 7. Provide adult supervision/assistance with select David 0. Dodd school functions, including Field Day and Economic Mini-Mall. !D 0 C \u0026gt; ~ m ~ i\n~,.... C ~ m .r,,, C I,.l..l. r\n~::i: e...n ,~, ,m,z- o Cl r\nz\"' ~\n= ::j rn !=' en .m \"' lllm CZ 0--\u0026lt; Cl \u0026gt; men --\u0026lt; en ~G'i ~~ --\u0026lt;m m~ \"m' \"0 0 \"...'. \u0026lt;:: ,.... \".n..' \u0026gt; PARTNER-IN-EDUCATION CONTRACT HOME BANK OF ARKANSAS AND OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The staff and students of OTTER CREEK ELEME TARY SCHOOL are pleased to enter into a partnership with HOME BANK OF ARKA SAS, 8800 Stagecoach Road, Little Rock, Arkansas. As part of our willingness to become involved, all parties commit to the following: HOl\\1E BANK OF ARKANSAS  Will provide $150.00 for the purchase of a scanner for the 4th Grade Accelerated Math program.  Will donate funds in January and in March for \"Treasure Chest\" items to be used as incentives for good behavior.  Will donate time to tutor students during the school day and as needed.  Will participate in school activities and programs.  Will sponsor a \"Stewardship Award\" at the end of each nine-weeks period to one student from each grade for living up to his/her potential both academically and behaviorally. OTTER CR.ECK ELEMENT ARY SCHOOL  Student groups will perform for Home Bank of Arkansas such as caroling during December.  Staff will include Home Bank of Arkansas staff in the activities and events at school.  Home Bank of Arkansas will be included in the Otter Creek newsletters. J, Hi \n1 uckcr-, Principal'_ \"~',- .. ( ,._-L ,.,.v_t..,L _,__,-_- -1,/  ((\u0026lt;- V 1_ L _____________ _ ' ' / k . ~ 1\n0 II \\ arnd), Counselor t )\npj '\u0026lt;y 'f\n, i ~i 7 4 'c:1/1' ), \u0026lt; '!I rrnslo'I-\\ , Home Bank of Arkansas .,.....-\n7c S::: ~~- - Partnership Proposal Pulaski Heights Elementary School and Carol Jenkins, Realtor Carol Jenkins, Realtor commits to the following activities:  Sponsor Newspapers in Education for the school for the school year  Donate a stuffed animal to each class  Support Pulaski Heights Picassos fundraiser  Sponsor teacher appreciation activities: o Back to school breakfast o Dessert in November o Something for National Teacher Appreciation Week  Sponsor science fair awards Pulaski Heights Elementary School commits to the following activities:  Recognize Carol Jenkins, Realtor as a Partner in Education  Invite Carol Jenkins, Realtor to school programs  Provide monthly school calendars ,::, en .m --a\u0026lt; a, m C: z 0--\u0026lt; G) \u0026gt; men --\u0026lt; en ~ ci ~~ -,m m:::\n:c m t5 :..c.. :.:: r :c C..\".\u0026gt;. \u0026gt; Terry Elementary and Arkansas Heart Hospital Partnership Proposal Arkansas Heart Hospital will contribute the following to the partnership:  Provide tutors for students in grades K-5 that need academic assistance in literacy and math.  Provide mentors and role models for students.  Provide volunteers to assist with building improvements and updates. (Hospital engineer will coordinate and facilitate.)  Provide resources for parents that will educate them on diet/nutrition, fitness, and a \"heart\" healthy lifestyle.  Provide staff motivational activities and incentives as well as health screenings.  Organize volunteers to develop organized playground activities during recess.  Request lists of families in need from counselors and provide holiday presents for them.  Provide resources and speakers for students and staff on health related issues, careers in the medical field, and parental involvement Terry Elementary will contribute the following to the partnership:  Provide monthly/seasonal art projects made by students for all the patients in the hospital.  Provide student made get well, birthday, and holiday cards for the patients.  Participate in the Heart Hospital's annual walk.  Provide the patients with encouragement and hope from the Terry Singing Tigers when they visit the hospital to share musical programs. Partnership Proposal Washington Magnet Elementary School and Pi Omicron Chapter, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. Pi Omicron Chapter, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. commits to the following activities:  Recruit members to become mentors and tutors  Provide guest speakers for classes and Power Luncheons  Make material and monetary donations  Sponsor essay contests  Chaperone events and field trips Washington Magnet Elementary School commits to the following activities:  Recognize Pi Omicron Chapter, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc as a Partner in Education  Invite Pi Omicron Chapter, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc to school programs  Provide monthly school calendars r\n,:, C\") ..... \u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: January 26, 2006 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Arkansas Facilities Master Plan Public Hearing BACKGROUND: Act 1426, adopted by the Arkansas 85th General Assembly in 2005, established the Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities Program. The facilities program requires each school district to hold a public hearing on a ten-year facilities master plan that must be submitted to the Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation by February 1, 2006. The master plan has been submitted for school board approval with this agenda. Because 2006 is the first year for submitting a master plan, the state is requiring districts to identify only projects scheduled for 2006 to 2009 in the February 1, 2006 plan. Projects scheduled for the final seven years of the ten-year planning period are to be submitted February 1, 2007. RATIONALE: The ten-year master plan is required to undergo a public hearing prior to being submitted to the state. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Hold a public hearing on the ten-year facilities master plan as presented. PREPARED BY: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools ~ C/l rr,~ a,~ cz 0-t C, \u0026gt; mC/l ..... C/l ~Q ~~ -\u0026lt;m m~\nx, m \"C 0\nx , ..... :n a,n 00 zz 0~ \"C :x\u0026gt;\nx, Om c...-c mo n....\n..x...,. C/l- Little Rock Cover Page DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS l1i:1l +- Back B Print January 26, 2006 5:30:00 PM Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools January 2006 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: Page 1 of 1 Planning has started for the renovation of restrooms at ALC, Dodd, Fulbright, Geyer Springs, IRC, McDermott and Watson. These 2000 bond issue projects will be done over the summer of 2006. The remodeling of some of the areas of Henderson Middle School is planned for this summer. This project covers areas of the building that the principal feels are badly needed and are critical to the academic mission. RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action ncecssary. PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer http ://boardmeetings. lrsd. org/board/B luesheet. aspx ?ItemID= 1 79 \u0026amp;MeetingID=8 1/23/2006 \u0026gt; C: C ~\n:c CJ\u0026gt;\n:c m c3 ::!l .?.=. Pl :zx 0 i C: ~ m \u0026gt;31: .C D m c:\n:cCJ\u0026gt; no \u0026gt;0 zm :x - - C) !!l~ Oz ~ ... Facility Name Brady Gibbs J. A. Fair CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 26, 2006 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Project Description Cost Metal Roof $250,000 Addition $705,670 Sewer Line $82,900 Est 1.,ompIet1on Date May-06 Jan-06 Jan-06 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - WINTER/ SPRING 2006 Est (.\nompIet1on Facility Name Proiect Description Cost Date Alternative learning Center ADA Adaptations $43,134 Aug-06 Alternative learning Center Restroom Renovation $37,742 Aug-06 Booker HVAC (QZAB) $239,560 Unknown Central HVAC (QZAB) $919,760 Unknown Dodd Restroom Renovation $26,959 Aug-06 Dunbar HVAC (QZAB) $278,800 Unknown Fair Park HVAC (QZAB) $79,480 Unknown Fulbright ADA Adaptations $21 ,567 Aug-06 Fulbright Renovate Restrooms $10,784 Aug-06 Geyer Springs Replace Restroom Stalls $4,313 Aug-06 Geyer Springs ADA Adaptations $21 ,567 Aug-06 IRC ADA Adaptations $21,567 Aug-06 IRC Restroom Renovation $21 ,567 Aug-06 J. A. Fair Sewer line $82,900 Unknown Mann HVAC (QZAB) $382,400 Unknown McDermott Restroom Renovation $32,350 Aug-06 Terry Bus Drive $100,000 Unknown Watson Restroom Renovation $25,000 Auo-06 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:SL 1.,ompIeuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Booker Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Chicot Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Child Nutrition Renovation $399,507 Unknown Forest Heights Remodel $4,420,128 Aug-07 Fulbright Addition/Traffic Planning $2,500 Unknown Henderson Renovation $450,000 Summer2006 Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Unknown Riohtsell Renovation $2,494,000 Unknown BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED c:s1. 1.,omp1euon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Administration Annex ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown Adult Education ADA Adaptations $248,020 Unknown Structural Repairs $53,918 Unknown Alternative learning Center Roof Repairs $26,959 Unknown Booker ADA Adaptations $107,835 Spring 2006 Cashion Building ADA Adaptations $21 ,567 Unknown Facility Services ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown Install Water Meters at Cooling Towers $4,313 Unknown Emergency Lighting Replacement $80,876 Unknown land Purchase - Booker $100,000 Unknown Garland Renovation $900,000 Partially Complete ADA Adaptations $188,711 Unknown Facilitv Name Henderson Quigley Rockefeller Transportation - Laidlaw West Little Rock School Facility Name Administration Administration Administration Administration Administration Annex Alternative Learning Ctr. Alternative Learning Ctr. Badgett Badgett Bale Bale Bale Bale Baseline Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady Brady Carver Central Media Central Carver Carver Central Central Central Parking Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central Central Central Central Central Chicot Chicot Cloverdale Elementary Cloverdale Elem. CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 26, 2006 BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED Proiect Descriotion Cost ADA Adaptations $70,093 Restroom Upgrades $53,918 Dressing Room Renovation $37,742 ADA Adaptations $26,959 Interior Renovation $16,175 ADA Adaptations $32,351 New School $11 ,782,638 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Descriotion Cost Asbestos abatement $380,495 Fresh air system $55,000 Fire alarm $32,350 HVAC $70,000 Energy monitoring system installation Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Fire alarm $18,250 Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Energy monitoring system Partial roof replacement $269,587 HVAC $664,587 Renovation $953,520 Gym Roof $48,525 ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Asbestos abatement $10,900 Fire alarm $34,501 Addition/renovation $973,621 Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Asbestos abatement $345,072 Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Roof $85,000 Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Media Center Expansion $167,490 Parking lot $111 ,742 HV AC Renovation - Band Area $225,000 Reflecting Pond $57,561 Student parking $174,000 Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Irrigation System $14,500 Purchase land for school Unknown Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Front landing tile repair $22,470 Drainage $64,700 Sound Attenuation $43,134 Demolition $520,750 Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Esl Completion Date Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Est. Completion Date Mar-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Nov-04 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Oct-04 Aug-04 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Nov-04 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Aug-03 Dec-04 Sep-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Jul-04 Nov-05 Jul-01 :?= .... m n :x: z 0 5 ~ C: ~ m  CD 3: . m c:\n%J (J) nc \u0026gt;0 zm :x:- -C, !!l~ Oz ~ .... Facility Name Cloverdale MS Cloverdale MS Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dunbar Facilities Service Facility Services Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Franklin Geyer Springs Gibbs Gibbs Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 26, 2006 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1 ,393,822 Fire Alarm Upgrade $9,200 Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Replace roof top HV AC $215,570 Renovation/addition $6,149,023 Interior renovation $84,672 Fire alarm $12,000 Remodel $799,000 Parking Lot $185,000 Roof $245,784 HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music room addition $3,155,640 Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Press box $10,784 Security cameras $12,500 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Irrigation System $14,000 Roof repairs $391 ,871 Restrooms $152,881 Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 . Diagonal parking $111,742 Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Parking lot $140,000 Roof repairs $200,000 Renovation $2,511 ,736 Roof Repair $161 ,752 Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Energy monitoring system installation $11 ,770 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Asbestos abatement $168,222 Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Intercom Security cameras $10,600 Skylight Replacement $319,000 Lockers $43,854 Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 HVAC (QZAB) $220,000 Site Work $6,000 Est. Completion Date Jul-01 Nov-02 Oct-04 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Nov-04 Mar-01 Aug-03 Aug-05 Aug-05 May-05 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Aug-05 Nov-03 Aug-03 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Jun-04 Apr-01 Jul-01 Sep-03 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 Nov-05 Dec-04 Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Nov-05 Oct-05 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 26, 2006 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Mablevale Elem Fire Alarm Upgrade $12,000 Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers $134,793 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11 ,500,000 Mann Asphalt walks The total $1 .8 million Mann Walkway canopies is what has been Mann Boiler replacement used so far on the Mann Fencing projects listed Mann Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. McClellan Parking Lot Overlay $65,000 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 McClellan Security cameras $36,300 McClellan Energy efficient lighting $303,614 McClellan Stadium stands repair $235,000 McClellan Intercom $46,000 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade $7,700 McDermott Energy efficient lighting $79,411 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Meadowcliff Fire alarm $16,175 Meadowcliff Asbestos abatement $253,412 Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Meadowcliff Remodel $397,600 Metropolitan Replace cooling tower $37,203 Metropolitan Replace shop vent system $20,000 Metropolitan Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Mitchell Renovation $356,395 Mitchell Building Remediation $165,000 Mitchell Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Mitchell Asbestos abatement $13,000 Oakhurst (Adult Education) New Windows $215,000 Oakhurst HVAC renovation $237,237 Otter Creek Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Otter Creek Asbestos abatement $10,000 Otter Creek Parking lot $138,029 Otter Creek 6 classroom addition $888,778 Otter Creek Parking Improvements $142,541 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 Parkview Roof replacement $273,877 Parkview Exterior lights $10,784 Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Parkview Locker replacement $120,000 Parkview Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Cafeteria Ceiling $33,378 Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Replace Entry Doors $13,990 Est. completion Date Oct-04 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Mar-04 Apr-04 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Apr-05 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Jul-04 Sep-04 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Oct-05 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Cancelled by Board re-use vote 11-17-05 Jul-04 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-05 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Aug-03 Dec-04 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Aug-03 Aug-05 Aug-05 4 z m-\u0026lt; ~ \u0026gt;,.... ~ 0 a\no CJ\u0026gt;\no m c3 a ?= -m\u0026lt; n ::c z 0 5 ~ C: ~ m \u0026gt;3: a. , m c:\no CJ\u0026gt; c'iC \u0026gt;0 zm ::c- - C) !:!l?\n! Oz ~-\u0026lt; CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 26, 2006 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facilitv Name Project Description Cost Pulaski Heights Elementary Clean Exterior Walls $98,660 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1 ,193,259 Pulaski Hots. Elem Move playground $17,000 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Rockefeller Parking addition $111 ,742 Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Scott Field Track Renovations $289,056 Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest New Corridor Ceiling $300,000 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest New roof $690,000 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Southwest Drainage I street widening $250,000 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $3,679,000 Technoloov Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Addition Planning $2,500 Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Washington Fire Alarm Upgrade $11 ,600 Washington Security cameras $7,900 Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition  $800,000 Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $622,160 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade $8,400 Western Hills ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191 ,946 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Drainage Repair $29,200 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Wilson HVAC for Cafeteria $56,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1 ,263,876 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Woodruff Parking addition $175,000 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 t:st l\nomp1euon Date Sep-05 Nov-04 Dec-02 Nov-04 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Apr-02 Mar-03 May-05 Jun-01 Aug-05 Nov-04 Aug-00 Oct-03 Jan-02 Auo-03 Auo-02 Aug-03 Dec-01 Jun-04 Nov-02 Unknown Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Dec-04 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Oct-04 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-05 Oct-04 Aug-04 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Nov-05 Mar-04 Dec-03 Jun-01 Mar-05 Feb-04 Aug-03 Aug-05 Aug-02 5 Little Rock Cover Page LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 11.iiJ +- Back e Print DATE: TO: January 26, 2006 5:30:00 PM Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Internal Auditors Report BACKGROUND: Monthly update to Board. RATIONALE: Summary report of activities. FUNDING: n/a RECOMMENDATION: n/a PREPARED BY: Sandy Becker http ://boardmeetings.lrsd.org/board/Bluesheet. aspx?I temID= 167 \u0026amp;MeetingID=8 Page 1 of 1 1/24/2006\nr .... m (\") ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C \"0 ~ m \u0026gt; CD\ni: me\n,JC/) no \u0026gt;0 zm ::i::- -C\"l !!l~ Oz ~-- Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 26, 2006 Board of Directors Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Audit Report - January This is the seventy-fifth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two high schools, two middle school and two elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity and related funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. b) The AAB has forwarded a Booster Club Guidelines Package to be included in official publications of the District after review. Board Policy and Regulation a) The routing of Professional Leave and Travel Requests is being worked on to make the process more efficient and to prepare for the process being automated to improve documentation and provide information for decision making. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and.streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Working with Procurement on the use ofbarcode scanners for checking and updating inventory records. This is being done to help more quickly update and check electronic equipment records at the various sites. c) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. Provided training with the Arkansas PT A on financials controls and financial preventive maintenance. Audit Report - January 2006 Page 2 of2 d) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. e) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. _f) Developed skills test for financial positions. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) c) d) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Reviewing deposits and revenues. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Assisting schools to track and reconcile Teacher School Supply Funds. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Assisting LRSD PTA's in financial process training. Reviewing payroll documentation for Time Piece (automated payroll software). Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org.\n:c ... m (\") :::c z 0 i c:= ~ m \u0026gt; CD\nr: me:=\n,::, V, no \u0026gt;0 zm :::c- -C, ~~ Oz ~ ... DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 January 26, 2006 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Policy \u0026amp; Regulations Revisions: Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements, with Regulations BACKGROUND: Policies and regulations are periodically updated to ensure accuracy and alignment with new state law and regulations. RATIONALE: Due to changes in state law regarding graduation requirements, advanced placement exams, and full day attendance for students in grades nine through twelve (9-12), policy and regulation revisions are needed to ensure compliance. FUNDING: No funding required. RECOMMENDATION: Policy IKF was approved on first reading at the December 2005 board meeting. The administration recommends second reading approval at this time. PREPARED BY: Dennis Glasgow, Senior Director, Curriculum Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent, Educational Services ~\n,-~ ~f: :,\n,z 13 Fl! z en zo me: r-,:, (\") m en ?..,' z z\u0026gt; (\") ~ ,:, m ~ ~ 3\u0026gt;: a , m c: ,:, en no \u0026gt;0 zm ::i:- - C) !!l~ Oz ~ ..... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF GENERAL EDUCATION GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS The Little Rock School District Board of Education believes that students should graduate from high school possessing the skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed for responsible citizenship, life-long learning, and productive employment in our modern economy. Programs for post-secondary preparation will be available to equip students for the advanced training that will be needed for the work of the 21 st century. The Little Rock School District will be responsible for providing the educational opportunities and experiences that will enable our students to take full advantage of post-secondary education and employment opportunities available to them after graduation. The District shares with the state of Arkansas the commitment to ensure all students have access to a rigorous curriculum. The District's general graduation requirements meet and exceed the State's adopted Smart Core or Common Core curriculum. Diploma-Earning Options A student may earn a diploma from a Little Rock School District high school in one of four ways. Each has different requirements and different numbers of required units of credit. 1. Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the required 26 units. 2. Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the Little Rock Scholars curriculum of 28 units, including at least eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses. Hall High School students may take University Studies courses as substitutes for Pre-Advanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. 3. Diploma earned at the Accelerated Learning Center for completion of the 22 units required by the State of Arkansas. 4. Diploma with waived or altered requirements established by an Individual Education Program (IEP) team for a student identified with disabilities. Even though the graduation requirements may be changed by the Board of Education during the time a student is enrolled in high school, the requirements established for a student's graduation class (assuming graduation in four years of high school) are those he/she must meet, even though he/she may require more than four years to earn the necessary number of units. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) Transfer Students NEPN CODE: IKF All transfer students must meet the graduation requirements of the Little Rock School District in order to receive a diploma. The LRSD high schools will accept transfer credits, grades and grade placement for students who previously attended Arkansas high schools that are accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education (See JE for additional information). Students who transfer into a Little Rock School District high school from a home school or an unaccredited high school must attend at least two semesters in order to receive a high school diploma (see IKED and IKED-R) and must attend at least four semesters to be eligible for rank-in-class (See IKC-R). Foreign Exchange students who complete the senior year in good standing may, at the discretion of the principal, participate in the graduation ceremony. Requirement to Attend School for a Full Day Act 675 of 2003 requires students in grades nine through twelve (9-12) to schedule and attend a full school day. Students must enroll in no fewer than three hundred fifty (350) minutes of planned instructional time each day as a requirement for graduation. Students may be assigned to no more than one (1) block each year or one-half block each semester for study hall or organized tutoring. Enrollment and attendance in vocational-education training courses, college courses, and school work programs may be used to satisfy the requirement of the law. Enrollment and attendance at a post-secondary institution by an eligible student for credit shall be counted by the high school at the following rate: Number of college credits (semester Credit toward the required 30 hour hours) week 1 3 2 6 3 9 4 12 5 15 6 18 7 21 8 24 9 27 10 30 2 c:,:, .,, z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;,...\no m c3 ~ \u0026gt;3: .a , m c:\nocn nc )\u0026gt;0 zm ::c- -C) !!l~ Oz ~ ..... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) ADE Seal NEPN CODE: IKF In order to receive the ADE Seal, students must complete the state's recommended core curriculum with a minimum grade point average of 2.75 (See Standards for Accreditation 14.01 and 14.02). Magnet Program Seal Students who participate in the District's high school magnet programs may meet the magnet curriculum requirements through completion of the designated Career Focus courses established for each magnet. In order to receive a Magnet Seal, magnet students must complete fill the requirements of the magnet program. Students transferring into a magnet program after the freshman year may earn a diploma from that high school, but they will not earn the Magnet Seal. Arkansas Scholars Seal (privately sponsored) Arkansas Scholars, a program of the Arkansas business \u0026amp; Education Alliance, is a partnership between the District and the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce's Education Committee. Many local businesses have agreed to recognize the achievement of Arkansas Scholars status as a symbol of high quality education. A special Arkansas Scholars seal will be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards established by the Arkansas Scholars program: 1. Earn a grade of \"C\" or above in all courses. 2. Achieve a 95 percent or better attendance record for each of the four years of high school. 3. Complete high school in eight consecutive semesters. 4. Complete successfully at least three units in science, three units in mathematics. three units of social studies, and four units in English. Honors Diploma Seal A special Honors Seal will be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards: 1. Completes the units required for the Little Rock Scholars curriculum, which includes and goes beyond the requirements of the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board for unconditional admission to any public two-year or fouryear institution of higher education in Arkansas and which includes, but goes beyond, the requirements for eligibility for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarsh ip The Little Rock Scholars curriculum also reflects the admission requirements of the most competitive universities in the United States of America. 2. The Little Rock Scholars curriculum requires the successful completion of a minimum of eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement cou rses over a four-year period. Hall High School students may take University Studies courses as substitutes for Pre-Advanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. Other approved dual-credit courses 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) offered to LRSD students in collaboration with area colleges/ universities may also be substituted for the Pre-AP or AP requirement. 3. Earns a grade-point-average of at least 3.5. Students designated for valedictory or salutatory recognition must have completed the Little Rock Scholars curriculum. Recognition of Graduates Each high school may design its own traditions to commend and celebrate the achievements of the following sets of graduates: 1. The valedictorian and salutatorian\n2. Students earning an overall average of 3.5 or above\n3. Students earning Magnet Program, Arkansas Scholars, Little Rock Scholars, and/or Honors Diploma Seals\n4. Members of the National Honor Society or similar honors organization\n5. Scholarship recipients\n6. Students with perfect attendance throughout high school\nand 7. Students whose other achievements are worthy of special recognition. Participation in Graduation Ceremony In order to be a participant in the graduation ceremony, the student must be within one unit of completing the graduation requirements and must have paid the tuition for the one-half or one unit to be taken in summer school (or, alternately, in another approved credit-earning program). All high school students and their parents will be informed in writing of this expectation when course lists and graduation requirements are published for the spring registration process. Principals will make a determination of potential graduates at the end of the junior year and each quarter of the students' senior year and inform students and their parents immediately if it is determined that the student is in danger of not graduating. Such students will be advised of all the appropriate credit-earning options, including, but not limited to, evening high school, summer programs, credit recovery, correspondence courses, online courses, credit-by-examination, and placement at the Accelerated Learning Center. Award of Diploma The award of the high school diploma will not be made until all graduation requirements are met. 4 ~)\u0026gt; CD m c:\no CJ') nc )\u0026gt; 0 zm ::c- - G) ~~ Oz =-!--\u0026lt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) Specific Course Requirements The following_ table specifies the required courses for graduation for each curriculum area. High School Graduation Requirements Little Rock School District Required, Classes of 2007 and After Reguired1 Arkansas Core Curriculum (Meets Arkansas Smart Core curriculum) Classes of 2007 and After English-4 units English-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Enalish IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). EnQlish IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications-1/2 unit Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications IA -one-half unit Communications IA--one-half unit Mathematics--4 units Mathematics- 4 units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra I or its equivalent* Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry or its equivalent* Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) All math units must build on the base of algebra One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for and geometry knowledge and skills. the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Comparable concurrent credit college courses All students must take a mathematics course in may be substituted where applicable. grade 11 or 12 .  A two-year algebra equivalent or a two-year geometry equivalent may each be counted two units of the four (4) unit requirement. Science--3 units Science-3 units Physical Science (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP}\nand Physical Science\nand Biology I\nand One Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP}\nand either additional unit Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP} or Physics I /ESL Reaular or Pre-AP) Social Studies--3 units Social Studies-3 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand . Government (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, or AP) United States History (ESL, Reoular, or AP) 5 Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education IA Physical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety Health and Safety Fine Arts-1 unit Fine Arts-1/2 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Career Focus-6 units Career Focus-6 units At least six units from anl'. of the a1212roved Career Six units from anJ'. of the a1212roved Career Focus Focus Qrograms to include at least one unit from anJ'. 12rograms. of the a1212roved technologl'. courses and one-half unit of English Language Arts (from anJ'. English, Journalism, or Communciations course. Modern Grammar (1/2) is stronalv recommended.) Electives-3.5 units A fourth J'.ear of both science and social studies is encouraged, as are at least two units of foreign language. AIP classes will gualifl'. as local electives onlv Total-26 units Total-22 units Little Rock Scholars Curriculum The Board of Education recommends that students elect the challenge of a more rigorous graduation plan than the minimum requirements, including at least eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses (or University Studies courses at Hall High or approved dual-credit courses). Little Rock Scholars English-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications IA (1/2 unit). Mathematics -4 units (in grades 9-12) Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Science-4 units Physical Science (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand either Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Physics I (ESL. Regular. or Pre-AP) One additional unit Social Studies-4 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand One additional unit Foreign Language -2 units Two units of any one foreign language Physical Education -1/2 unit Physical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety 6 ~ ?\"2\nll~\n,::,z ~~ Z(I) zo ,m-\nc,:::, 0 m (/) .~., z )\u0026gt; z (\") \u0026gt; r\n,::, m c3 ~ \u0026gt; CD ~ ~\n,:,(I) c'ic )\u0026gt; 0 zm :,:- -Cl ~s\n? Oz ~ ..... Fine Arts-1 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Career Focus-6 units ~ix units from an:i: of the airnroved Career Focus Qrograms to include one unit from an:i: of the aQQroved technolog:i: courses and English Language Arts-1/2 unit (An:i: one-half unit from English, Communications, or Journalism. Modern Grammar Is stronaiv encouraaed.l Electives-1.5 units Total-28 units (Reauires completion of eiaht Pre-AP or AP courses) Reauired, ACC Students Class of 2007 and After Engiish-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand EnQlish IV (ESL, ReQular or AP). Oral Communications IA (1/2 unit). Mathematics-4 units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Science-3 units Physical Science (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand either Chemistry I (ESL, ReQular, or Pre-AP) or Phvsics I /ESL Reaular or Pre-APl Social Studies-3 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, ReQular, Pre-AP or AP) Physical Education-1/2 unit Phvsical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safetv Fine Arts-1/2 unit One unit from art dance drama, or music Career Focus-6 units Six units from any of the approved Career Focus oroarams. Total-22 units Last Revised: December 15, 2005 Adopted: July 22, 1999 Legal References: AC.A 6-15-1101, Standards of Accreditation 9.03, 14.01, 14.02 Cross References: Board of Education Policies and Regulations IKED, JE, IKED-R, IKC-R, and IKEC-R1, and the LRSD Student Handbook 7 DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 January 26, 2006 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: US Department of Education - grant submission: Teaching American History BACKGROUND: The District proposes to submit a Teaching American History grant application to implement high-quality professional development for all American history teachers. The purpose of the program is to raise student achievement by improving teachers' knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of traditional American history. By helping teachers to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation of traditional American history as a separate subject matter within the core curriculum, the program will improve instruction and raise student achievement. The District will partner with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Department of History, National History Day, the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, the Clinton Library, and the Central High National Historic Museum. RATIONALE: This proposal will build upon the 2002 Teaching American History initiative which expired in 2005. This application will provide opportunities for teachers to continue to refine and hone their pedagogical skills and knowledge of American history content. FUNDING: $1,000,000 RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval for the submission of the grant application. PREPARED BY: Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent, Educational Services Dennis Glasgow, Senior Director, Curriculum Linda Young, Grants Coordinator ~ ?\"2 ~~\n0 z gi~ Z(I) zo me: ,..\n0 (') m \"' a, .., z \u0026gt;z n ,\u0026gt;.. \"m'\n-g ~ ?\u0026lt; n 5 \"z' Cl \"m' ~ ~ \"' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: January 26, 2006 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Arkansas Facilities Master Plan BACKGROUND: The Arkansas 85th General Assembly in 2005 adopted Act 1426 which established the Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities Program. Among the provisions of the program is a requirement for each school district in the state to submit to the Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation by February 1, 2006, a ten-year facilities master plan. The master plan identifies all of the school improvement projects a district is planning to undertake over the next ten years. According to the Facilities Division, the purpose of the master planning process is to:  Establish a mechanism for state supervision of school district activities impacting facilities and equipment\n Develop and continually update information critical to identifying academic facilities needs at the local level and across the state\nand to  Allow the state to manage financial participation in eligible academic facilities projects. The stated goal of the state's academic facilities program master planning process is to ensure that school improvements bring school facilities to a level where only routine maintenance is required within the ten-year period of the master plan. Accordingly, the state commissioned a survey of academic facilities to assess the condition of each building owned by a district. The survey results, which were released in 2004, produced a comprehensive list of facility improvement projects for each district. In preparing its ten-year master plan, each school district is directed to draw from the improvement list prepared by the state survey. Unlike most school districts in Arkansas, the Little Rock School District is not eligible to receive any state funding for capital school construction. Consequently, the district commissioned a facility improvement study of its own in 1995 which led to the development of a school capital projects list. A public referendum in 2000 approved a millage increase that dedicated $115 million to capital construction projects on the district list. The master plan scheduled for submission to the state on February 1, 2006, \u0026gt;\u0026lt; ,\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- ~ m \u0026gt;:I: 0~ '-0 0-\u0026lt; c:m s1m :i:::i:: m~ Z\nn .... z G) ~ ..., z z\u0026gt; (\"') \u0026gt; r-\nn m c3 ~ ?\u0026lt; (\"') 5 (/) z G) includes the remaining LRSD capital construction projects and any deficiencies identified by the state survey that exist within those LRSD capital construction projects. RATIONALE: The ten-year master plan is required by state law under the Arkansas Public School Academic _Facilities Program and must be approved by the district school board prior to submittal. Because 2006 is the first year for submitting a master plan, the state is requiring districts to identify only projects scheduled for 2006 to 2009 in the February 1, 2006 plan. Projects scheduled for the final seven years of the ten-year planning period are to be submitted February 1, 2007. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the ten-year facilities master plan as presented. PREPARED BY: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Little Rock Cover Page LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ~ .. Back a Print DATE: TO: January 26, 2006 5:30:00 PM Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District. FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: Page 1 of 1 It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with AC.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2005 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 8, 2005 for EYE are considered intern teachers. PREPARED BY: David E. Hartz, Senior Director of Human Resources http ://boardmeetings. lrsd. org/board/B luesheet. aspx?I temID= 18 0\u0026amp;MeetingID=8 1/24/2006 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;,\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;.\n= m ,.:1: c~ '- 0 0-\u0026lt; c: m ~m :ii:% m~ Z\n,:, --\u0026lt;\nC) .., z ~ C') ,.m i:,\n0 C: z\"' \u0026gt;~ :::!\n,:, 0--t z\"' \"'m ~ m (/) ~ .., z z\u0026gt; C') \u0026gt; r-\nD m ~ ~ ?\u0026lt; C') 5 (/) z C)\n,:, m 3:: ~ (/) Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Bond, Helen Economics/ 8-8-03 1-01 30190.00 Reason: Health CENTRAL 1-31-06 TCH925 Branc~. Karunda Physical Education/ 9-12-05 1-04 32512.00 Reason: Certification FELDER 12-16-05 TCH925 expiration Childers, Jessica Art/ 8-11-04 1-04 32512.00 Reason: None given FRANKLIN 1-1-06 TCH925 Cunningham, Ellen Speech Pathology/ 10-23-80 62-20 64992.00 Reason: Retired WATSON 12-8-05 SPE925 Hunjan, Tarandeep Special Education/ 8-7-02 1-04 32512.00 Reason: Leaving the city SOUTHWEST 1-12-06 SPE925 Jordan, Adrienne Special Education/ 8-11-05 1-14 44123.00 Reason: Certification HENDERSON 1-9-06 SPE925 expiration Masser, Jennifer Special Education/ 8-1-05 1-01 30190.00 Reason: Accepted another STEPHENS 1-13-06 SPE925 position Pierce, Charlene Elementary 11/ 8-11-04 2-12 43311.00 Reason: None given WATSON 1-3-06 TCH925 Varady, Kathryn Counselor/ 4-13-90 6-18 56489.00 Reason: Retired OTTER CREEK 1-12-06 CNL925 New Certified Employees Baker, Lauren Art/ 8-12-05 1-01 30190.00 MCDERMOTT TCH925 Burl, Gregory Special Education/ 12-5-05 5-19 56054.00 MCCLELLAN SPE925 annual 33282.06 prorated Hemphill, James Special Education/ 11-30-05 1-14 44123.00 ALC SPE925 annual 26887.45 prorated Personnel Changes Page2 January 26, 2006 X x:- ~m \u0026gt;\ni: o\n,2 \u0026lt;-o 0-\u0026lt; START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL cm\nom CLASS SALARY Z\n:c NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE ~,\n'\n? Z,:, -\u0026lt;2 C) Ortigara, James Special Education/ 10-31-05 4-17 52164.00 MABELVALE MIDDLE SPE925 annual 36949.50 prorated Parker, Tammy Special Education/ 12-5-05 6-10 47200.00 J. A. FAIR SPE925 annual 28025.00 prorated Woodson, Jerri Life Science/ 11-14-05 3-02 33789.00 CLOVERDALE TCH925 annual MIDDLE 22174.03 prorated ?\u0026lt; 'Tl z Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees \u0026gt;z (\")\n,,,~ o\"' 0C Aaron, Adriadne Lab Attendant/ 8-17-04 33-04 .11308.00 z \"C ~\n3 Reason: Resigned without FOREST PARK 11-25-05 INA925 o-\nt..J. Zu, notice \"'m ~ m Aldridge, Lester Maintenance/ 10-8-84 51-20 46800.00 CJ\u0026gt; Reason: Retired MAINTENANCE AND 12-28-05 MAINT OPERATIONS Allen, Tina Child Nutrition/ 9-10-01 3-03 9984.00 Reason: Job Abandonment CENTRAL 12-1-05 FSH550 cc 'T'I z )\u0026gt; z Annamraju, Sivakamini Instructional Aide/ 8-11-05 33-16 16192.00 (\") \u0026gt; Reason: Personal FOREST HEIGHTS 1-2-06 INA925 r\n%l m \"Cl 0 Broadway, Axie Custodian/ 8-16-04 31-02 15048.00 .\n%....l Reason: Accepted another CENTRAL 1-3-06 CUS12 position Eskew, Annette CARE/ 9-6-02 2-08 8.67 Reason: Personal CARE 1-3-06 CARE per hour Garrison, Dontornice Instructional Aide/ 8-17-05 33-04 11308.00 ?\u0026lt; Reason: Resigned without FOREST HEIGHTS 1-17-06 INA925 (\") r notice 0 CJ\u0026gt; z C)\n%l m ~\n%l\n,:\nC/) Personnel Changes Page3 January 26, 2006 NAME Hearn, Troylonda Reason: None given Johnson, Dorothy POSITION / SCHOOL CARE/ CARE Child Nutrition/ Reason: Job Abandonment STEPHENS Nash, Niketa Instructional Aide/ Reason: Accepted another ALE position Piggee, LaQuinton Custodian/ Reason: Job Abandonment PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY Sims, Lakisha Instructional Aide/ Reason: Personal MEADOW CLIFF Smith, Jason Custodian/ Reason: Accepted another MCDERMOTT position Thomas, Earnestine CARE/ Reason: None given CARE Thomas, Lavette CARE/ Reason: Accepted another CARE position Waller, Quawana Instructional Aide/ Reason: Accepted another KING position Watson, Taluana Bus Driver/ Reason: None given TRANSPORTATION New Non-Certified Employees Akins, Lucille Instructional Aide/ CHICOT START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL END DATE CLASS SALARY 8-29-05 2-04 8.05 1-3-06 CARE per hour 8-17-05 3-02 9688.00 11-29-05 FSH550 6-18-98 33-09 13140.00 1-2-06 INA925 8-18-05 31-01 11437.00 11-29-05 CUS928 8-19-05 33-16 16192.00 1-13-06 INA925 9-2-91 31-16 22752.00 11-15-05 CUS12 3-19-01 1-17 9.47 1-3-06 CARE per hour 8-19-05 3-09 9.04 1-3-06 CARE per hour 8-11-05 33-09 13140.00 1-3-06 INA925 12-9-04 3-09 15392.00 1-4-06 BUSDRV 1-2-06 33-16 16192.00 INA925 annual 8927.48 prorated Personnel Changes Page4 January 26, 2006 X x:- ~m \u0026gt;!I: c\nJ:! '-0 0 -\u0026lt; START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL Cm\nom CLASS SALARY Z::,:: NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE ~~ Z\n,:, \"\"'z C) Bell, H!:llen Instructional Aide/ 12-1-05 33-16 16192.00 FOREST PARK INA925 annual 9977.77 prorated Bledsoe, Albert Air Force/ 1-2-06 65-18 66960.00 CENTRAL AN12 annual 34762.21 prorated Bryant, Thelma Child Nutrition/ 12-9-05 3-01 9401 .00 MEADOWCLIFF FSH550 annual 5610.27 prorated Carter, Danielle Lab Attendant/ 12-1-05 33-16 16192.00 ?\u0026lt; FOREST PARK INA925 annual .., z 9977.77 \u0026gt;z prorated C')\n\u0026gt;~ 8~ Hamilton, Sharon 33-19 z\" Instructional Aide/ 1-2-06 17705.00 \u0026gt; c3 -\u0026lt;,:, GIBBS INA925 annual 0-\u0026lt; z (J) 9761 .68 \"'m ~ prorated C') m (J) Hightower, Stacey Instructional Aide/ 1-2-06 33-16 16192.00 FULBRIGHT INA925 annual 8927.48 prorated .?.,' Hill, Michael Child Nutrition/ 12-1-05 3-01 9350.00 z z\u0026gt; HALL FSH550 annual C') \u0026gt; 5913.53 r \"' prorated m c3 \"...'. Long, Channon Instructional Aide/ 1-2-06 33-03 10989.00 MABEL VALE INA925 annual ELEMENTARY 6058.80 prorated Martin, Sharon Child Nutrition/ 11-10-05 3-01 9401.00 TERRY FSH550 annual ?\u0026lt; 6570.59 C') r prorated 0 (J) z C) \"m' !f\n\",:': (J) Personnel Changes Pages January 26, 2006 NAME McCaH, Yolanda Moody, Gerald Nunnley, Ora Robinson, Lakesha Samuel, Adalia Sasser, Latiste Spearmon, Willie Wilkerson, Ronald Williams, Bertha Iverson, Deloris Mccullough, Lajuanna Watson, Phyllis West, Ginentric START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Bus Driver/ 12-12-05 2-01 53.53 TRANSPORTATION BUSDRV per day Bus Driver Aide/ 1-2-06 2-03 60.95 TRANSPORTATION BUSDRV per day Media Clerk (.50)/ 12-14-05 31-11 7876.80 MABEL VALE CLK925 annual ELEMENTARY 4483.07 prorated Instructional Aide/ 11-21-05 33-06 12002.00 FULBRIGHT INA925 annual 7720.21 prorated Bus Driver/ 12-12-05 2-01 53.53 TRANSPORTATION BUSDRV per day Secretary/ 11-28-05 31-12 20292.00 CENTRAL CLK925 annual 12844.40 prorated Bus Driver Aide/ 1-2-06 2-04 64.64 TRANSPORTATION BUSDRV per day Bus Driver/ 12-12-05 2-01 53.53 TRANSPORTATION BUSDRV per day Child Nutrition/ 11-21-05 3-01 9401 .00 WAKEFIELD FSH550 annual 6216.79 prorated Non-Certified Promotions Promoted from Instructional Aide to Media Clerk Promoted from Bus Driver Aide to Bus Driver Promoted from Bus Driver Aide to Bus Driver Promoted from Laborer/Driver to Grounds Team Leader Little Rock Cover Page DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ~ +- Back e!:J Print January 26, 2006 5:30:00 PM Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Donations of Property BACKGROUND: Page 1 of 1 The Little Rock School District receives donations from businesses and individuals on a regular basis. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District that donations are not formally accepted until they are approved by the Board of Directors. RATIONALE: District policy states that, in order to maintain the centralized fixed asset property accounting system, all property donation requests are forwarded to the Director of Procurement. The Procurement Department forwards the requests, along with the appropriate recommendations, to the Board of Directors for acceptance and approval. In order for proper recognition and appreciation to be conveyed to the donor, donor's name and current mailing address should be included in the donation memo. FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached donation requests be approved and accepted in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. PREPARED BY: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Gwen Caraway, Fixed Asset Property Manager http ://boardmeetings.lrsd.org/board/Bluesheet.aspx?ItemID=70\u0026amp;MeetingID=8 1/24/2006 X x:- ,~. ~m o\n:l! '-0 c0-m\u0026lt;\nJJ m Z::,: ~~ Z\nJJ \"\"'z C\u0026gt; ~ .., z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;,... ::0 m ~ ~ ?\u0026lt; n 5 \"z' C\u0026gt;\nJJ m ~\nJJ :\u0026gt;: \"' BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MEMORANDUM TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Ada Keown, Principal DATE: November 29, 2005 SUBJECT: Donations The Kiwanis Club has donated $200.00 to Brady Elementary School to be used for book purchases for the Kindergarten classes. We sincerely appreciate this donation and request it be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Kiwanis Club C/O Mr. James Thomas 7700 Apache Road Little Rock, AR 72205 Sincerely, rt/ !Ml~ Principal NOV 3 0 2005 7915 West Markham Street  Phone (501) 447-3900  Fax (501) 447-3901  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MEMORANDUM TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Ada Keown, Principal DATE: November 29, 2005 SUBJECT: Donations Target (North Little Rock) graciously donated $250.00 to Brady Elementary School. The donation will be used to assist students who are displaced due to the recent hurricanes. We sincerely appreciate this donation to our students. We recommend that this donation be accepted Target 4000 McCain Blvd North Little Rock, AR 72216 ~~ Ada.Keown, Principal NOV 3 0 2005 7915 West Markham Street  Phone (501) 447-3900  Fax (501) 4473901  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- ?= m ,.ic oi2 '-0 0-\u0026lt; c:m ~m lC ::i:: m!i)\n? Z\n:o -\u0026lt;z C) ~ ..., z )\u0026gt; z (\") \u0026gt; r-\n:o m c3\n:o -\u0026lt; ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 C/1 z C)\n:o m ~\n:o i:i BRADY .ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MEMORANDUM TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Ada Keown, Principal DATE: November 29, 2005 SUBJECT: Donations We would like to recommend that the following donation to Brady Elementary School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. A donation of$100.00 from Mr. or Mrs. James Woods 7207 Apache Road Little Rock, AR 72205 to assist students who are displaced due to the recent hurricanes. ~~ Ada Keown, Principal ID1,:~f.]l1/~ ~ [111.w, \\L? i ... ,\n.J L~ ~ ij tWY 3 0 2005 7915 West Markham Street  Phone (501) 447-3900  Fax (501) 447-3901  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MEMORANDUM TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Ada Keown. Principal DATE: November 29, 2005 SUBJECT: Donations We would like to recommend that the following donation to Brady Elementary School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. A donation of $100.00 from Don and April Rodgers Jr. 13601 Pompano Drive Little Rock, AR 72211 to assist students who are displaced due to the recent hurricanes. ~,r. ____ , Ada Keow!i.~ Principal r NOV 8 0 2005 7915 West Markham Street  Phone (501) 447-3900  Fax (501) 447-3901  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;~ :=m )\u0026gt; 3: 0~ \u0026lt;-o 0-\u0026lt; c:m sj]m 3: ::c m~ Z\n,:, -\u0026lt;z C'l ?\u0026lt; ,C..'.) 0 u, z C'l\nn m I u, Date: To: From: 11VE1f:'.J,:\n,ar\n~ ~ . . . ' . ' :: . . ., . -----'-\" ---'- ... . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CARVER MAGNET SCHOOL December 1, 2005 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Diane Barksdale, Principal Subject: Donation Arti Vanzandt, Human Resource Generalist, with Raytheon Inc., generally donates the following: 1. Ten Kroger coupons worth approximately $100.00 to be used for needy families for the holidays 2. $300.00 worth of materials and school supplies for needy students 3. Four Big Books for the library program worth approximately $120.00 It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. OEC 4 2005 J- 2100 East 61H Street  Phone 447-4000  Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 L.ittCe 'Rock Centra{ Jfiefi Scfioo{ 1500 Soutfi Park Street Litt(e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 Pfi.one 501-447-1400  :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 1/4/2006 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~ SUBJECT: DONATION Betty Emery Miner of 915 NW Elizabeth Drive, Corvallis, OR 97330, generously donated $1,000 to be utilized in the following manner:  $.500 to purchase books  $500 for the grant fund to help individual students in need. It is my recommendation that this donation  be accepted m accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. RECEHJfD JJ\\N 4 2006 X x:~ m \u0026gt;3: 0~ '-0 c0-m\u0026lt;\n,:,m Z:c ~~ Z\n,:, ..... z C) !..D., z z\u0026gt; n ,\u0026gt;...\n,:, m ~ .\n.,.:.,. ?\u0026lt; n 5 CJ) z C)\n,:, m ~\n,:, i:l Littfe 'Rock Centra( J{ifJfi Scfwo( 1500 South Park Street Littie Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 .Fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 1/4/2006 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCURE~ENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL~~ SUBJECT: DONATION Winthrop \u0026amp; Lisenne Rockefeller graciously donated $1,000 to the Little Rock Central High School Special Education Department. The Rockefeller's mailing _address is: P. 0. Box 3l47, Little Rock, AR 72203. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. RECEijVE[) JAN 4 2006 ittfe 'Rock Centra{ Jfi9Fi Schoo{ 1500 Soutli Park Street l.ittCe 'Rock, .Jlrkansas 72202 Pfione 501-447-1400 . :Fax 501-447-1401 DATE: TO: 1/4/2006 DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT ~ FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL SUBJECT: DONATION Hugh Thomforde and Rebecca Kilmer of 321 Fountain Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72205, made a contribution of $100 to be utilized by Little Rock Central High's Drama Department. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted m accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. JAN 4 2006 X X :~ m \u0026gt;:!: 0~ \u0026lt;-o c0-m\u0026lt; ::om Z:,: iii~ Z\no \"\"'z C) !.,\".,' z z\u0026gt; (\") ,\u0026gt;-\no m\n3 ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Fair Park Early Childhood Center 616 North Harrison Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM:~h Milam, Principal DATE: December 14, 2005 RE: Donation Curtis H. Stout, Inc. located at 2400 Cantrell Road, donated to Fair Park Early Childhood Center six theatrical lights for the caf etorium valued at $1,000. It is recommended that this generous donation be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the board. Thank you for your consideration. CC: Dr Sadie Mitchell Associate Superintendent \\ ROMINE INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL Theme: Computer Science and Basic Skills \"\\Vhcre everyllun5 Ooinu lo \u0026amp;ucce\u0026amp;5\" TO: Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: ts Lillie Scull, Principal RE: Donation DATE: December 14, 2005 Modem Free Grand Lodge has donated toys at an approximate cost of $400.00 for filling Christmas Stockings, which will be given to our students and families in need. We recommend that this generous donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Mr. Victor Sanders 3315 Lehigh Drive Littl~ Rock, AR 72204 \\ 3400 Romine Road  Phone (501) 447-6300  Fax (501) 447-6301  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; :\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ~ m \u0026gt; !I: o\nE '-0 c0-m\u0026lt; ~m !I: ::c m~ Z\n,c - z C) r:D 'T1 z \u0026gt;z (\") ,\u0026gt;....\nJD m c3 ~ ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 en z C)\nJD m ~ ~ en ROMINE INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL Theme: Computer Science and Basic Skllls \"ff/here everythit)8 Ooinu lo \u0026amp;ucce.5.5 \" TO: Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: {J'Lillie Scull, Principal RE: Donation DATE: December 14, 2005 St. Mark Baptist Church has donated $100.00 to Romine Elementary to be used to purchase supplies for school yearbooks. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. St. Mark Baptist Church Bishop Steven Arnold, Pastor Elder Lamar Bailey, Chief of Operations 5722 West 12th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 OEC 14 2000 3400 Romine Road  Phone (501) 447-6300  Fax (501) 447-6301  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 TO: FROM: DATE: ADULT EDUCATION CENTER 4800 WEST 26TH STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 447-1850  FAX: 447-1851 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement j,fo,-\nPaulette H. Martin, Coordinator December 12, 2005 SUBJECT: Donation Mr. Harold Zimmerman, plant manager of Certain Teed, Roofing Products Group, 2701 East Roosevelt Road, has generously donated a $600 Literacy grant to the Little Rock Adult Education Center to purchase basic literacy textbooks/materials. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. DEC 14 2005 ~n Individual Approach to a World ojKnowledge\" \u0026gt;\u0026lt; :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- ~ m \u0026gt;31: 0~ '-0 0-\u0026lt; c:m\n:om Z:r: ~~ Z\n:o --\u0026lt;z C) !..l,' z z\u0026gt; (') ,\u0026gt;-\n:o m ~ .\n.:.o. ?\u0026lt; (') 5 u, z C)\n:o m ~ ~ u, Little Rock Cover Page LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ~ +- Back 8 Print DATE: TO: January 26, 2006 5:30:00 PM Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Financial Reports BACKGROUND: Page 1 of 1 Financial reporting is designed to keep the Board of Directors up-to-date regarding the District's current financial condition. Financial reports are submitted monthly to the Board for review and approval. RATIONALE: December 2005 financial reports are submitted for the Board's review and approval. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the financial reports as submitted. PREPARED BY: Jean A. Ring, Director Finance and Accounting http://boardmeetings.lrsd.org/board/Bluesheet.aspx?ItemID= 174\u0026amp;MeetingID=8 1/24/2006 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;,\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;. ?'m \u0026gt; lC c\ni! '-0 0-\u0026lt; c:m\n,:,m Z:z: ~~ Z\n,:, \"\"'z G) ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 en z G)\n,:, m i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 AND 2005 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2004/05 12/31/04 COLLECTED 2005/06 12/31/05 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 61 ,436,691 61 ,324,530 99.82% 67,268,610 62,437,795 92.82% DELINQUENT TAXES 12,135,000 5,821,274 47.97% 9,200,000 7,605,068 82.66% 40% PULLBACK 31 ,250,000 0.00% 33,000,000 0.00% EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 205,000 0.00% 210,000 0.00% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 155,000 0.00% 145,000 0.00% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 185,000 0.00% 204,000 0.00% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 485,000 75,378 15.54% 365,000 97,039 26.59% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 245,000 169,098 69.02% 750,000 367,371 48.98% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 215,000 148,349 69.00% 195,000 136,614 70.06% TOTAL 106,311,691 67,538,629 63.53% 111 ,337,610 70,643,886 63.45% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 22,000 11,183 50.83% 21 ,500 9,963 46.34% . TOTAL 22,000 11 ,183 50.83% 21,500 9,963 46.34% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 65,082,694 29,621 ,016 45.51% 66,095,155 29,249,505 44.25% ALTERNATIVE LEARNING 1,927,250 963,624 50.00% 1,100,000 0.00% ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 193,739 0.00% 200,000 199,095 99.55% NATL SCHL LUNCH STUDENT FUNDING 6,498,240 2,953,745 45.45% 6,877,920 3,126,325 45.45% PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1,141 ,165 1,141 ,165 100.00% 953,144 953,144 100.00% SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS(STRS/HEAL TH) 8,275,000 3,468,815 41.92% 8,200,000 4,341,839 52.95% VOCATIONAL 1,350,000 634,461 47.00% 1,785,000 917,504 51 .40% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 2,100,000 470,225 22.39% 2,425,000 749,707 30.92% EARLY CHILDHOOD 5,542,510 2,593,434 46.79% 4,000,000 2,352,400 58.81% TRANSPORTATION 4,125,000 1,330,714 32.26% 4,252,900 1,415,633 33.29% M TO M TRANSFERS 4,575,000 1,659,652 36.28% 4,100,000 1,619,272 39.49% ADULT EDUCATION 934,380 306,122 32.76% 926,543 302,454 32.64% AT RISK FUNDING 395,000 9,400 2.38% 10,000 0.00% TAP PROGRAM 382,903 7,645 2.00% 288,623 314,623 109.01% TOTAL 102,522,882 45,160,018 44.05% 101 ,214,285 45,541 ,501 45.00% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 770,000 0.00% 770,000 0.00% TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,295,000 8,155 0.63% 1,370,524 13,285 0.97% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,849,008 0.00% 2,194,000 731,333 33.33% TOTAL 3,914,008 8,155 0.21% 4,334,524 744,618 17.18% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 212,770,581 112,717,985 52.98% 216,907,919 116,939,968 53.91% REVENUE - OT_HER FEDERAL GRANTS 22,887,794 9,541 ,314 41.69% 20,152,896 3,573,606 17.73% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,500,000 2,441 ,928 54.27% 4,784,200 2,505,242 52.36% MAGNET SCHOOLS 27,964,934 6,032,105 21 .57% 28,849,578 9,364,516 32.46% CHARTER SCHOOL 1,340,000 350,000 26.12% TOTAL 55,352,728 18,015,347 32.55% 55,126,674 15,793,364 28.65% TOTAL REVENUE 268,123,309 130,733,332 48.76% 272,034,593 132,733,332 48.79% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 AND 2005 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2004/05 12/31 /04 EXPENDED 2005/06 12/31/05 EXPENSES SALARIES 117,324,912 44,814,698 38.20% 122,589,665 45,766,172 BENEFITS 36,185,811 12.491 ,139 34.52% 35,925,642 13,169,952 PURCHASED SERVICES 20,959,918 8,195,818 39.10% 22,438,191 8,631 ,053 MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,725,914 4,060,254 46.53% 10,128,394 6,296,853 CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,760,600 752,520 27.26% 2,473,965 610,213 OTHER OBJECTS 10,770.418 450,883 4.19% 10,759,804 3,619,096 DEBT SERVICE 12.474,809 4,590,834 36.80% 12,344,267 4,670,033 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 209,202,382 75,356,146 36.02% 216,659,928 82,763,373 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,258,999 7,615,890 30.15% 22,422,961 6,188,044 DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 5,007,809 1,928,649 38.51% 5,428.425 2,245,583 MAGNET SCHOOLS 27,964,934 9,306,807 33.28% 28,849,578 10,665,123 CHARTER SCHOOL 1,340,000 391,079 TOTAL 58,231 ,742 18,851,346 32.37% 58,040,964 19,489,829 TOTAL EXPENSES 267,434,124 94,207.492 35.23% 274,700,892 102,253,202 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 689,184 36,525,840 (2,666,300) 30.480,130 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET, M \u0026amp; 0 , CHARTER 4,005,957 4,005,957 3,074,390 3,074,390 OPERATING 6,531 ,706 6,531 ,706 10,753,692 10,753,692 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET, M \u0026amp; 0 , CHARTER 1,126,943 3,169,958 160,100 (622,075' OPERATING 10,099,905 43,893,545 11,001,683 44,930,288 IVII\\L 11,LLD104D 4/ ,uoJ,::\u0026gt;UJ 11,101,,~ 44,.31.J0,212 % EXPENDED 37.33% 36.66% 38.47% 62.17% 24.67% 33.64% 37.83% 38.20% 27.60% 41 .37% 36.97% 29.19% 33.58% 37.22% \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:\u0026lt;- := m \u0026gt;~ o,'- 0 0-\u0026lt; c:m s1m ii:::i:: m~ Z\n,, ..... z C) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 2005 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-05 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06 12-31-05 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE MCCLELLAN 16,453.00 6,213.54 10,239.46 0.00 CONTINGENCY 9,989.19 9,989.19 SUBTOTAL 26,442.19 0.00 0.00 6,213.54 10,239.46 9,989.19 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 8,139.34 105,000.00 98,341 .47 12,477.63 2,320.24 NEW WORK PROJECTS 2,620,881.45 755,309.00 1,822,030.19 101,290.22 1,452,870.04 SECURITY PROJECTS 14,541.25 14,541.25 LIGHTING PROJECTS 0.00 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 6,796,760.46 1,885,476.65 1,445,023.13 302,488.77 6,934,725.21 RENOVATION PROJECTS 6,114,463.73 (83,909.00) 1,745,529.74 508,854.45 3,776,170.54 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,304,501 .46 1,247,947.58 755,574.10 484,605.34 2,312,269.60 SUBTOTAL 17,859,287.69 1,247,947.58 2,661,876.65 5,866,498.63 1,409,716.41 14,492,896.88 $2,189,175 QZAB BOND ISSUE CENTRAL 919,760.00 919,760.00 MANN 382,400.00 382,400.00 BOOKER 239,560.00 239,560.00 DUNBAR 278,800.00 278,800.00 FAIR PARK 79,480.00 79,480.00 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY 220,000.00 138,517.00 81,483.00 CONTINGENCY 69,175.43 69,175.43 0.00 0.00 2,189,175.43 138,517.00 0.00 2,050,658.43 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALES 624,935.56 624,935.56 MEADOWCLIFF PROJECT 18.00 18.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 14,017,116.18 {2,661,876.65) 11,355,239.53 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE(2005) 0.00 2,189,175.43 (2,189,175.43) 0.00 INTEREST 5,829,676.83 729,766.83 6,559,443.66 SUBTOTAL 21,765,567.54 2,918,942.26 {4,851,052.08) 0.00 0.00 19,833,457.72 GRAND TOTAL ~ll!i:il\nm~~ ~ l aaa 11~ lW2 Qll22\u0026amp;lZ l ~l!l !l:i:i gz ~ ~DZ 11112 22 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005 PROJECT ALLOCATIONS EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 12-31--05 2000--01 2001--02 2002--03 2003--04 2004--05 ADMINISTRATION 925,526.80 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 149,597.63 114,896.16 143,447.12 NEW WORK PROJECTS 39,589,532.86 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11 ,671 ,442.11 15,993,062.06 3,515,764.95 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 113,930.47 109,609.73 27,732.73 0.00 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,862,548.33 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661 .38 9,012.76 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 21 ,250,627.15 791 ,385.63 4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 2,887,763.72 1,215,595.62 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51 ,071 ,693.84 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 18,091 ,992.05 6,766,246.61 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 15,292,448.46 575,016.53 4,325,201 .40 4,500,374.61 765,594.97 1,573,811 .91 UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 12,649,060.50 TOTAL 145,907,252.11 5.852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 37,890,054.45 13,214,866.21 - - - S)UIVW3M DNISOl:l \"X EXPENSE ENCUMBERED 2005--06 THRU 12-31--05 98,341 .47 12,477.63 1,822,030.19 101 ,290.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,445,023.13 302,488.77 1,745,529.74 508,854.45 755,574.10 484,605.34 5,866,498.63 1,409,716.41 ENDING ALLOCATION SUBTOTAL 12-31--05 923,206.56 2,320.24 38,136,662.82 1,452,870.04 251,272.93 14,541 .25 4,862,548.33 0.00 14,315,901 .94 6,934,725.21 47,295,523.30 3,776,170.54 12,980,178.86 2,312,269.60 12,649,060.50 118,765,294.74 27,141 ,957.38 1N31r'lNMnorov 11x DNIMV3H 33A0ldlr'l3 'IX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005 Fund Purchase Maturity Institution Interest Rate Type Principal Date Date Operating 12-29-05 TFN Bank of America 3.970% Repo 5,000,000.00 Operating 12-08-05 01-13-06 Bank of America 4.170% Treasury Bills 8,999,315.71 Operating 12-08-05 02-01-06 Bank of America 4.200% Treasury Bills 7,699,277.25 Operating 12-08-05 02-15-06 Bank of America 4.210% Treasury Bills 7,000,055.89 Operating 12-08-05 03-08-06 Bank of America 4.280% Treasury Bills 8,999,662.10 Operating 12-08-05 04-12-06 Bank of America 4.300% Treasury Bills 4,999,227.43 Operating 12-08-05 05-15-06 Summit Bank 4.500% CD 5,000,000.00 Total 47,697,538.38 Activity Fund 12-16-05 TFN Bank of America 3.620% Repo 1,110,000.00 Activity Fund 09-30-05 03-31-06 Bank of America 3.900% Treasury Bills 799,911 .20 Total 1,909,911 .20 Bond Account 09-05-05 03-06-06 Regions 2.966% CD 400,000.00 Capital Projects Fund \"01-10-05 01-10-06 Metropolitan 2.400% CD 1,000,934.31 Capital Projects Fund 01 -31-05 01-29-06 Bancorp South 2.750% CD 2,139,266.38 Capital Projects Fund 08-16-05 02-13-06 Twin City Bank 4.250% CD 11,286,805.57 Capital Projects Fund 08-02-05 02-02-06 Twin City Bank 3.720% CD 4,636,194.86 Capital Projects Fund 07-08-05 01-09-06 Twin City Bank 3.770% CD 10,500,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 12-12-05 03-14-06 Bank of America 4.260% Treasury Bills 4,688,397.20 Capital Projects Fund 12-29-05 TFN Bank of America 3.930% Repo 3,725,000.00 Total 38,376,598.32 Deseg Plan Scholarship . 09-06-05 03-07-06 Bank of America 3.600% Treasury Bills 736,350.00 Total 736,350.00 -- Rockefeller Scholarship 06-28-05 01-18-06 Bank of America 3.350% Treasury Bills 258,007.38 Total 258,007.38 Risk Management Loss Fund 10-17-05 03-14-06 Bank of America - 3.960% Treasury Bills 499,785.64 l otat 499,785.64\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_1056","title":"\"Little Rock School District Compass Learning Evaluation,\" Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee (final report for review)","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":["2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","University of Memphis. Center for Research in Educational Policy","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Compass Learning Evaluation,\" Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee (final report for review)"],"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/1056"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nCREP Cl!ntu for Ral!orcl, in duc11/lonol Polic)' RECEIVED JAN 5 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING slearning DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District CREP Cenlu for Research in Educutional Policy t oc s  tri t Co Le .. s n ng  10n Fina eport DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District De ember 2005 Dubor\n_ l owther St~vc1 1 Ro rrey Martind le l t I tt Rock EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the evaluation study results of the Little Rock School District's {LSRD) 2004-2005 CompassLearning (CL) program. The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold: (1) to assess the effects of CL in raising the academic achievement of African American and other students, (2) to examine CL implementation processes and practices, and (3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers, principals, and district and school personnel involved with CL regarding the strengths, weaknesses, and needed improvements of the CL program. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Primary Evaluation Question 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? Supplemental (Step 2) Evaluation Questions 1. What is the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? 2. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools? 3. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? DESIGN Participants. The LSRD identified 20 elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school to participate in the spring 2005 evaluation. Collectively the schools enrolled 9,318 students and employed 606 classroom teachers. Over 68% of the overall student enrollment of the selected schools was African American. The CL program was provided to kindergarten through fifth grade students in 19 elementary schools. The students spent 30- to 60-minutes per week working on CL activities that occurred either in computer labs that typically had a lab attendant and classroom teacher present or in the students' regular classrooms. The lab attendants, technology specialists, and/or teachers planned student CL activities that were primarily focused on identified areas of student deficiencies in language arts/reading and/or math. Design. The evaluation utilized a mixed-method design. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the participating schools by trained external researchers. The researchers observed CL computer labs, administered surveys to teachers and parents, conducted student focus groups, and interviewed school principals, lab attendants, technology specialists, district personnel and CL personnel. INSTRUMENTATION Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: direct classroom observations, surveys, interviews, focus groups, and assessment of student academic achievement. Following are descriptions of the instruments. Classroom Observation Measure  Direct classroom observation. The Survey of Computer Use for Compasslearning (SC UCL) was used to record teacher and student activities during the use CL in school computer labs during two-hour observation periods. Teacher and Parent Survey  Teacher survey. The Teacher Compasslearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) is a two-part instrument that was used to collect teacher knowledge and perceptions of CL.  Parent survey. The LSRD Compasslearning Parent Survey was designed to capture parent perceptions regarding their child's use of the CL program. Student Focus Groups  The Student Focus Group Protocol was used to document student impressions of the nature of CL activities\nthe usefulness of CL\nand student enjoyment when using CL. Interviews Five interview protocols were developed for the evaluation.  The lab attendant, technology specialist, and district (CL) personnel interviews focused on the same general areas: CL responsibilities, level, nature, and quality of CL implementation, support for the CL program, the strongest and weakest aspects of CL, and if the program should be continued. The primary purpose of the national CL representative interview was to determine Cl's guidelines for effective implementation of the CL Program.  The principal interview was for principals that had previously used the CL program in their schools. The interview focused on past use of CL, why it was discontinued, and if the school was using a different integrated learning system, and if yes, why that program was chosen. Student Achievement Analyses of student achievement on the Development Readiness Assessment (ORA), Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, (ITBS), and the Arkansas Benchmark tests were conducted to address the following research questions:  What are the effects of the Compass Learning program on student achievement in Reading and Mathematics?  Is the program effective in meeting the academic needs of African American students?  How does the achievement of African American students compare to that of other students in the same or similar schools? 2 PROCEDURE All data were collected in the spring of 2005 by external researchers. Direct observations of CL classrooms were conducted during prearranged two hour sessions at 7 randomly selected elementary schools. The SCU-CL note forms were completed every 15 minutes during the two-hour period. External researchers conducted 20-minute student focus groups at four schools that were randomly selected from the seven schools being observed. The teacher surveys (TCLQ) were administered at a faculty meeting at each of 19 elementary schools, while the parent surveys were distributed at 5 randomly selected elementary schools by having one class from each grade at the school send surveys to the parents. Surveys were returned to the school and sent to evaluators. Researchers individually interviewed lab attendants at each of the 7 randomly selected schools and conducted 45- to 60-minute phone interviews with all CL technology specialists. The researchers also interviewed two district level personnel with responsibility for the CL program\na national CL representative\nand 4 school principals from schools that no longer used CL. Each interview lasted approximately sixty minutes. Student Achievement Analysis Procedure The elementary school sample used in the student achievement analysis included a total of 7,853 LRPS students in first grade (n = 2,016), second grade (n = 1984 ), third grade (n = 1904) or fifth grade (n = 1,949) during the 2004-'05 school year. Kindergarten and fourth grade were excluded because these grades lacked corresponding 2003-04 data to be used as a \"pretest\" (statistical covariate). All 34 LRSD elementary schools were included in the analysis. The Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) was administered in grades K-2 in 2003-04 and 2004-05, and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) was administered in grades K-5 in 2004-05. The ITBS provides normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores in Reading and Mathematics. The Arkansas Benchmark test was administered in grade 4 in 2003-04, and in grades 3-5 in 2004-05. However, scale scores from the 2004-05 Arkansas Benchmark test were not available as of December 2005. RESULTS The results of the study are presented below, grouped by measurement strategy. In the conclusion section, findings are synthesized across instruments in order to address each research question. Classroom Observation Results Data from the Survey of Computer Use for Compasslearning (SCU-CL) reveled that the 19 observed CL classes were implemented in computer labs in which each student used a modern, upto- date computer. All African American and non-African American students in the classes participated equally and exhibited a high level of attention and interest in the CL activities. All observed classrooms had a high level of academically focused class time in which students were typically engaged in CL activities for language arts, mathematics, or reading. Survey Results Teacher Compasslearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) A total of 356 teachers (Caucasian= 63.2%\nAfrican American= 32.6%) working at schools implementing CL completed the TCLQ. Nearly all of the teachers reported familiarity with CL and over 60% indicated that they had received enough training to address student needs through the use of CL resources. More than one-half of the teachers indicated that they frequently used Cl's class by 3 ethnicity and class by gender reports. There was general agreement that teachers, administrators, and parents supported the continued use of CL. The primary reasons given for the continuation of CL were that the program reinforces the curriculum\nenhances student learning and skills\nand increases student engagement and excitement in learning. LRSD CompassLearning Parent Survey (Parent Survey) A total of 451 parents/guardians of primarily African American students completed the Parent Survey. Parental awareness of CL was high and most agreed that time in the computer lab was an important aspect of their child's education, had improved their child's interest in school, and had improved their child's academic achievement. Approximately one-third of the parents wrote a response when asked to describe the \"best thing\" about their child or children using CUthe computer lab. The most common responses were learning how to use computers and acquiring new learning skills. Less than one in five parents/guardians indicated that the best aspect was improvement of math and reading skills. Of the parents who provided recommended changes for CL, most indicated that their child or children needed more computer time. Student Focus Group A total of 23 fifth-grade students from four randomly selected schools participated in the focus groups, which lasted approximately 20-minutes. Student experience with CL ranged from less than one year to six years, with 43% indicating they had used CL since pre-kindergarten or kindergarten. The students reported that they primarily completed CL activities in language arts, mathematics, and reading in both computer labs and their classrooms. Of the 23 students, 10 wanted to spend more time using CL, 6 indicated the CL time was appropriate, and 2 students responded that they spent too much time in the CL lab. When asked how they would change the CL activities, the most common responses were to make the activities more fun or game-like and to add Internet access. Nearly all students thought they did better in school because CL helped them remember what they learned in class. Students indicated that the disadvantages to using CL were that sometimes the activity problems were too hard or that some were too easy or boring. All of the students responded that they would like to continue using CL. Interview Results Interview responses from the lab attendants, technology specialist, LRSD personnel, CL national representative, and principals who used CL in the past are synthesized in the summary below. Lab Attendant, Technology Specialist, District Personnel The lab attendants, technology specialists, and district (CL) personnel revealed common agreement that there was a high level of teacher support for the CL program, that the CL program was well matched to LRSD curriculum standards, and that the program has been implemented well. Interview responses indicated that the primary users of CL were students in grades K through 5 who used CL from one to five days per week. Equitable student access and appropriate implementation of CL was ensured from close monitoring by the lab attendants, technology specialists, and principals. Respondents also indicated that the teachers were regularly provided CL reports on student progress and that the teachers actively used the reports to plan student CL activities. School administrators most frequently used the CL data for year-end reports. There was unanimous agreement that the CL program should be continued due to its positive effects on student academic achievement. However, the respondents suggested that CL implementation would be improved if district guidelines were created, supervision of CL was increased, and other remediation options explored. 4 National CL Representative To obtain background regarding the CL program, an interview was conducted with a CL national representative. The responses are divided into guidelines for students, teachers, and administrators. Students. With regard to student use of CL, or time-on-task, the recommended guidelines are that students in grades 3 through 12 should spend from 60- to 90-minutes per week completing 4 to 5 new activities per content area. For students in grades K through 2, the recommended time for computer activities is 60-minutes per week per content area. Student activities should be focused on the subject that needs the most improvement. Teachers and administrators. The representative recommended that teachers should be actively involved in using the CL reports to evaluate the progress of individual students. The teachers should review student reports every two weeks in order to align classroom instruction to identified needs, plan off-line (non-CL) remediation, and adjust CL activities to address areas of non-mastery. A monthly review of CL class-by-class reports by school principals to identify any areas of need is also recommended . The CL representative indicated that teachers and administrators, who implement these \"best practices\" strategies, would be provided with formative evaluation data to help map student progress and plan needed interventions. However, the CL representative indicated that most schools do not achieve this level of implementation. School Principals The principals from four LRSD schools (1 elementary, 2 middle, 1 high) who no longer used CompassLearning were interviewed. The principals reported the primary reasons for not continuing with CL were related to technical (server and/or system) problems. Other reasons for the discontinuation of CL were insufficient Title 1 funds to fully support CL, teacher complaints that aligning lessons with CL took too much time, and the program had too many technical problems. Three principals indicated that their school had adopted different integrated learning systems (ILS). Principal impressions of the new programs were positive indicating that fewer problems were occurring and teachers were more accepting of the new systems. The fourth principal reported that a technology integration approach was being implemented rather than using an ILS. Student Achievement Results Across all grades, subjects, and achievement measures, a total of 14 separate analyses (8 Reading\n6 Math) examining treatment x School Set effects were conducted. Of these, 4 (50%) in Reading and 3 (50%) in Math showed no significant treatment main effects or interactions. Where significant effects did occur in Reading, two were main effects, respectively, showing comparison group advantages over Compass in Grade 1-ITBS (ES= -.25) and Grade 7-ITBS (ES= -0.21). The other two effects were interactions, one showing a Compass advantage within the low-poverty School Set (ES = +0.41) in Grade 1-DRA, and the other showing a comparison group advantage within the medium-poverty School Set (ES = -0.26) in Grade 2-ITBS. Significant effects in Math were associated with three interactions, showing Compass advantages in low-poverty schools in Grade 2-ITBS (ES= +0.26) and Grade 3-ITBS (ES= +0.26), and in high-poverty schools in Grade 5-ITBS (ES = +0.10). Comparison schools showed an advantage in medium-poverty schools in Grade 5-ITBS (ES = -0.15). Overall, Compass learning effects were inconsistent but positive in direction in Mathematics. Benefits were more frequent in lowpoverty than high-poverty schools. 5 CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of the present study are presented in association with each of the major research questions in the respective sections below. Primary Evaluation Question What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? Taken as a whole, the evidence provided by this study suggests that usage of Compass Learning was not associated with noticeable achievement gains in Reading or Math for the overall sample of students or for African American students in particular. Median effect size, across all analysis, indicate a weak positive effect pf Compass in the low poverty setting but essentially zero effects in medium and high-poverty settings. Supplemental (Step 2) Evaluation Questions What is the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? The observation data indicated that CL was implemented in well-equipped, well-supervised computer labs that provided one computer for each student. All students in each class participated equally and were highly engaged and attentive to the CL activities. The interview results indicated teachers more frequently based instructional decisions on class-level performance rather than Cl's recommended strategy of using student-level performance to achieve individualized instruction. With regard to the level of implementation, most students' scheduled time for CL activities fell below program recommendations of 60-minutes per content area per week. Thus, the quality, nature, and level of implementation was generally effective with regard to computer lab environments and student engagement during CL use, but was inconsistent with regard to the degree to which student CL activities were individualized and the amount of scheduled CL time. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools? The Compasslearning program was implemented in 19 LRSD Title 1 schools comprised of student populations that were 67.9% African American. Triangulation of data from multiple sources indicate that African American and non-African American students fully and equally participated in CL program activities at their schools. Specifically, data from direct classroom observations of 327 students in CL computer labs revealed that all of the 277 African American and 50 non-African American students were highly engaged in the use of CL in a well-supported environment. When lab attendants and technology specialists were asked which students used CL, the responses indicated a// students within the specified grade ranges regularly participated in CL classroom and lab activities. The district personnel involved with CL reported that CL is implemented in schools with the highest level of student need, or Title 1 Schools. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? There was common agreement across the teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists that the CL program was generally implemented well and that the teachers and administrators supported the use of CL in their schools. The interviewees from each group cited program flexibility to meet individual student needs as one of the strongest aspects of CL. When asked about the weaknesses of the CL program, respondents from the three groups expressed concern that aspects of the CL software were difficult for students to use\nstudents needed more computer time to benefit from the remediation, and the CL program lacked sufficient mapping to the curriculum. There was 6 unanimous agreement that the CL program should be continued due to its positive impact on student learning. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Most parents responded that they were aware of CL and believed that the program was an important part of their child or children's education. However, there was less agreement that CL increased student interest in school or that CL improved achievement in math and reading. Most parents seemed to think that their children were going to the computer lab to learn about computers, rather than to improve math and reading skills. When parents were asked about changes they would like to see in CUcomputer lab program, half wanted more computer time for their children to improve students' computer skills. The parents who suggested more variety in CL lessons seemed to have a better grasp of Cl's purpose. Overall, parents were supportive of their child/children using computers, but they were generally unaware of the overall instructional purpose of students using the CL program. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? Of the four principals who discontinued use of CL, three were generally positive regarding its past use. One of the principals, however, was less positive due to teacher dislike of the program. This principal indicated that teachers thought it took too much time to align CL activities with their classroom lesson plans, that there were too many technical problems, and the teachers did not enjoy monitoring the CL computer lab. Three of the four principals adopted different integrated learning systems (ILSs), while one chose to implement a non-lLS computer integration model. The principals that adopted new programs indicated that fewer technical problems had occurred and teachers were more accepting of the new systems. These results suggest that although these principals had discontinued use of CL, they had a generally positive regard for the use of technology to improve student learning in schools with a predominately African American population. 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPASSLEARNING EVALUATION FINAL REPORT This report summarizes the evaluation study results of the Little Rock School District's {LSRD) 2004-2005 CompassLearning (CL) program. The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold (1) to assess the effects of CL in raising the academic achievement of African American and other students, (2) to examine CL implementation processes and practices, and (3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers, principals, and district and school personnel involved with CL regarding the strengths, weaknesses, and needed improvements of the CL program. CL is a computer-based program designed to develop students' skills in reading, writing, and spelling. The program also assists and supports teachers with the management of student performance and allows instruction to be personalized to meet student needs. The lessons are designed around themes that incorporate cross-curricular student activities that are based on \"realworld\" contexts. In the 2004-05 school year, 19 LRSD elementary schools utilized CL programs, while 1 elementary school, 2 middle schools and 1 high school discontinued the program after using it in previous years. The LRSD schools that implemented the CL program were provided technology specialists and lab attendants to assist classroom teachers with integrating the CL lessons into their curriculum and to assist with technology-related concerns. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The CL evaluation was structured around one over-arching, primary question concerning the impact of CL on student achievement, and five supplemental (Step 2) questions that addressed contextual factors related to implementation of the CL program. 8 Primary Evaluation Question 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? Supplemental (Step 2) Evaluation Questions 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? 2. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools? 3. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES Participants The Little Rock School District identified 20 elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school to participate in the spring 2005 evaluation. Collectively the schools had an enrollment of 9,318 students and employed 606 classroom teachers. The percentage of enrollment of African American students ranged from a low of 20% to a high of 100%. The overall percentage of the schools' African American population was 68.4% (see Appendix A). The majority of participating schools were either pre-kindergarten through fifth grade or kindergarten through fifth grade. Specific distribution of schools by grade level is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Schools Participating in the Compasslearning Evaluation by Grade Level Grade Levels PreK-5 K-5 6,7,8 9 thru 12 Number of Schools 15 5 2 9 The 19 schools that actively implemented the CL program during 2004-2005 all served prekindergarten or kindergarten through fifth grade students. Of those, 13 schools (72.2%) implemented CL to all students in grades K-5, two schools (11.1 %) provided CL to all students in grades 1 through 5, while the grade levels of students using CL varied at the 3 three remaining schools (see Appendix 8). Although, the amount of weekly CL computer lab time for students ranged from 30- to 60-minutes across the schools, the schedule for majority of the students (grades K-2 = 78.9%\ngrades 3-5 = 73.6%) consisted of less than 60 minutes per week (see Appendix 8). Student CL activities occurred either in computer labs that typically had a lab attendant and classroom teacher present or in the students' regular classrooms. The lab attendants, technology specialists, and/or teachers planned student CL activities that were primarily focused on identified areas of student deficiencies in language arts/reading and/or math. Design The evaluation, which utilized a mixed-method design, was conducted during the spring of 2005. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the participating schools by trained external researchers (e.g., university faculty and staff). The researchers observed computer labs, administered surveys to teachers and parents, conducted student focus groups, and interviewed school principals, lab attendants, technology specialists, district personnel and CompassLearning personnel. A description of the evaluation instruments and a summary table of the participants and data sources, presented with associated research questions, are in Table 2. 10 Table 2. Summary of Instruments, Participants, and Data Sources by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Pnmary Quesllon 1. What are the effects of participation in CompassLeaming (CL) on the achievement of African American and other students? Supplemental (Step 2) Questions 2. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program In 2004-05? 3. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools concerned? 4. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? Participants The elementary school sample included a total of 7,853 LRPS students in first grade (n = 2,016), second grade (n = 1984), third grade (n = 1904) or fifth grade (n = 1,949) during the 2004-'05 school year. Kindergarten and fourth grade were excluded because these grades lacked corresponding 2003-04 data to be used as a \"pretest\" (statistical covanate). All 34 LRSD elementary schools were included in the analysis. All CL school teachers All technology specialists at schools implementing CL CL lab attendants at the 7 schools randomly selected for observations Two district personnel involved with CL Student Focus Groups at 4 randomly selected elementary schools National CL representative All Compass schools All CL school teachers All technology specialists at schools implementing CL CL lab attendants at the 7 schools randomly selected for observations Parents of CL students Principals at one elementary school, two middle schools, and one high school Data Sources ITBS as pretest for Grades K-5 Mansas Benchmarks as posttest for 3- 5) 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (as posttest in grades 1-5) Teacher CompassLeaming Questionnaire administered dunng school faculty meetings  Technology specialist Phone Interview  District Personnel (involved with CL) Phone Interview Lab attendant Phone Interview Two-hour CL Laboratory Observations (7 randomly selected elementary schools) 20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 4 schools randomly selected from the 7 observation schools National CL representative phone interview School records/archival data Two-hour CL Laboratory Observations (7 randomly selected elementary schools) Teacher Survey (faculty meeting) Technology specialist Phone Interview Lab attendant Phone Interview CL Parent Survey Distributed to one class at each grade level at 5 elementary schools Principal Phone Interview 11 Instrumentation Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: direct classroom observations, surveys, interviews, focus groups, and assessment of student achievement. Details of the instrumentation and administration procedures are provided in the following sections. Copies of the instruments are in Appendix C. Classroom Observation Measure The Survey of Computer Use for CompassLearning (SCU-CL) was designed to document the processes and practices used to implement CompassLearning in school computer labs during twohour observation periods. The instrument was used to record contextual data (e.g., number of students using CL by ethnicity, the number of teachers, lab attendants, or technology specialists present, and the number of classes observed during a two-hour observation visit) and computer configuration data (e.g. , number, type, and working condition of the computers). Data were also recorded regarding student use of CL including: percent of students using CL\nsubject area of the activities\nteacher/student interactions during CL use\nlevel of African American and non African American student engagement/interest\nand level of academically-focused class time. The data were recorded every 15 minutes then summarized on a data summary form at the end of the 2-hour observation period. Nineteen individual classes were observed for a total of 14 hours in 7 randomly selected elementary school computer labs. Teacher and Parent Survey Teacher Survey. The Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) is a two-part instrument that was used to collect teacher knowledge and perceptions of CL. The survey began by asking teachers their gender, ethnicity, and if they knew about the CompassLearning (computer lab) program at the teacher's respective school. Teachers who were aware of the CL program were then asked to rate their level of agreement with 16 statements regarding the impact of CL on students, teacher readiness to integrate CL resources into their instructional practices, and overall support for the CL program. Items were rated with a five-point Likert-type scale that ranged from \"(1) -- Strongly Disagree\" to \"(5) -- Strongly Agree\". The next TCLQ section asked teachers to provide information regarding their experience with CL and how they used CL resources (e.g., selection of activities, use 12 of specific reports). The final items asked teachers to list the strongest and weakest aspects of CL and whether or not CL use should be continued at their school. Parent Survey. The LSRD CompassLearning Parent Survey was designed to ascertain parent awareness and perceptions regarding their child's use of the CL program. They were asked to complete one survey per household, but indicate the number and ethnicity of their school-aged child/children. If the parent or guardian were aware of the CL program, they were asked five general questions regarding student attitudes about CL and the value of CL. The final section of the survey consisted of three open-ended items to record parents' perceptions of the best and worst aspects of their child's/children's use of CL and what changes they recommended . Student Focus Groups The Student Focus Group Protocol focused on three aspects regarding student use of CL. The first aspect was the nature of CL activities (e.g., how long students had been using CL, if CL lab time was long enough). The second aspect was student perceptions of the usefulness of CL. This was documented by asking students if they thought that CL helped them to do better in school, if there were any disadvantages to using CL, and what parents and friends thought of CL. The third aspect focused on student enjoyment of using CL. At the conclusion of the focus groups, students were asked to contribute any additional comments. Interviews Interviews. The following five interview protocols were developed for the evaluation: Lab Attendant, Technology Specialist, District (CL) Personnel, Principal, and CL National Representative. The lab attendant, technology specialist, and district (CL) personnel interviews focused on the same general areas: CL responsibilities\nlevel, nature, and quality of CL implementation\nsupport for the CL program\nand , overall questions regarding the strongest and weakest aspects of CL. Participants were also asked if the program should be continued. The interview protocol for the National CL representative used a more open format, as the primary purpose was to determine the CL guidelines for effective implementation of the CL program. The principal interview was designed for principals that had previously used the CL program in their schools. The interview questions examined past use of CL, e.g., years used, overall impression 13 - of CL, how it was implemented, and why they discontinued its use. The final section included questions about current use of an ILS. PROCEDURES The nine data collection measures are summarized in Table 3 by type of measure, instrument, number completed and the data collection procedure. Table 3. Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Classroom Observations Surveys Student Focus Groups Interviews Instrument SCU-CL TCLQ LRSDCL Parent Survey Student Focus Group Protocol Lab attendant Interview Protocol Technology Specialist Interview Protocol District (CL) Personnel Interview Protocol Compass Leaming Representative Interview Protocol Pnncipal Interview Protocol Number Completed 7 356 451 4 groups\n23 5\"' grade students 6 3 2 4     Data Collection Procedure Prearranged two-hour sessions in which random classes were observed using CL at 7 randomly selected elementary schools. Note forms were completed every 15 minutes during the two-hour period. TCLQs were administered at a faculty meeting at each of 19 elementary schools. Compass Leaming Parent Surveys were distributed at 5 randomly selected elementary schools. One class from each grade at the school was selected and all parents of children in that class were asked to complete a survey. Surveys were returned to the school and sent to evaluators. Student Focus Groups were conducted by researchers at 4 randomly selected elementary schools. Each focus group interview was approximately 20-minutes in duration. Researchers individually interviewed lab attendants at 6 of the 7 randomly selected schools. Interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes to one hour. Only six interviews were conducted as one person was out on sick leave.  Researchers conducted 45- to 60-minutes phone interviews with all CL technology specialists  Researchers interviewed two district level personnel with responsibility for the Compass Leaming program. Interviews lasted approximately 45- to 60-m1nutes.  A researcher conducted a 45-minute phone interview with a national Compass Leaming representative that was familiar with the Little Rock program.  Researchers individually interviewed principals from 1 elementary school, 2 middle schools, and 1 high school that no longer used CL. Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes. 14 RESULTS The results of the study are presented below by measurement strategy. In the Conclusion section, the findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. Classroom Observation Results The Survey of Computer Use for CompassLearning (SCU-CL) results reflect data collected during 14 hours of observations conducted at seven randomly selected elementary schools that were implementing CompassLearning (see Table 4). During these observations, 19 kindergarten through 51h grade classes, comprised of 277 African American students and 50 non-African American students engaged in CL activities in labs equipped with one up-to-date computer for each student. Student time-on-task for the CL activities ranged from 30- to 60-minutes. At least one lab attendant was present and in almost every observation a classroom teacher was also present during each session. All students in each class, both African American and non-African American, equally participated in CL activities during the observations. The majority (71.4%) of the CL activities were either for language arts or mathematics, while some (42.9%) were focused on reading. Activities for other subject areas were rarely observed. Over one-half (57.2%, frequently to extensively) of the observed CL lessons started with no instructions being given to the students. During the lessons, students asked questions related to the CL content in 43.1 % (frequently to extensively) of the visits. Student questions regarding the CL software, the computers, or other issues occurred less frequently during CL lab time. The lab attendants were observed actively moving among the students while they worked on CL activities during slightly over half of the visits (57.1 %, occasionally to extensively). Both African American and non-African American students exhibited a high level of attention and interest in the CL activities, and all observed classrooms had a high level of academically focused class time. 15 Table 4. Survey of Computer Use for Compasslearning (SCU-CL) Results n = 7 two-hour observations ( 19 classrooms) Number of students by ethnicity Elementary School All grades observed African Non-African Brady Chicot Geyer Springs McDemiott Rightsell Stephens Wakefield Total Kand 5 Kand 3 4 and 5 Kand 1 2and 3 K and2 3,4and5 American 29 49 42 44 33 29 51 277 (84.7%) Computer Configuration and Use How many computers were available for Compassleaming? Only one 2-4 5--10 11 or more During the observation, what percentage of the following students used Compassleaming? African American Caucasian CompassLearning Activities Subject Areas of Observed CL Activities Language Arts Mathematics Reading Science Social Studies Writing Cross-Cultural Types of student questions while using CL Content Area (e.g. how to solve a problem-the meaning of a word) Software use (e.g. how to log in or change sections) Computer use (e.g. how to use keyboard or mouse) Non-CL question (e .g. Do I have to sit next to .. . ? May I go to the restroom?) Types of Instruction given to students at the start of the lesson Content area review (e.g. reading, math) Software use (e.g. how to log in, find correct lesson) Computers use (e.g. locate software, use mouse) Classroom behavior rules No instruction given Teacher movement among students High level of teacher movement among students during CompassLeaming labs Student attention and academic focus High level of Afncan American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CL High Level of Non-Afncan American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CL High level of academically focused class time American 5 3 14 0 0 27 50 (15.3%) % Observed 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Only a few (Less than 10%} 0.0 0.0 Not Observed 0.0 0.0 14.3 57.1 85.7 85.7 71.4 Not Observed 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 Not Observed 85.7 71.4 85.7 57.1 42.9 Not Observed 14.3 Not Observed 0.0 28.6 0.0 Number of teachers present Number of classes observed 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 19 Lab attendant 2 8 Most of the computers used for Compassleaming were Up to date Aging but adequate Outdated/limited capacity Some {About 10%} Most (51-90%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage of classes Rarely Occasionally F reg uently 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 42.9 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 Teachers 2 3 2 3 2 4 17 % Observed 100.0 0.0 0.0 Near1yaIVall (About91- 100%} 100.0 100.0 Extensively 71.4 71.4 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively 14.2 14.3 42.9 71.4 Rarely 0.0 14.3 0.0 28.6 0.0 Rarely 28.6 Rarely 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.7 57.1 0.0 14.3 Occasionally 0.0 14.3 14.3 14.3 0.0 28.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Frequently 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Extensively 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 Occasionally F reguently Extensively 28.6 14.3 14.3 Occasionally Frequently Extensively 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 57.1 71.4 100.0 16 Survey Results This section contains the results of the Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire {TCLQ) and the CompassLearning Parent Survey (Parent Survey). Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) The Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire {TCLQ) was completed by a total of 356 teachers working at schools implementing the CompassLearning program. The respondents were primarily Caucasian (63.2%), and secondarily African American (32.6%), with most respondents being female (88.2%). As shown in Table 5, The TCLQ begins with two questions about the visibility and perceived value of the CL program. A very high percentage of teachers (96.1 %) reported familiarity with CL and most (93.3%) supported the continued use of CL within their respective schools. The next 16 TCLQ items assessing teacher perceptions of CL were indicative of a relatively high level of teacher approval for the program . Many items were rated highly on the survey (as measured by a combination of the categories \"Strongly Agree\" and \"Agree\". At least 85% of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the school computers for CL were in good condition (90.5%), the administration supported teacher use of CL (88.8%), and the teachers were supportive of CL (88.5%). Additional positive responses included agreement that CL increased student learning (78.4%), increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement (77.3%), and was valuable for improving the achievement of African American students (73.0%). Approximately 70% of the teachers agreed that they routinely aligned CL with their lessons (72.5%), reviewed CL content in class (71.0%), and customized CL activities to meet individual needs of students. The concluding section of survey items addressed the use of the CL reporting functions. Teachers reported frequent use of \"Class by Ethnicity'' (59.8%), \"Class by Gender\" (64.6%), and \"Other\" (78.6%) CL reports, while over one-half (53.7%) reported never using \"Whole Class\" and 45.2% reported never using \"Individual Student\" reports. 17 Table 5. Teacher Compass Learning Questionnaire (TCLQ) Results n = 356 Items Do you know about the CompassLeaming (computer lab} program at your school? Do you think your school should continue using CompassLeaming? %No 03.93 06.74 % Yes 96.07 93.26 Percent of Teacher Response Items Most of our school computers that are used for CompassLeaming are kept in good working condition. The administration fully supports teacher use of CompassLeaming resources. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the CompassLeaming program. My computer skills are adequate to access CompassLeaming resources. I can readily obtain answers about CompassLeaming. The use of CompassLeaming has increased student learning and achievement. The use of Compass Leaming has increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement in learning. Our school has a well-developed plan that guides the CompassLeaming program. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African American students. I routinely align CompassLeaming with my lessons and the district's standards based curriculum. I routinely provide academic review of content covered during the use of Compass Leaming. The use of CompassLeaming has improved the quality of student work. I routinely customize CompassLeaming activities to meet the individual needs of students. I have received enough training to address student learning needs through the use of CompassLeaming resources. Parents and community members support our school's use of CompassLeaming. I routinely modify my instructional practices on the basis of student performance in CompassLeaming. How frequently do you use the following Compassleaming reports? Whole Class Individual Student Class by Ethnicity Class by Gender Other Disagree \u0026amp; Strorgly Disagree 4.21 1.12 1.40 4.78. 4.21 2.25 4.49 4.78 1.97 4.78 7.30 3.93 7.87 14.33 2.81 12.92 Never 53.65 45.22 5.62 6.18 3.09 Neutral Strongly Agree \u0026amp; Agree 5.34 90.45 7.58 88.76 9.27 88.48 10.67 83.71 12.08 83.43 16.57 78.37 17.42 77.25 19.10 75.28 22.75 73.03 21 .35 72.47 20.22 71 .00 23.88 70.22 23.03 67.13 19.66 65.45 31 .74 64.61 30.90 54.78 Seldom Frequentiy 23.60 14.04 25.56 20.22 23.31 59.83 21 .35 64.64 5.06 78.65 18 The teachers also responded to open-ended questions about the use and effectiveness of the CL system. Following are highlights of the responses. Detailed results for the TCLQ open-ended items are found in Appendix D. Familiarity with CL. As seen in Table 5, almost all of the teachers completing the TCLQ were famil iar with CL. However, the open-ended comments revealed that only about one-third (37.2%) had used CL for more than 3 years. Perhaps the relative lack of experience with CL contributed to the low response rate to the item asking teachers to describe their understanding of the CompassLearning program. Less than one-fourth (84 of 356) of the teachers responded to this item. Within those responses, all the teachers revealed a general understanding of the overall purpose of the CL program. The most common responses were that CL reinforces skills addressed by the district framework (58.3%) and that CL was a program designed to enhance student learning (21 .4%). Teacher responses were somewhat evenly divided when asked how subject areas and performance levels of activities were selected. Approximately one-fourth of the respondents indicated that decisions were made on the basis of student abilities, skills, and/or grade level (25.1 %), while a similar number responded that testing results were used (23.2%). CL reports. Respondents clearly identified assessing student growth and academic progress (63.3%) as the primary reason for using CL reports. Only 56 out of 356 (15.7%) teachers indicated that they did not use CL reports. The most common reasons were: use of \"other\" assessment data/tools (33.9%)\nlack of time (26.7%), and lack of skill in using CL (23.2%). Representative teacher comments included:  I don't use them frequently because I don't think it's always a good assessment for all learners.  Arkansas Reading First data is my primary diagnostic tool.  I seldom use the reports. I monitor while they are working. I consider CompassLearning to be a good way to practice skills.  I have very little knowledge of Compass. Strongest and weakest aspects of CL. The strongest aspect of CL identified was reinforcement of skills and the curriculum (41.2%), followed by the ability to adjust the program according to the needs of the teachers and of the students (32.9%). Student engagement or interest in learning was mentioned by 15.8% of the respondents. CL weaknesses reported by the teachers were primarily related to software issues or difficulty that students had in using some of the program features (58.6%) 19 and that the schedule did not allow enough time for students to benefit from the program (21.7%). Seventy-five percent of the teachers wrote a response to the final question, which asked teachers why their school should continue using CL. The responses were fairly evenly distributed across three reasons: CL reinforces the curriculum (33.3%)\nCL enhances student learning and skills (26.2%)\nand use of CL increases student engagement and excitement in learning (20.9%). The following are sample teacher responses highlighting why their schools should keep CL:  The children love it. It is great practice for skills.  Compass is a great tool for addressing specific student needs.  Students enjoy working at their own pace and ability and it provides good reinforcement for what you are teaching in class.  It allows students to work toward mastery of certain academic skills presented in class on an individual basis.  It is a wonderful tool for records of student growth.  It has been a great plus to student learning. It allows teachers the freedom to set it to their teaching and student needs.  This program has been a bright innovative way of reinforcing methods of skills and the students work and learn on their own pace which shows results of what they are learning.  I think it is a very valuable tool to help strengthen our students' skills in a fun way they enjoy. Going to computer is a treat! LRSD Compasslearning Parent Survey (Parent Survey) Of approximately 625 Parent Surveys distributed to children in five randomly selected schools, 451 parents responded (72.2% response rate). Over 84% (84.3%) of the children represented by parents completing surveys were African American, followed by 8.0% who were Hispanic and 2.0% who were Caucasian. Parental awareness of the CL program was high (82.5%), and most parents indicated they learned about the CL program via their children (55.7%). When asked how excited their child or children get about using CL, 60.1 % responded \"a lot\", 21 .7% reported \"some\", while less than 3% (2.9%) indicated that their child or children did not get exited about using CL. Parent responses indicate general approval of the CL program by agreeing that time in the computer lab: was important in their child's education (84.5%)\nhad improved their child's interest in school (63.2%)\nand had improved their child's achievement (57.7%). The parents' responses are summarized in Table 6. 20 Table 6. LRSD Compasslearning Parent Survey Results n = 451 Items Do you know about the Computer Lab (Compassleaming) program at your child's/children's school? Indicate the ethnicity of your child/children Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic How did you learn about the computer lab activities? School Teacher My Kids Other parents/friends How excited do your child/children get about using the computer lab? Aloi Some Not at all Not sure % Yes 82.48 % 02.00 84.26 07.98 00.00 01.33 % 11 .53 09.53 55.65 01 .55 % 60.09 21 .73 02.88 04.66 Percentage: Yes Somewhat No Not Sure Do you think time in the computer lab is an important part of your child's/children's education? 84.48 05.54 00.44 00.67 Do you think time in the computer lab has improved your child's/children's interest in school? 63.19 17.74 03.55 04.21 Do you think time in the computer lab has improved your child's/children's achievement in reading and math? 57.65 18.40 01.77 06.43 In order to gain a more complete understanding of parental perception of the CL program, parents were asked three additional questions about CL. These questions were designed to elicit open-ended responses and comments from the parents. Highlights of the parent responses are presented below and a full summary is located in Appendix E. Approximately two-thirds (273 of 451\n60.5%) of the parents wrote a response when asked to describe the best thing about their child or children using the \"computer lab program\". The most common responses were that students were learning how to use computers (43.9%) and were acquiring new learning skills or learning in a better way (38.0%). Less than 20% (17.9%) indicated that the best aspect was improvement of math and reading skills. When asked about negative or \"worst\" aspects of CL, there was a 34.1 % response rate (154 of 451) with 59% of the respondents indicating that there were no negative aspects. Thirty-five parents or guardians (22.7%) were concerned that their child or children might have access to inappropriate Internet-based materials 21 when using CL. A small percentage (7.7%) of parents indicated the worst aspect of CL was that it replaced traditional classroom/textbook learning with computer-based learning. Sample parent comments reflecting this concern included \"The act of just using the computer lab program may take away from the child's own thinking and reasoning capacity.\" And, \"It may get them too adapted until they wouldn't want to sit in a classroom.\" The last open-ended item on the Parent Survey asked parents what changes they would like to see in the computer lab program or CL. Of the 158 (35.0% of 451) parents who responded to the last question, 50.6% indicated that their child or children needed more computer time and 25.3% wanted more variety in the lessons, content areas, and types of activities. Nearly the same percentage (24.5%) of parents responded that no changes were needed. Student Focus Group Results A total of 23 5 th grade students from 4 randomly selected elementary schools participated in the 20-minute focus groups. The students' experience with CL ranged from less than one year up to six years, with 42.8% indicating they had used CL since pre-kindergarten or kindergarten. Full results of the Student Focus Group are in Appendix F. Nature of the CL activities. The students reported that they primarily completed CL activities in language arts (33.3%), mathematics (28.6%), and reading (19.0%), in both computer labs and their classrooms. Of the 23 students, 10 wanted to spend more time using CL, 6 replied that CL time was appropriate, and 2 students indicated they spent too much time in the CL lab. Technical concerns reported by the students were focused on hardware (computer freezing, slow startup) and software malfunctions. When asked how they would change the CL activities, the most common response was to make the activities more fun or game-like (42.8%), while 21.4% requested Internet access, and more math, science, and spelling activities. Usefulness of CL activities. When asked if CL helped them to \"do better in school\", 17 of the 23 students responded, \"Yes\". The most common reason cited for this response (83.3%) was that CL helped the students remember what they learned in class and provided practice in and out of the classroom. Students indicated that the disadvantages to using CL were that sometimes the activity problems were too hard (52.8%) or that some were too easy or boring (32.0%). The majority (71.4%) of the students responded that their parents were supportive of the CL program. The students were 22 less positive when asked what their friends said about using CL, with 50.0% saying their friends thought the program was dumb or boring. Responses were mixed when asking which types of students would benefit the most and least from using CL. Students indicated that CL would be most beneficial for students who were immature (27.2%), tried their best or liked CL (27.2%), were smart (18.2%), or disadvantaged (18.2%). They thought that CL would be least beneficial to students who didn't try (66 .7%) or were smart (22.2%). Enjoyment of CL. The majority (89.5%) of the students indicated that they really liked or loved CL, while only 2 students indicated that they liked it a \"little bit\" (10.5%). Students' favorite things about using CL were that it helped them to learn/understand class work (31 .2%), was exciting and fun , helped learn new and harder things, and helped with math and reading (18.7% each). The least favorite things were that students could not use calculators when completing CL math lessons (27.2%), the spelling, social studies, and math lessons (27.7%), and repeating lessons (22.2%). All (23) students responded that they would like to continue using CL. Interviews The interview results are presented in three sections. First are the interviews with those directly responsible for overseeing implementation of the CompassLearning program: lab attendants (n = 6), technology specialist (n = 3), and LRSD personnel (n = 2). This is followed by the CL national representative interview summary. The section ends with the interview results from four high school principals whose schools did not use CL in 2004-2005, but had previously used CL at their respective schools. Lab Attendant, Technology Specialist, and District (CL) Personnel Highlights from the Lab Attendant, Technology Specialist, and District (CL) Personnel interview results will be discussed by these major interview categories: CL responsibilities, implementation, overall strengths and weaknesses, and if the program should be continued. Detailed results of these three interviews are in Appendix G. CL Responsibilities. The interview responses revealed that CL responsibilities were distributed as would be expected with the lab attendants having the greatest level of interaction with the students during CL lab time. Both the lab attendants and technology specialists worked with teachers to align 23 CL activities with lessons and to produce CL reports. The technology specialists provided teacher training, while the district personnel were responsible for general oversight of the program and served as liaisons between all CL district personnel. CL implementation. When asked to evaluate the CL software and support from the vendor, responses from the three groups ranged from \"fine\" to \"great\" with regard to the software and from \"OK\" to \"excellent\" concerning vendor support. The groups did, however, display consensus that there was a high level of teacher support for the CL program and that the program had been implemented very well. The best aspects of CL implementation included integration of CL activities with LRSD curriculum, custom sequencing of the units, and the use of reports for tracking student progress. Suggestions for improving the implementation process were to create district guidelines, increase supervision, and examine other remediation options. When examining how the program was implemented, interview responses indicated that the primary users of the CL program were students in grades pre-kindergarten through 5 who used CL from 1 to 5 days per week. Respondents from the three groups indicated that the teachers were regularly provided CL reports on student progress and actively used the reports to plan student CL activities. School administrators' most frequent use of the CL data was for year-end reports. Equitable student access and appropriate implementation of CL were ensured by means of close monitoring by the lab attendants, technology specialists, and principals. Overall strengths, weaknesses, continuation. There was once again consensus among the respondents with regard to the strongest aspects of the CL program. The interviewees from each group cited program flexibility to meet individual student needs, alignment of CL with LSRD curriculum standards (except math), and student enjoyment/engagement as the strongest aspects of CL. Differences were noted, however, in responses about the weakness of the CL program. The lab attendants indicated that students needed more CL time and that some of the lessons required special equipment or software. The technology specialists responded that the CL math curriculum was not well aligned with LSRD curriculum, the program lacked curriculum mapping, and sometimes the oral commands were difficult for students to understand. From the district perspective, one respondent indicated the CL program lacked oversight, while the second one did not state a 24 weakness. There was unanimous agreement that the CL program should be continued due to its positive contribution to student learning. National CL Representative One of Compasslearning's national representatives whose responsibilities included managing Cl's research and evaluation program was interviewed. This person was also knowledgeable about the LRSD program. The purpose of the interview was to obtain the representative's perspective on how schools should implement CL to improve student academic achievement. Her responses are divided into guidelines for students, teachers, and administrators. Students. With regard to student use of CL, or time-on-task, the recommended guidelines are that students in grades 3 through 12 should spend from 60 to 90 minutes per week completing 4 to 5 new activities per content area. Student activities should be focused on the subject that needs the most improvement. For students in grades K through 2, the recommended time for computer activities is 60 minutes per week per content area. Teachers. The CL representative indicated that teachers should be actively involved in using the CL reports to evaluate the progress of individual students. She recommended that teachers review student reports eve,y two weeks in order to align classroom instruction to identified needs, plan off-line (non-CL) remediation and adjust CL activities to address areas of non-mastery. Administrators. The CL representative recommended that school principals review CL class-byclass reports on a monthly basis to identify any areas of need. When teachers and administrators implement these \"best practices\" strategies, they will be provided with formative evaluation data to help determine if: student learning is \"on-track\nif the curriculum needs to be altered\nand, whether or not students need more off-line activities\". However, the CL representative indicated that most schools do not achieve this level of implementation. School Principals The principals from four LRSD schools (1 elementary school, 2 middle schools, and 1 high school) who no longer use Compasslearning were interviewed to examine how CL was used in the past, why it was discontinued, and if the school had implemented a different integrated learning system (ILS). Collectively, the student population of the four schools was 90% African American. Key findings from the interviews are presented below and the full interview summary is in Appendix H. 25 Past use of CL. Three of the four principals indicated a positive overall impression of CL, while one reported that the teachers disliked it. All four principals reported that their school had implemented the CL program in computer labs. However, the amount of time students spent using the software and the student populations that used CL were different for each school. One principal indicated that all students used CL, one responded that only students in English classes used it, another reported that CL was used by magnet students, and the fourth indicated that CL was used by students who needed extra academic assistance. When asked how teachers were involved with CL, 3 principals indicated their teachers aligned CL lessons with classroom instruction, 2 said teachers helped monitor the labs, and 1 reported that the teachers did very little with CL. The principals reported the primary reasons for not continuing with CL were related to server or system problems. Other reasons were lack of enough Title 1 funds, teacher complaints that the program took too much time to align with lessons, and teacher complaints of too many technical problems. Current use of an /LS. Three principals indicated that their schools were currently using different integrated learning systems {ILSs). One middle school principal reported that his school was using two systems (Accelerated Reader, and Destination Math), while the other middle school principal had adopted River Deep. The ILS adopted by the high school was Plato. The principals reported positive impressions of the new programs, indicating that fewer problems were occurring and that teachers were more accepting of the new systems. The fourth principal reported that a technology integration approach was being implemented rather than using an ILS. The principal further explained that with this approach students use basic software applications like spreadsheets, presentation and word processing software to enhance classroom environments. Student Achievement Results Research Questions Analyses of student achievement on the Development Readiness Assessment (ORA), Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, (ITBS), and the Arkansas Benchmark tests were conducted to address the following research questions: 26 1. What are the effects of the Compass Learning program on student achievement in Reading and Mathematics? 2. Is the program effective in meeting the academic needs of African American students? 3. How does the achievement of African American students compare to that of other students in the same or similar schools? Sample The elementary school sample included a total of 7,853 LRPS students in first grade (n = 2,016), second grade (n = 1984 ), third grade (n = 1904) or fifth grade (n = 1,949) during the 2004-'05 school year. Kindergarten and fourth grade were excluded because these grades lacked corresponding 2003-04 data to be used as a \"pretest\" (statistical covariate) .. All 34 LRSD elementary schools were included in the analysis. Overall, 67% of the student sample was eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and 68% was African American. A majority (60%\nn = 4,728) attended one of the 21 schools that offered the Compass Learning program. School Matching Process Elementary schools. To facilitate analysis of program effects, elementary schools were matched via hierarchical cluster analysis into homogeneous sets on the basis of percentage eligible for free or reduced price lunch and percentage African American enrollment. Ward's minimum variance method was used as a clustering algorithm, and squared Euclidean distances were used as similarity measures. Three homogeneous School Sets were identified:  Set 1 (Low Poverty, Majority White) contained 4r schools with a mean percentage of students eligible for free lunch of 24.5% and mean African-American enrollment of 35.0%\n Set 2 (Medium Poverty, Integrated) contained 9 schools with a mean percentage of students eligible for free lunch of 55.5% and mean African-American enrollment of 56.4%\nand  Set 3 (High Poverty, Majority African American) contained 21 schools with a mean percentage of students eligible for free lunch of 84.9% and mean African-American enrollment of 83.3%. Middle schools. Two middle schools, Cloverdale and Henderson, implemented the Compass Learning program. Two comparison middle schools, Southwest and Mabelvale, were selected on the 27 basis of similarities in percentage of African American students and students eligible for free lunch. Percentages of African American students were 81.1 % at Cloverdale, 81.3% at Henderson, 81.4% at Mabelvale, and 93.1 % at Southwest. Percentages of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch were 82.9% at Cloverdale, 69.6% at Henderson, 74.4% at Mabelvale, and 83.5% at Southwest. A total of 562 sixth graders and 531 seventh graders were included in the analyses. Measures The Developmental Reading Assessment (ORA) was administered in grades K-2 in 2003-04 and 2004-05, and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) was administered in grades K-5 in 2004-05. The ITBS provides normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores in Reading and Mathematics. The Arkansas Benchmark test was administered in grade 4 in 2003-04, and in grades 3-5 in 2004-05. However, scale scores from the 2004-05 Arkansas Benchmark test were not available as of December 2005. Construction of ORA NCE scores. ORA scores in 2004-05 were used as outcome variables for grades 1 and 2. The kindergarten and first-grade forms of the ORA administered provides six separate scale scores, in letter recognition, word recognition, capitalization, writing, dictation, and a composite reading score. The second-grade forms provide scores for word recognition, writing, dictation, and composite reading. The subscale scores were factor-analyzed using principal components analysis to generate regression-based factor scores for use in subsequent analyses. For 2004-05 first graders, a single factor accounted for 45.7% of the variance across 2004-05 ORA subtests. For 2004-05 second graders, a single factor accounted for 63.0% of the variance across the four 2004-05 ORA subtests. The regression-based factor scores were then converted to nonmal curve equivalent (NCE) scores with mean of 50 and standard deviation of 21.06 to aid in the interpretation of results. The norm group for these NCE scores was comprised of all Little Rock students for whom data were available in a given year. Analyses A 2 (Compass versus comparison) X 2 (African American versus non-African American) X 3 (Homogeneous School Set) analysis of covariance was performed at each grade level (1 and 2), with 2004-05 ORA and ITBS test scores as outcome variables and free or reduced price lunch status and 2003-04 ORA test scores as covariates. Follow-up analyses of covariance were performed within levels of the independent variables when significant interaction effects were observed. Effect size 28 estimates were determined by computing mean differences between groups for which significant differences were observed, then dividing by the total standard deviation. In cases where the outcome variable was an NCE score, a standard deviation of 21.06 was used in the effect size estimate computation, because the population standard deviation is known. Table 7 provides an overview of pretests, posttests, and pretest-posttest correlations for the analyses of covariance. As shown, the covariates used were 2003-04 ORA scores in grades 1-3, ITBS scores in grade 6, and Benchmark scores in grades 5 and 7. In addition, a descriptive profile of 2004-05 mean ITBS NCE scores in Reading and Mathematics across grade levels by race was generated to provide on overall basis for comparing African American achievement to that of other students. Table 7. Covariate-Outcome Correlation Coefficients by Grade Level: LRPS Elementary Schools Grade 2003-04 Pretests (Covariates) 2004-05 Posttests (Outcomes) Covariate-Outcome r 1 ORA Dictation ITBS Reading NCE 0.51 ORA Capitalization ITBS Mathematics NCE o.5i ORA Word Recognition DRANCE1 0.582 2nd ORA Composite Score ITBS Reading NCE 0.61 2 ORA Composite Score ITBS Mathematics NCE 0.502 ORA Word Recognition DRANCE1 0.712 3' ORA Total Score ITBS Reading NCE 0.592 ORA Total Score ITBS Mathematics NCE o.5i 5lh Benchmark Literacy SS ITBS Reading NCE 0.772 Benchmark Math SS ITBS Mathematics NCE 0.842 6th ITBS Reading NCE ITBS Reading NCE 0.792 ITBS Mathematics Concepts NCE ITBS Total Mathematics NCE 0.802 ITBS Reading NCE - 7th Benchmark Literacy 0.71 ' Benchmark Mathematics ITBS Mathematics NCE 0.782 'Score derived from factor analysis and normed on Little Rock School District students. 2Significant at p \u0026lt; .01. - 29 RESULTS First Grade !TBS Reading NCE. The model accounted for 32.4 % of the variance in 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE scores. ANCOVA indicated significant main effects for 2003-04 ORA dictation (F, .1335 = 338.4, p \u0026lt; .001 ), free lunch status (F ,.1335 = 25.4, p \u0026lt; .001 ), race (F1.1335 = 12.92, p \u0026lt;.001 }, treatment (F 1_1335 = 5.827, p = 0.02), and School Set (F2_1335 = 3.00, p = .05). Variables that predicted a significant amount of variance in the outcome accounted for 19.5% of the variance in 2004-05 ITBS Reading scores. As shown in Figure 1, most of the explained variance (17%) was attributable to 2003-04 ORA dictation scores, with modest percentages attributable to free lunch status (1 .3%), race (0.6%), treatment (0.3%), or School Set (0 .3%). Post hoc comparisons showed that non-African American students had a significantly higher adjusted mean score (M' = 57.5) than African American students (M' = 52.4\nES = -0.25)\ncomparison students had a significantly higher adjusted mean score (M' = 56.6) than Compass students (M' = 53.4\nES = -0 .16)\nand students in majority White, low-poverty schools had a significantly higher adjusted mean score (M' = 57.4) than students in majority African American, highpoverty schools (M' = 52.8\nES = -0.23). 30 0.3% 0.6% 1 0.3% 1.3% 17.0%  Pretest  Free Lunch  Race  School Set  Treatment Figure 1. Percentage of Variance Explained in 2004-05 ITBS Outcomes by Significant Predictor: First Grade Table 8 shows mean ITBS Reading NCE scores by race, treatment, and School Set. Observed mean scores generally fell near or above the national average of 50.0, with the lowest average observed score of 46.5 observed for comparison group African American students in high-poverty, majority African American schools. This score is about one-sixth of a standard deviation below the national average. 31 Table 8. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: First Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 68.52 60.45 15.8 21 Majority White Medium Poverty, 65.34 59.14 19.9 79 Integrated High Poverty, 52.98 56.85 18.9 56 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 66.59 57.75 18.2 -0.13 108 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 63.18 58.08 20.0 -0.05 114 Integrated High Poverty, 53.58 52.90 20.6 -0 .19 60 Majority African American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 61 .83 59.96 17.5 12 American Majority White - Medium Poverty, 53 .39 52.34 17.4 129 Integrated High Poverty, 46.53 50.96 19.8 273 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 54.37 51 .50 21 .5 -0.40 43 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 49.48 49.45 17.2 -0.14 156 Integrated High Poverty, 46.74 50.40 17.7 -0.03 298 Majority African American 32 ORA NCE. The model accounted for 24 .6% of the variance in 2005 ORA NCE scores. ANCOVA indicated a significant main effects for 2003-04 ORA Word Recognition {F1.2002 = 534.0, p \u0026lt; .001\n20.0% of variance accounted for) and treatment status (F1.2002 = 9.15, p \u0026lt;.01\n0.3% of variance accounted for), and a significant interaction effect between treatment status and School Set (F22002 = 3.33, p \u0026lt;.05\n0.2% of variance accounted for). Follow-up analyses revealed that Compass students in majority White, low-poverty scores had a significantly higher adjusted mean score (M' = 54.5\nES = +0.41) than comparison students in similar schools (M' = 45.9\nsee Figure 2). 30.00- 55.0D - 50.00 - 45.00- 40 .00 - J 5UI! 45.80 I Lov,.\nPove,t y, t ,laio1 ity V'vhite .. .. 50 .74 I t.ledium Pove,ty. t11tegI:ited School Set I High Pove11y, t ,1ajorit y .A. t, ican .American T1 eatrnent --Comparison - - - Compass Figure 2. Adjusted Mean DRA NCE by School Set and Treatment Status: 2004-05 First Grade 33 - Table 9 shows mean ORA NCE scores by race, treatment, and School Set. Mean observed DRA NCE scores ranged from a low of M = 43.64 for non-African American comparison students in high poverty, majority African American schools to a high of M = 57.69 for non-African American Compass students in low-poverty, majority White schools. Table 9. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ORA NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: First Grade Adjusted Race Treatment School Set Mean Mean SD ES N Comparison Low Poverty, 51.64 48.58 30.1 40 Non-AA Majority White Medium Poverty, 55.32 50.44 14.7 112 Integrated High Poverty, 43.64 46.57 28.9 103 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 59.33 53.20 11.6 0.22 154 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 54.92 50.70 18.9 0.01 163 Integrated High Poverty, 48.76 48.84 21.4 0.11 97 Majority African American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 44.22 43.13 38.1 21 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 49.28 48.35 22.3 171 Integrated High Poverty, 47.38 50.38 21.6 388 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 57.69 55.82 10.2 0.60 60 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 51 .74 50.78 16.7 0.12 196 Integrated High Poverty, 46.72 49.29 21.2 -0.05 511 Majority African American 34 /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model accounted for 38.8% of the variance in ITBS Mathematics NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Capitalization (F, .1323 = 303.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n13.9% of variance accounted for), African American status (F, .1323=44.5, p \u0026lt; .001\n2% of variance accounted for), eligibility for free lunch (F, .1323=26.5, p \u0026lt; .001\n1.2% of variance accounted for), and School Set (F2_1323=18.9, p =.001\n0.6% of variance accounted for). Follow-up analyses showed that: (a) African American students had a significantly lower adjusted mean score (M' = 42.44\nES= -0.44) than White students (M' = 51.70), and (b) students attending high-poverty, majority African American schools had a significantly lower adjusted mean (M' =43.76) than students attending either medium poverty, integrated schools (M' = 47.12\nES= +0.16) or low-poverty, majority White schools (M'= 50.34\nES= +0.38). As shown in Table 10, African American students in mediumpoverty, integrated schools and in high-poverty, majority African American schools scored substantially below the national average of 50.0. 35 Table 10. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: First Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 62.10 55.23 18.3 20 Majority White Medium Poverty, 58.75 52.26 21.0 76 Integrated High Poverty, 44.19 47.67 20.9 Majority African American 58 Compass Low Poverty, 65.66 56.62 16.5 0.07 108 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 57.78 51 .81 19.8 -0.02 114 Integrated High Poverty, 46.78 46.60 16.1 -0.05 58 Majority African American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 46.25 45.10 20.7 12 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 42.95 41 .30 15.5 122 - Integrated High Poverty, 37.18 40.02 19.7 268 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 47.37 44.40 16.7 -0 .03 43 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 41.68 43.10 18.5 0.09 161 Integrated High Poverty, 35.86 40.73 16.5 0.03 297 Majority African American 36 Second Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The model accounted for 47.2% of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores . Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Composite scores (F1.1347 = 723.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n28.1 % of variance accounted for), African American status (F 1_1347 = 57.8, p \u0026lt;.001\n2.2% of variance accounted for), and free lunch status (F 1.1347 = 29.0, p \u0026lt;.001\n1.1 % of variance accounted for). A significant interaction was observed between treatment and School Set (F2,1347 = 9.95, p \u0026lt;.001 ). Follow-up tests showed that comparison students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores (M' =51 .88) than Compass students (M' =57.44\nES = -0.26) in medium-poverty, integrated schools, while Compass students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores (M'= 53.35\nES = +0.15) than comparison students (M' =50.17) in high-poverty, majority African American schools (see Figure 3). As shown in Table 11 all groups scored near or above the national average of 50.0 except African American comparison students in high poverty, majority African American schools. 37 - Table 11. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Second Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 66.07 59.95 22.4 29 Majority White Medium 68.52 64.40 20.8 86 Poverty, Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 48.00 53.35 20.4 54 American Compass Low Poverty, 70.45 61.48 20.0 O.Q7 Learning Majority White 88 Medium Poverty, 62.01 55.25 20.9 -0.43 106 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 55.67 57.02 23.0 0.17 66 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 52.35 48.05 16.6 23 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 51 .07 50.48 19.1 110 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 43.05 46.99 18.8 264 American Compass Low Poverty, 57.47 54.31 19.8 0.30 60 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 48.82 48.50 20.5 -0 .09 169 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 46.34 49.68 18.4 0.13 306 American 38 58 56 54 - 50 ~ ' Low Poverty. tAajority'1',hite \\ ' ' \\ Medium Poverty , Integrated School Set High Poverty . Majority t .trican .A.111erica11 Treatment - Comparison - -  Compass Figure 3. Mean Adjusted ITBS Reading NCE Scores by Treatment and School Set: 2004-05 Second Grade ORA NCE. The model accounted for 52.9% of the variance in ORA NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Word Recognition scores (F1.1482 = 1424.6, p \u0026lt;.001\n44.9% of variance explained), free lunch status (F 1_1482 = 19.76, p \u0026lt;.001\n0.6% of variance explained), and School Set (F2_1482 = 6.1, p \u0026lt;.01\n0.4% of variance explained). Follow-up tests indicated that in low-poverty, majority White schools had significantly higher adjusted mean scores (M' = 54.1 O ) than students in either medium poverty, integrated schools (M' = 49.57\nES = -0 .22) or students in highpoverty, majority African American schools (M' = 50.81\nES= -0.16). Students in low-poverty, majority White schools scored substantially above the district average of 50.0, regardless of race or treatment (see Table 12). No treatment effects (Compass vs. comparison) were indicated. 39 - Table 12. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 DRA NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Second Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, Majority White 57.64 52.05 20.4 30 Medium Poverty, Integrated 52.64 50.55 21.7 102 High Poverty, Majority African 47.45 51 .29 26.7 57 American Compass Low Poverty, Learning Majority White 64.65 57.69 8.9 0.27 96 Medium Poverty, Integrated 55.65 51.45 15.3 0.04 118 High Poverty, Majority African 49.25 50.98 24.5 -0.01 72 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, American Majority White 57.54 53.00 13.7 24 - Medium Poverty, Integrated 48.70 46.61 18.5 118 High Poverty, Majority African 45.73 50.80 23.9 292 American Compass Low Poverty, Learning Majority White 55.83 53.66 18.1 0.03 62 Medium Poverty, Integrated 51 .19 49.65 16.8 0.14 189 High Poverty, Majority African 48 .66 50.15 20.3 -0.03 336 American 40 /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model accounted for 42.3% of the variance in ITBS Mathematics NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Composite score (F1,1354 = 358.54, p \u0026lt;.001 ), African American status (F1 ,1354 = 99.36, p \u0026lt;.001 ), and free lunch status (F1,1354 = 26.7, p \u0026lt;.001 ). Post hoc comparisons indicated that non-African American students had a significantly higher adjusted mean (M' = 53.60) than African American students (M' = 41. 78\nES = - 0.56). A significant interaction effect was observed between treatment and School Set (F2_1354 = 4.09, p =0.02). Follow-up tests, as graphically depicted in Figure 4, indicated that, in low-poverty majority White schools, Compass students had a significantly higher adjusted mean (M' = 54.80) than comparison students (M' = 49.23\nES = +0.26). The mean NCE scores for African American students in either treatment at medium-poverty, integrated or high poverty, majority African American schools were substantially below the national average (see Table 13). 41 - Table 13. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Second Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 60.97 55.82 22.0 29 Majority White Medium Poverty, 59.65 55.88 20.1 85 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 42.44 46.60 20.1 54 American Compass Low Poverty, 69.31 61 .98 19.2 0.29 89 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 56.28 50.98 20.9 -0.23 106 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 49.26 50.30 21 .6 0.18 66 American - African- Comparison Low Poverty, 45.83 42.64 17.9 American Majority White 23 Medium Poverty, 41 .86 41 .66 17.5 114 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 34 .29 37.42 16.2 266 American Compass Low Poverty, 49.97 47.61 17.9 0.24 60 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 42.59 42.47 20.3 0.04 169 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 36.25 38.90 14.7 0.07 307 American 42 56 - 50- 48- 44- J ~-1 sj . . . . .  I Low Pove1ty. I ,lcijo1 rt 1 \\,\\ hrte . . . . . . r:wT:l .. ... I l,ledium Pove1t y, lntegrnted School Set -1~.0 I i High Pove1ty, t,lcijo1 rty t-.11 ican .~meric:in Treatment - Comprnison   -  Compass Figure 4. Mean Adjusted ITBS Mathematics NCE Scores by Treatment and School Set: 2004- 05 Second Grade Third Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The ANCOVA model explained 48.0% of the variance in 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Composite scores (F1,1310 =600.8, p \u0026lt;.01\n15.1% of variance explained), African American status (F1,1310 = 71 .6, p \u0026lt; .01\n4.2% of variance explained), free lunch status (F 1,1310 = 28.11 , p \u0026lt; .01\n1.1 % of variance explained) and School Set (F2. 1310 = 21 .57\np \u0026lt;.001\n1.3% of variance explained). A significant interaction effect was observed between African American status and School Set (F2.1310 = 6.19, p \u0026lt; .01 ). As shown in Figure 5, the interaction was ordinal over levels of race. Mean adjusted scores for African American students were sign ificantly lower than 43 those for students of other races in low-poverty majority White schools (M' = 52.79 versus M' =63.86\nES= -0.52), in medium-poverty, integrated schools (M' = 49.99 versus M' = 60.39\nES= -0.49), or high-poverty, majority African American schools (M' = 46.93 versus M' = 53.48\nES= -0 .31\nsee Figure 5). The interaction was attributable to a successively widening achievement gap between African American and other students as the percentage of poor and African American students decreased. Most groups performed near or above the national average, except for African American students attending high-poverty majority African American schools, who scored substantially below the national average (see Table 14). 44 Table 14. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Third Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 72.47 65.84 18.4 34 Majority White Medium Poverty, 63.07 59.21 20.5 76 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 50.78 50.52 18.8 45 American Compass Low Poverty, 72.84 64.18 17.6 -0.08 91 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 61.93 57.62 23.3 -0.08 123 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 50.45 50.70 18.9 0.01 53 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 49.52 52.66 17.0 23 - American Majority White Medium Poverty, 46.46 49.28 17.1 110 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 43.46 46.18 17.5 264 American Compass Low Poverty, 51 .26 48.40 13.3 -0.20 47 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 46.86 47.72 17.8 -0.07 188 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 43.05 45.67 16.3 -0 .02 270 American 45 - 55 \u0026amp;~...7 ~.). .. ... 50 45 Low Pc,verty. l,lctiorij y',',hite ... ., , JU.. P..J .. I ,ledium Poverty, lntegrmed School Set .. .. .. .. High Povert 1, l,k1iority Africm1 ,t!merican Pao:8 -Other .t-.fricrn1 ti.meric:m Figure 5. Mean Adjusted ITBS Reading NCE Scores by Race and School Set: 2004-05 Third Grade /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model explained 42.0% of the variance in 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2004 ORA Composite scores {F11304 =426.4, p \u0026lt;.01\n18.5% of variance explained), African American status (F1,1304 = 111 .3, p \u0026lt; .01\n4.8% of variance explained), free lunch status (F 1,1304 = 17 .3, p \u0026lt; .01\n0.7% of variance explained) and School Set (F2 1304 = 6.12\np \u0026lt;.01\n0.5% of variance explained). Significant interaction effects were observed between African American status and School Set (F2., 304 = 3.36, p \u0026lt; .05) and treatment and School Set (F2,1304 = 3.10, p \u0026lt; .05). Followup analyses of the treatment X School Set interaction showed that Compass students in low-poverty majority White schools had a significantly higher adjusted posttest mean (M' = 55.93\nES = +0.21) 46 than their counterparts attending similar schools (M'=51.59\nsee Figure 6). Treatment differences in other School Sets were nonsignificant. Follow-up analyses of the race X School Set interaction indicated that non-African American students in all school types performed significantly higher than African American students in all school types, but the gap was especially large in low-poverty majority White schools (see Figure 7). As Table 15 shows, non-African American students achieved at or above the national average score regardless of treatment or School Set, whereas African American students achieved substantially below the national average in every condition except Compass students in low-poverty majority White schools. 47 - Table 15. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Third Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, Majority White 65.21 59.51 18.04 34 Medium Poverty, Integrated 62.11 58.77 19.18 75 High Poverty, Majority African 55.41 55.09 19.56 44 American Compass Low Poverty, Learning Majority White 72.96 65.43 17.32 0.28 91 Medium Poverty, Integrated 60.71 56.99 20.37 -0.08 123 High Poverty, Majority African 51 .57 51 .78 18.42 -0.16 53 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, American Majority White 40.87 43.67 16.81 23 - Medium Poverty, Integrated 45.18 47.69 18.06 110 High Poverty, Majority African 42.89 45.21 17.70 260 American Compass Low Poverty, Learning Majority White 48.91 46.42 15.75 0.13 47 Medium Poverty, Integrated 44.14 44.91 17.63 -0.13 188 High Poverty, Majority African 40.50 42.78 18.29 -0.12 270 American 48 \\ Tr,-:itrn..,nt -- l ump::iri::\n011 , - -  ('\" 1..lllj)CICS ' \\ ::\n4- \\ 48 - I L1J \\t\u0026lt;/ Puv~1tv 1 M::ii,\n,rity 'v'\\hit,.. '\\ \\ ' ' \\ J5U.OG I ' ... I 1,1..\n,Jium Puvee11y, lnteqr::it.\nd School Set I HiJfl P,Jv.,\n1ty. 1,h:iic,rity A fri,:::111 .ll.meri,,011 Figure 6. Mean Adjusted ITBS Mathematics NCE Scores by Treatment and School Set: 2004-05 Third Grade 49 60- 55- 50- 45- 62.47 57 .88 -~ Ji5.o5 l - - ........ I Low Poverty, Majority White I Medium Poverty, Integrated School Set 53.43 ........ ffe I High Poverty, Majority African American Race -Non-AA __ African American Figure 7. Mean Adjusted ITBS Mathematics NCE Scores by Race and School Set: 2004-05 Third Grade Fifth Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The AN COVA accounted for 62.1 % of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 Benchmark Literacy scale scores (F, .1507 = 1320.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n46.7% of variance explained), African American status (F, .1507 = 62.2, p \u0026lt; .001\n4.0% of variance explained), free lunch status (F, .1507 = 17.2, p = .01\n1.1 % of variance explained) and School Set (F2.1507 = 3.3\np \u0026lt;.05\n0.4% of variance explained). A significant interaction effect was observed between African American status and School Set (F2.1507 = 4.08, p \u0026lt; .05). Follow-up analyses of the race X School Set interaction indicated that non-African American students in all school types performed significantly higher than African American students in all school types, but the gap was especially large in low-poverty majority White schools (see Figure 8). Students in most 50 treatment X School Set categories performed near or above the national average, with the exception of African American students attending high-poverty majority African American schools-these students scored nearly one-half of a standard deviation below the national average regardless of treatment condition (see Table 16). Table 16. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Fifth Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 76.70 56.72 23.29 33 Majority White Medium Poverty, 66.57 54.90 19.77 94 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 47.33 48.55 20.00 60 American Compass Low Poverty, 68.89 56.82 18.33 0.00 91 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 64.60 53.71 20.29 -0.06 Integrated 124 High Poverty, Majority African 53.07 52.80 17.44 0.20 55 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 46.38 43.79 19.70 26 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 45.48 46.11 18.49 109 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 39.56 46.57 17.18 304 American Compass Low Poverty, 51 .27 49.81 19.54 0.29 77 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 46.22 45.80 16.19 -0.01 182 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 40.45 46.48 16.70 0.00 366 American 51 47 ,,'.\nL1~1w P1Jv..-1ty. l:l\n:i jc,1ity V\\-hit.- J,.1.-.Jiurn h ,v.-11y . Hi,il1 P,.,v.-11y, Int.-, II ~ ... ,J l:laj,_,, ity P..tri,-011 ,1,_ m.-1i, :::111 School Set Afli'Oll /'.',.n,..,ri,\n:in Figure 8. Mean Adjusted ITBS Reading NCE Scores by Race and School Set: 2004-05 Fifth Grade /TBS Mathematics NCE. The ANCOVA accounted for 71 .9% of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores (F 1 1504 = 2368.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n61.2% of variance explained), African American status (F1.1504 = 37 .9, p \u0026lt; .001\n2.5% of variance explained), free lunch status (F1,1504 = 4.4, p \u0026lt;.05\n0.3% of variance explained) and School Set (F2 1504 = 5.5\np \u0026lt;.01\n0. 7% of variance explained). African American students had a significantly lower adjusted mean score (M' = 46.30) than other students (M' = 51 .63). A significant interaction effect was observed between treatment status and School Set (F2.1504 = 5.48, p \u0026lt; .01 ). Post hoc comparisons revealed that the comparison group had a significantly higher adjusted mean (M'=51.90) than the Compass group (M'=48.81\nES =-0.15) in medium-poverty, integrated schools, while the Compass students had a significantly higher mean (48.67\nES= +0.10) 52 than comparison students (M' = 46.60) in high-poverty African American schools (see Figure 9). As shown in Table 17, African American students scored below the national average of 50.0 regardless of school type or treatment, while other students scored above the national average regardless of school type or treatment. Table 17. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Fifth Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 73.73 52.58 20.73 33 Majority White Medium Poverty, 66.69 55.45 21.38 94 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 51 .03 48.47 20.32 60 American Compass Low Poverty, 69.75 51 .64 17.63 -0.04 91 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 63.48 51 .04 21.28 -0.21 124 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 53.96 50.60 21.41 0.10 55 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 47.35 44.87 21 .56 26 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 44.30 48.36 19.66 109 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 38.24 44.74 17.81 301 American Compass Low Poverty, 47.22 46.54 19.46 0.08 77 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 43.92 46.58 16.60 -0 .08 182 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 39.85 46.74 18.20 0.09 366 American 53 48 Lc, ,.iv p,_, ,,,..1ty, I 1l8i.\u0026gt;I tty 'v\"il1tt.- ----~148.811 ~ - - - - ,6---' 1,1.-,Jilllll Puv .. 1t y, lrrt.-,Jr:rt.-.J School Set Hi, 1h P,Jv.-rty. li18i.rtty 6 f1i, 811 .\u0026lt;l 111.-1 i1:~,n - ( ,_,1n1 ,::u i::::,.,n -   t vmpoc3 Figure 9. Mean Adjusted ITBS Mathematics NCE Scores by Treatment and School Set: 2004-05 Fifth Grade Sixth Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The model accounted for 63.5% of the variance in !TBS Reading NCE scores. Only two significant main effects were observed: 2003-04 !TBS Reading scores (F,.556 = 834.7, p \u0026lt;.001) and race (F,.556 = 4.58, p \u0026lt;.05). African American students had a statistically significantly lower adjusted mean score {M'= 38. 77) than other students (M'= 41.91 ), although the magnitude of the difference was small. All groups except non-African American comparison students scored substantially below the national average (see Table 18). 54 - Table 18. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race and Treatment: Sixth Grade Race Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison 54.06 42.32 24.04 33 Compass 40 .56 41 .50 19.78 -0.04 39 Learning African- Comparison 37.29 38.28 17.53 209 American Compass 38.76 39.27 18.15 0.05 281 Learning /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model accounted for 64.6% of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores. The only significant main effect was for 2003-04 ITBS Reading scores (F1,576 = 920.0, p \u0026lt;.001\n61.5% of variance accounted for). As shown in Table 19, African American students in both the comparison and the Compass groups scored nearly a standard deviation below the national average (national M = 50, SD= 21 .06). Table 19. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race and Treatment: Sixth Grade Race Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES Non-AA Comparison 51 .03 39.24 25.05 Compass 42.80 38.60 21 .21 -0.03 Learning N 35 40 African- Comparison 33.63 34.66 19.35 223 American Compass 36.33 37.57 16.56 0.14 284 Learning 55 Seventh Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The model explained 51.6% of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 Benchmark Literacy scale scores (F, .528 = 458.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n46.5% of variance), race (F1.528 = 8.15, p \u0026lt;.01\n1.5% of variance), treatment (F1.528 = 7.01 , p \u0026lt;.01\n1.3% of variance), and free lunch status (F1.528 = 5.73, p \u0026lt;.05\n1.1 % of variance). Follow-up tests showed that African American students had significantly lower adjusted mean scores (M' = 38.65) than other students (M' = 43.51), and that Compass learning students had significantly lower adjusted mean scores (M' = 38.85\nES= -0.21) than comparison students (M' = 43.31 ). As shown in Table 20, African American students performed substantially below the national average (about onehalf standard deviation), while other students performed at or near the national average. Table 20. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race and Treatment: Seventh Grade Race Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison 50.85 46.63 19.31 26 Compass 46.70 40.40 18.79 -0.30 33 Learning African- Comparison 38.56 40.00 15.85 230 American Compass 37.36 37 .30 17.79 -0.13 245 Learning /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model explained 60. 7% of the variance in ITBS Mathematics scores. Only two significant main effects were observed: 2004 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores (F1,525 = 686.2, p \u0026lt;.001\n56.7% of variance) and race (F,.525 = 5.15, p \u0026lt;.05). African American students had a statistically significantly lower adjusted mean score (M'= 38.52) than other students (M' = 42.19), although the magnitude of the difference was small. As with Reading, African American students performed substantially below the national average (about one-half standard deviation), while other students performed at or near the national average (see Table 21 ). 56 - Table 21 . Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race and Treatment: Seventh Grade Race Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison 53.12 44.22 17.21 25 Compass 49.45 40.15 16.62 -0.19 33 Learning African- Comparison 37.25 38.16 16.88 American 229 Compass 37 .57 38.88 17.94 0.03 244 Learning Descriptive Profile of ITBS Mean NCE scores Reading. Figure 10 shows mean ITBS Reading NCE scores for African American and other students across grades 1 to 9. As seen in the figure, African American students in first grade score near the national average, but their performance declines across successive grade levels until grade 8, where the mean NCE was nearly one-half of a standard deviation below the national average. For other students, mean NCE scores were between 60 and 65 at all grades levels, or approximately onehalf standard deviation above the national average. Thus, the achievement gap is substantially wider at higher grade levels. 57 - t35- -- 45 - .... 40- 35- I I I I 1 ,-., 3 4 -... I I 5 13 GRADE - - - 1 I ,' 8 I ~ Ra,:~ - J-Jon- /Jo.A __ .t .fricon ,t .mericon Figure 10. Mean 2004-05 ITBS Reading Score by Grade Level and Race. Note: The norm group average score is 50.0 Mathematics. As seen in Figure 11, the patterns of mean ITBS Mathematics scores for African American and other students are strikingly similar, with a distinct peak occurring in fourth grade for both groups. The achievement gap is relatively constant across grade levels, with some widening of the gap at upper grade levels. As with Reading, African American students generally performed about one-half standard deviation below the national average, while other students generally performed about one-half standard deviation above the national average. 58 - 70 GO 50 ,.. / I' 40 / --I 2 3 4 ' ' ' ,,,. .,, 5 ,3 GRADE ..... ..... .. 8 -- 9 R:.ice -Non-/\u0026gt; .. A. .t,.fricrn1 .A.merican Figure 11. Mean 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics Score Grade Level and Race. Note: The norm group average score is 50.0. 59 - CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of this present study are presented in relation to each of the major research questions in the following sections. Primary Evaluation Question What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? What are the effects of the Compass Learning program on student achievement in Reading and Mathematics? Is the program effective in meeting the academic needs of African American students? The only simple main effects of Compass Learning on students were statistically significant negative effects on first grade ITBS Reading (ES= -0.16) Where program effects were observed, they varied by school context: On first-grade ORA, Compass students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores than comparison students only in low-poverty majority White schools (ES = +0.26). On second-grade ITBS Reading, comparison students had higher mean scores than Compass students in medium-poverty integrated schools (ES = -0.26), while Compass students had higher mean scores in high-poverty majority African American schools (ES = +0.15). On second-grade ITBS Mathematics, Compass students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores than comparison students only in low-poverty majority White schools (ES = +0.38). On third-grade ITBS Mathematics, Compass students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores than comparison students only in low-poverty majority White schools (ES = +0.26). On fifth-grade ITBS Mathematics, comparison students had higher mean scores than Compass students in medium-poverty integrated schools (ES = -0.15), while Compass students had higher mean scores in high-poverty majority African American schools (ES = +0.10). Across all grades, subjects, and achievement measures, a total of 14 separate analyses (8 Reading\n6 Math) examining treatment x School Set effects were conducted. Of these, 4 (50%) in Reading and 3 (50%) in Math showed no significant treatment main effects or interactions. Where significant effects did occur in Reading, two were main effects, respectively, showing comparison group advantages over Compass in Grade 1-ITBS (ES= -.25) and Grade 7-ITBS (ES= -0.21). The 60 other two effects were interactions, one showing a Compass advantage within the low-poverty School Set (ES = +0.41) in Grade 1-DRA, and the other showing a comparison group advantage within the medium-poverty School Set (ES = -0 .26) in Grade 2-ITBS. Thus, taken as a whole, the evidence provided by this study suggests that usage of Compass Learning was not associated with noticeable achievement gains in Reading for the overall sample of students or for African American students in particular. Significant effects in Math were associated with three interactions, showing Compass advantages in low-poverty schools in Grade 2-ITBS (ES = +0.26) and Grade 3-ITBS (ES = +0.26), and in high-poverty schools in Grade 5-ITBS (ES= +0.10). Comparison schools showed an advantage in medium-poverty schools in Grade 5-ITBS (ES = -0.15). Overall, Compass learning effects were inconsistent but positive in direction in Mathematics. Benefits were more frequent in lowpoverty than high-poverty schools. A summary of aggregate effect sizes across grades, subjects, and tests is provided in Figures 11 and 12. Specifically, the box plots in Figure 11 show the interquartile ranges (middle 50% distribution) of the computed effect sizes for each School Setting. As can be seen, the ranges extend above ES = +0.20 only for the low-poverty setting. The median effect size, represented by the dark horizontal lines in Figure 11 and the bar graphs in Figure 12, indicate a weak positive effect of Compass in the low-poverty setting but essentially zero effects in the medium- and high-poverty settings. 61 0.60 - 0.40 - 0.20 - en w 0.00 - -0.20 - -0.40 - -- I Low Poverty, MaJority White T _L I Medium Poverty, Integrated School Setting T I I J_ I High Poverty, Majority African American Figure 12. Box Plot of Compass Learning Effect Size Estimates Across All Outcomes and Grade Levels by Setting: African American Students 62 0.15 0.11 0.10 -+--- 0. 05 +-----1 0.00 --1-------'-l ' ___ __,_ ____ ~---------~,---~, ----i -0.0.1 -0.05 -+---------------u_,,unt-4------------ -0.10 +----------------------- -0.15 Low Poverty, Majority White Medium Poverty, Integrated High Poverty, Majority AA Figure 13. Median Compass Learning Effect Size Estimates Across All Outcomes and Grade Levels by Setting: African American Students  How does the achievement of African American students compare to that of other students in the same or similar schools? In both Reading and Mathematics across grades 1-9, ~frican American students generally performed about one-half standard deviation below the national average, while other students generally performed about one-half standard deviation above the national average. The pattern of Mathematics achievement across grade levels is virtually identical between African American and other students (see Figure 11) African American achievement in Reading declines precipitously as grade levels increase, while the Reading achievement of other students remains relatively steady across grades (see Figure 10). 63 Supplemental (Step 2) Evaluation Questions What is the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? The observation data indicated that CL was implemented in well-equipped computer labs that provided one computer for each student. The CL labs were almost always supervised by both a lab attendant and a classroom teacher that were responsive to student questions and actively monitored classroom activities. The data also revealed that all students in each class, both African American and non-African American, equally participated and were highly engaged and attentive to the CL activities. The interview results indicated that most teachers routinely customized their classroom instruction based on CL performance. However, nearly one-half (45.2%) of the teachers responded that they never used CL reports on individual student performance, but rather frequently used class reports by ethnicity (59.8%) and by gender (64.6%). Overall, these results indicate that the quality and nature of CL implementation was generally effective with regard to how students use CL. However, the data also revealed that teachers more frequently based instructional decisions on class-level performance rather than Cl's recommended strategy of using student-level performance to achieve individualized instruction. With regard to the level of implementation, most students' scheduled time for CL activities fell below program recommendations of 60-minutes per content area per week. Thus, the quality, nature, and level of implementation was generally effective with regard to computer lab environments and student engagement during CL use, but was inconsistent with regard to the degree to which student CL activities were individualized and the amount of scheduled CL time. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools? The Compasslearning program was implemented in 19 LRSD Title 1 schools comprised of student populations that were 67.9% African American during 2004-2005. Triangulation of data from multiple sources indicated that African American and non-African American students fully and equally participated in CL program activities at their schools. Specifically, the direct classroom observation data revealed that of 327 students in CL computer labs a// of the 277 African American and 50 nonAfrican American students were highly engaged in the use of CL in well-supported environments. 64 When lab attendants and technology specialists were asked which students used CL, the responses indicated a// students within the specified grade ranges regularly participated in CL classroom and lab activities. The district personnel involved with CL reported that CL is implemented in schools with the highest level of student need, or Title 1 Schools. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? There was common agreement across the teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists that the CL program was generally implemented well and that the teachers and administrators supported the use of CL in their schools. Teacher responses reflected their support for CL through their agreement that CL not only increased student learning but also increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement and was valuable for improving the academic achievement of African American students. Additionally, nearly three-fourths of the teachers agreed that they routinely aligned CL with their lessons and reviewed CL content in class. There was general consensus among the respondents that the strongest aspect of CL was program flexibility to meet individual student needs. However, teachers also identified reinforcement of skills and the curriculum as the strongest aspect of CL, whereas, the lab attendants and technology specialists noted alignment of CL with LSRD curriculum standards and student enjoyment or engagement as additional areas of strength. When asked about the weakness of the CL program, respondents from the three groups were concerned about software issues due to difficulty students had in using some aspects of the CL program. The teachers and lab attendants thought students needed more computer time to benefit from the program. The technology specialists remarked that the CL program lacked sufficient curriculum mapping. There was unanimous agreement that the CL program should be continued due to its positive effect on student learning. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The Parent Survey results reflect the target population for this evaluation in that over 84% of the surveys represented African American children who use CL at school. Most parents responded that they were aware of CL and believed that the program was an important part of their child or children's education. However, there was less agreement that CL increased student interest in school or improved achievement in math and reading. Reasoning behind these responses was revealed in 65 remarks to open-ended questions, which suggested that parents' understanding of CL was somewhat misguided. Most parents seemed to believe that their children attended the computer lab to learn about computers, rather than to improve math and reading skills. For example, the most common reply regarding the \"best\" part of CL was improving computer skills and the \"worst\" aspect was possible access to inappropriate Internet-based materials - both of which were unrelated to use of CL. Responses from less than 20% of the parents reflected a greater understanding of the overall purpose of CL in that their reported \"best\" aspect of the program was improvement of reading and math skills and the worst aspect was replacement of traditional learning with computer-based learning. When parents were asked about what changes they would like to see in CUcomputer lab program, half wanted more computer time for their children. However, the data suggested that this extra time was requested to improve students' computer skills. The parents that suggested more variety in CL lessons seemed to have a better grasp of Cl's purpose. Overall, parents were supportive of their child or children using computers, but many were unaware of the overall instructional purpose the CL program. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? Of the four LRSD principals who no longer used CL at their schools, three indicated that CL was generally effective and that teachers liked it, however, the program was discontinued due to technical problems. One of the principals, however, was less positive about CL as a result of teacher complaints about the program. Specifically, teachers indicated it took too much time to align CL activities with their classroom lesson plans, there were too many technical problems, and they did not like monitoring the CL computer lab. Three of the four principals adopted different integrated learning systems (ILSs}, while one chose to implement a non-lLS computer integration model. The principals that adopted the new programs indicated that fewer technical problems had occurred and teacher acceptance was greater. These results suggest that although CL use had been discontinued at the four schools, the principals had a generally positive regard for the use of technology to improve student learning in schools with a predominately African American population. 66 Appendix A Compasslearning Schools by Percentage of African American Students 67 Little Rock School District Compasslearning Schools by Percentage of African American Students School Name CL Schools in 2004-2005: Elementary Schools Bale Booker Brady Carver Chicot Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Mabelvale McDermott Otter Creek Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Wakefield Williams Past CL Participating Schools: Elementary School Mitchell Middle Schools Cloverdale Henderson High School Accelerated Learning Center (ALC) Percentage of African American Students 82% 53% 78% 52% 73% 75% 20% 96% 26% 88% 53% 80% 62% 60% 100% 67% 95% 78% 52% 96% 82% 82% 92% 68 Appendix B 2004-2005 Time Scheduled for Compasslearning by School and Grade 69 Little Rock School District 2004-2005 Time* Scheduled for Compasslearning by School and Grade Grade Level School K 2nd 3rd McDermott 60 60 60 60 Williams 60 60 60 60 Carver 60 60 60 60 Fair Park 60 60 60 60 Forest Park n/a 30 60 60 Chicot n/a n/a 45 45 Rightsell 45 45 45 45 Stephens 30 30 30 30 Booker 30 30 30 30 Brady 30 30 30 30 Bale n/a n/a n/a 30 Franklin 30 30 30 30 Fulbright 30 30 30 30 Geyer Springs n/a 30 30 30 Gibbs 30 30 30 30 Mabelvale 30 30 30 30 Otter Creek 30 30 30 30 Rockefeller n/a n/a n/a n/a Wakefield 30 30 30 30 Overall averages 39.6 38.4 40.6 40.0  Time in minutes .. \"nla\" indicates grade does not use CompassLeaming 4th 5th 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 45 45 45 45 60 60 60 60 45 45 30 n/a 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 43.4 44.1 School average 60 60 60 60 54 45 45 40 40 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 40.5 70 Appendix C Evaluation Instruments 71 Survey of Computer Use for Compasslearning School ____________ Observer Name __________ Observation Date Grade(s) Observed ______ Setting: __ Classroom __ Lab Time In __ Time Out Number of Students Using CompassLeaming: __ African American __ Non-African American Number of Teachers present: _ Classroom Teacher(s) _ lab attendant(s) _ technology specialist(s) Number of Classes observed during the two hours: ___ _ Computer Configuration and Use How many computers were available for Compasslearning? One 2-4 5-10 11 or more How frequently did malfunctions occur on computers used for Compasslearning? Never _Rarely _ Occasionally _ Frequently _ Extensively Compasslearning Activities In which subject areas did students complete CompassLearning work ( check all that were observed)? _ Language Arts Social Studies Mathematics _Writing _ Reading Cross-Curricular Science TALLY the types of questions students asked while using CompassLearning. _ Content area (e.g. how to solve a problem\nthe meaning of a word) _ Software use (e.g., how to log in\nhow to move to next section, how to take a test) _ Computer use (e.g., how to get the mouse or keyboard to work properly) _ Non-CompassLeaming questions. (e.g., Do I have to sit next to John? Can I go to the restroom?) What was the overall level of African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLearning? Low Moderate _High What was the level of academically focused class time? Low Moderate _High Observer Notes Most of the computers used for Compasslearning were _ Up-to-date _ Aging but adequate _ Outdated/limited capacity During the observation, computers were used for CompassLeaming by _ Only a few students (less than 10%) _ Some students (about 10-50%) _ Most (students about 51-90%) _ Nearly all or all students (91-100%) What types of instructions were given to students at the start of the lesson (check all that were observed)? _ Content area review (e.g. reading, math) _ Software use (e.g., how to log in, find correct lesson) _ Computer use (e.g., locate software, use mouse) Classroom behavior rules _ No instructions were given What was the predominate role of the teacher(s) during student use of CompassLeaming? _ Continuously moved among students to actively monitor student work and answer questions _ Occasionally moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions _ Rarely moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions _ Remained at one location (e.g., at desk) rather than moving among the students. What was the overall level of NON-African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLeaming? Low Moderate _High 72 Teacher Compasslearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) School ______ _ Your Gender__ Your Ethnicity _________ _ Do you know about the Compasslearning (computer lab) program at your school? Yes No If Yes, please answer the remaining questions. If No, please stop hear and return the survey when they are collected. TCLQ Items 2, ~ ~ Ii i 2, ~ I! l ij I~ z 1. Most of our school computers that are used for Compasslearning are kept in good working condition. 2. I can readily obtain answers to questions about Compasslearning. 3. The use of Compasslearning has increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement in learning. 4. Parents and community members support our school's use of Compasslearning. 5. The use of Compasslearning has increased student learning and achievement. 6. I am able to align Compasslearning with my lessons and the district's standards-based curriculum. 7. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African American students. 8. I have received enough training to address student learning needs through the use Compasslearning resources. 9. My computer skills are adequate to access Compasslearning resources. 10. The administration fully supports teacher use of  Compasslearning resources. 11. I routinely customize Compasslearning activities to meet the individual needs of students. 12. Our school has a well-developed plan that guides the Compasslearning program. 13. I routinely provide academic review of content covered during student use of Compasslearning. 14. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Compasslearning program. 15. I routinely modify my instructional practices on the basis of student performance in Compasslearning. 16. The use of Compasslearning has improved the quality of student work. 73 Directions: Please use the space provided to write a brief response to the following questions. 1) How many years of experience do you have with Compasslearning? _____ Years 2) Circle the grade level(s) you currently teach that use Compasslearning K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3) How are the subject areas and performance levels of Compasslearning activities selected for each of your students? 4) How frequently do you use the following Compasslearning Reports?  Whole class - Never - Seldom _Frequently  Individual Student - Never - Seldom _Frequently  Class by Ethnicity - Never - Seldom _Frequently  Class by Gender - Never - Seldom _Frequently  Other - Never - Seldom _Frequently 5.a) If you use Compasslearning reports, what is your primary reason? 5.b) If you do NOT use Compasslearning reports, what is your primary reason? ______ _ 6) What are the strongest aspects of the Compasslearning Program? _________ _ 7) What are the weakest aspects of the Compasslearning Program? __________ _ 8) Do you think your school should continue using Compasslearning? _Yes No Why?--------------------------------- Page 2 TCLQ 74 Little Rock School District (LSRD) Compasslearning Parent Survey Dear Parent/Guardian We would like to know what you think about your child or children using the CompassLearning program (the program your child or children work on in the computer Jab). Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. Only complete 1 (one) survey if you have more than one child in the school district Directions  Circle your response or fill- in the requested information in the space provided.  Do not put your name on the survey.  Share with us your honest opinions to help improve this program. Information about your Child/Children Circle the grade levels of your child/children K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Circle the ethnicity of your child/children Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic Computer Lab Program (Compasslearning) Do you know about the computer lab program at your child 's/children 's school? Yes No If Yes, please answer the remaining questions. If No, please have your child return the survey to his/her teacher. How did you learn about the computer lab activities? School Teacher My kids Other parents/friends Do you think your child/children get excited about using the computer lab? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Do you think computer lab time is an important part of your child 's/children 's education? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Do you think use of the Computer Lab has improved your child 's/children 's interest in school? .. ... .. ...... ..... ....... ..... .... ... Yes Somewhat achievement in reading and math? ... ...... Yes 1 Somewhat No No Not Sure Not Sure Your Comments Please respond in the space provided and use back of sheet if more space is needed. What is the Best thing about your child/children using the Computer Lab program? What is the Worst thing about your child/children using the Computer Lab program? What Changes would you like to see in the Computer Lab program? 75 Little Rock School District (LSRD) Compasslearning Student Focus Group Protocol Nature of the Activities 1. How long have you been using Compasslearning? a. What kinds of activities do you do when using Compasslearning? b. Have you been using it in your classroom or in a lab? 2. What do you think about the amount of time that you spend using Compasslearning? a. Is it enough - or too much? b. Why? 3. What kinds of computer problems have you experienced when using it? 4. What types of changes would you like to see in the Compasslearning program? Usefulness of CompassLearning 5. Do you think Compasslearning helps you to do better in sc\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_1072","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","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":["2005-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"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/1072"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda RECEIVED DEC 14 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting HAPPY HOLIDAYS DeceYUber 200s ,.. (\") \u0026gt;,, t~ ... c 0:11: oz ~~ !E~ -c::\n,oz o.....n... r- l5 (\")Z ,j.!..:. en n!Jl\n._\n,o\n,om (\") '= ~ ~ -en .c ..\n,o, ~o 0:11: ~(\") c::=I \u0026gt;1\n1 ezn I. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Regular Meeting December 15, 2005 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) C. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association D. Joshua lntervenors IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update G. Update: Reorganization H. Update: School Improvement/ Academic Support V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MA TIERS: A. Minutes Regular Board Meeting - 11-17-05 n!JI\n_.\n,:,\n,:,m (')~ -\u0026lt;\n,:, \u0026gt;:,,\n- u, .c :,-\n,n:, 15 i ~(') c=I \u0026gt;~ z u, Board of Directors Meeting December 15, 2005 Page2 VI. BOARD POLICY AND REGULATIONS REVIEW A. First Reading: Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements with Regulations Review of Regulations: ID-R, Student Schedules\nIHBDA-R2, Academic Improvement Plan\nIHCC-R, Pre-AP and AP Courses, Grades 6-12\nand IKC-R, Class Rankings/Grade-Point Averages VII. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES A. Proposed Changes in Middle and High School Curriculum Programs, 2006-2007 B. Elementary Textbook Adoption Timeline Extension VIII. ADMINISTRATION IX. A. Guiding Principles and Goals B. Otter Creek Attendance Zone Adjustment HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes X. FINANCE \u0026amp; SUPPORT SERVICES A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report XI. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1 . Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XII. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XIII. ADJOURNMENT n!I'\n_,., ,.,m n~ ~ -C/1 0.., ~ o\"' 01: ~n C: ::::i \u0026gt;~ z C/1 I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME TO GUESTS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS C. LRCTA / 0. JOSHUA IV. REPORTS \u0026amp; COMMUNICA'TIONS A. BOARD MEMBERS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: December 15, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: December 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: The design for replacing two (2) classroom buildings at Forest Heights has begun. The goal is to start construction soon after school is out this summer. This will require that contractors bid the project this spring. The architect is The Borne' Firm. Planning has begun on the Child Nutrition office building. The building will be located south of the Child Nutrition warehouse at Quigley Stadium. It is too early to know when construction will start, but it may be as early as spring of 2006. The architect is Morris \u0026amp; Associates. RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action necessary. PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer\nc C: ~ m Facility Name Central Media - -- Gibbs CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 15, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I Project Description I Cost Roof $85,000 - Addi!~ - -- $705,670 I Est. completion Date D-ec--05 Dec-05 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - FALL/ WINTER 2005-06 Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I t:.st. completion Date Booker -- HVAC (QZAB) $239,560 Unknown Brady -- MetalR~ $250,000- Unknown --- - - Central HVAC (QZAB) $919,760 ~ Unknown - --- --- - Dunbar HVAC (QZAB) - ----- -- - ! $278,800 -Un-kno-wn Fair Park -- HVAC (QZAB) $79,480 Unknown J. A. Fair - Sewer Line $82,900- ~ Unknown Mann HVAC_(QZAB) $382,400 - Unknown -- - -- Terry Bus Drive $100,000 Unknown BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED I I I t:s1. \\.,OmpIeuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Adm- inistration Annex Electrical Upgrade --- $9,166 U-nk-no-wn Alternative Learning Center ADA Adaptations $43,134 Unknown -- --- Alternative Learning Center -Restroom Renovation -- - - $37,742 - U-nkn-own Alternative Learning Center Electrical Upgrade $2,696 Unknown - -- Booker Electrical Upgrade I Unknown Unknown Chicot -- Electrical Upgrade - Unknown - Unknown Child Nutrition Renovation $399.~ Unknown Dodd - - Restroom Renovation - ---- --- $26,959 Unknown ~ Forest Heights Remod-el - $4,420,128 Aug-07 Fulbright ADA Adaptations $21 ,567 --Unknown Ful~ight -- ~ enovate Restrooms -- - -- -- $10.~- - -- Unknown A ddition/Traffic Planning --- Fulbright $2,500 Unknown Geyer Springs -- Replace Restroom Stalls - - -- $4,313 -- Unknown ADA Adaptations --- ,. $21 ,567 Unknown Henderson - Renovation -- --- $450,000 Summer 2006 ADA Adaptations --- ,-- IRC $21 ,567 Unknown Restroom Renovation ___ - $21,567 - -- Unknown Restroom Renovation --- -- - $32,~ -- McDermott Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS - Energy monitoring system installation --- Unknown - Unknown Rightsell Renovation $2,494,000 Unknown Terry Addition Planning $2,500 Unknown BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED I I I t:st. L\nompIet1on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Administration Annex - ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown Adult Education ADA Adaptations $248,020 U-nkn-own Structural Repairs - ,. -- $53,918 Unknown Alternative Learning Center Roof Repairs $26,959 Unknown Booker - ADA Adaptations ,. $107,835 Spring 2006 Cashion Building ADA Adaptations $21 ,567 Unknown Facility Services ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown Install Water Meters at Cooling Towers $4,313 Unknown Emergency Lighting Replacement - $80,876 Unknown Land Purchase - Booker $100,000 Unknown -- -- ,. Garland Renovation ,. $900,000 Partially Complete ADA Adaptations $188,711 Unknown - - Facility Name Henderson Quigley Rockefeller Transportation - Laidlaw West Little Rock School Facility Name Administration Administration Administration Administration Administration Annex Alternative Learning Ctr. Alternative Learning Ctr. Badgett Badgett Bale Bale Bale Bale Baseline Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady Brady Carver Central Carver Carver Central Central Central Parking Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central Central Central Central Central Chicot Chicot Cloverdale Elementary Cloverdale Elem. CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 15, 2005 BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED I Project Description Cost I .ADA Adaptations I $70,093 I I Restroom U pg rad es $53,918 I ! Dressing Room Renovation $37,742 JADA Adaptations $26,959 Interior Renovation ' $16,175 !ADA Adaptations ' $32,351 i I New School $11 ,782,638 I BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I Project Description Cost I I Asbestos abatement $380,495 I I Fresh air system $55,ooo I Fire alarm I $32,350 I IHVAC $70,000 I : Energy monitoring system installation I Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 1 Energy efficient lighting $82,000 1 I Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 I Fire alarm $18,250 I Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 I I Energy monitoring system I I Partial roof replacement I $269,587 I IHVAC I $664,587 I I Renovation $953,520 I Gym Roof I $48,525 ADA Rest rooms I $25,000 I Energy efficient lighting $170,295 , I Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 !Asbestos abatement $10,900 !Fire alarm $34,501 ' I Addition/renovation $973,621 I I Energy efficient lighting $80,593 'Asbestos abatement $345,072 I , Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Media Center Expansion $167.490 I Parking lot $111 ,742 i HVAC Renovation - Band Area I $225,000 , Reflecting Pond $57,561 Student parking $174,000 ' Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair I $265,000 ,Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 Irrigation System I $14 ,500 Purchase land for school I Unknown Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations I $2,000,000 1 Ceiling and wall repair I $24,000 Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Front landing tile repair $22,470 Drainage $64,700  Sound Attenuation I $43,134 Demolition $520,750 Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Est. Completion Date Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Est. Completion Date Mar-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Nov-04 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Oct-04 Aug-04 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Nov-04 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Sep-05 Oct-05 Aug-03 Dec-04 Sep-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Jul-04 Nov-05 Jul-01 2\nc C: ~ m !\" ~ m\n,o\n,o mz c3 ~ ~~ C ::i 0 Gl p .C,, 0 ? IT ff C\nt C,,: z ~ ~ z Facili Name Cloverdale MS Cloverdale M~S-- Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dunbar Facilities Service Facility Services Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 15, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. Completion Proect Descri tion Cost Date Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Jul-01 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,82_2_ Nov-02 Fire Alarm Upgrade - $9,200 Oct-04 Energy efficient lighting - $90,665 Aug-01 Asbestos abatement-ceiling ~ $156,299 Jul-01 Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Aug-02 Renovation/additi~ $6,149,023 Nov-04 7 nterior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Fire alarm - $12,000 - Aug-03 Remodel t- $799,000 ~g-05 -r\nP arkin-g L-ot- --- $185,000-,- Aug-05 - Roof-- $245,784 May-05 HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Apr-02 Fair Park - ---Energy efficient lighting ~ $90,162 Aug-01 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 Aug-01 J. A. Fair 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music room addition $3,155,640 Aug-04 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 Nov-00 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Jun-01 J. A. Fair - Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair J_rrigation System - $14,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs r $391,871 Aug-03 Forest Park Restrooms $152,881 Aug-05 Forest Park Replace window units w7central HVAC $485,258 Nov-03 Forest Park Diagonal parking -- $111,742 Aug-03 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 May-01 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Jun-01 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation ---r-,1,950 Aug-01 Ful~ight Replace rooftop HVAC uni~ $107,835 Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot _L $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbright Roof repairs ~ $200,000 Oct-02 Franklin Renovation -- - $2,511,736 Mar-03 Geyer Springs Roof Repair $161,752 Jun-04 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting ---4--- $76,447 Apr-01 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation 1 $11\n70 Jul-01 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Sep-03 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Jul-01 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Apr-01 Hall Intercom Feb-01 Hall Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 Henderson Skylight Replacement $319,000 Nov-05 Henderson Lockers $43,854 Dec-04 Henderson Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Jul-01 Henderson Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Aug-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Aug-02 IRC Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Jul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatement $43,639 Oct-01 Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Nov-02 Laidlaw Parking lot $269,588 Jul-01 Mabelvale Elem. HVAC (QZAB) $220,000 Nov-05 Mabelvale Elem. Site Work $6,000 Oct-05 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 15, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facili Name Mablevale Elem Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Pro'ect Description Cost Fire Alarm Upgrade ___ $12,000 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units - --~ $300,000 Asbestos Abatement ~7 .~ Energy efficient lighting --- - ~06,598 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Est. Completion Date Oct-04 Aug-01 Aug-0~ ~ ~-OI Dec-02 Mabelvale MS __ ~Renovation _ __ $6,851,621 __ Aug-01 Mar-04 Apr-04 Dec-01 Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Asphalt walks The total $1.8 million -- Walkway canopies __ ,is what has been  Boilerreplacem~--- ~ used so far on the Fencing ___ __ projects listed Partial demolition/portable classrooms-----+ completed for M~ Parking Lot Overlay ------~- $65,000 Athletic Field Improvement _____ $38,~ Irrigation Syst~ - __J_ $14,750 Dec-01 ~t-01 ~p-01 ~g-01 ___Ap r-05 Jul-03 Jul-03 Security cameras $36,3_0_0 ______ Jun_-0_1 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 ~ ay-01 Stadiumstands repair --~- $235,000 Aug-01 . Intercom - ~ 6~000 Feb-02 McClellan McClellan McClel~ McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell -- _s:1assroom Addition -----~ $2,155,~ Jul-04 Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst (Adult Education) Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Procurement Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Fire Alarm Upgrade ---+ $7,700 Energy efficient lighting --+- $79,411 Replace rooftop HVAC units $476,000 Fire alarm --- $16,1~ Asbestos abatement ___ _J __ $253,412 Engergy efficient lighting $88,-297 __ Sep-04 Feb-01 Aug-02 Remodel -+-- $397,600 Replace cooling tower ---~ $37,2_0_3 __ _ Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Oct-05 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Replace shop vent sys~ $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation --$17,145 Renovation - - ~ .395 Cancelled by Board re-use vote 11-17-05 Building Remediation --$165,0_0_0__ Jul-04 Energy efficient lighting___ $103,642 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation t ~ 16,695 Jul-01 Asbestos abatement $13,000 Jul-01 New Windows -- $215~000 Aug-05 HVAC renovation $237,2~37 -- Aug-01 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 May-01 Energy efficient lighting $81,828 ~ r-01 Asbestos abatement ____ .._ $10,000 Aug-02 Parking lot ____ $138,029 Aug-02 6 classroom addition $888,778 Oct-02 Parking Improvements $142,5~ Aug-03 Addition --- $2,121 ,226 Dec-04 HVAC controls ,- ~10,000 Jun-02 Roof replacement $273 ,877 Sep-01 Exterior lights__ $10,784 Nov-00 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301 ,938 Aug-01 Locker replacement t $120,000 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Jun-01 Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 Fire alarm ___ $25,000 Aug-03 Cafeteria Ceiling __ ~ _ _ $33,378 Aug-05 Replace Entry Doors $13,990 Aug-05 4\nz: C: \"'D ~ m :..\". {ll ::c i!5 i C: \"'D ~ m p .C.,: ,C. rr CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 15, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost I Pulaski Heights Elementary Clean Exterior Walls i $98,660 . Pulaski Hgts. Elem I Renovation I $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground $17,000 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 . Rockefeller Parking addition I $111 ,742 . Romine !Asbestos abatement $10,000 I Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition : $3,534,675 ! Scott Field Track Renovations I $289,056 : Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 i Southwest I New Corridor Ceiling I $300,000 Southwest 1Addition $2,000,000 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest 1New roof $690,000 Southwest 1 Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Southwest , Drainage I street widening $250,000 , Student Assignment I Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,ooo I Tech Center Phase 1 I Renovation $275,000 i Tech Ctr / Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $3,679,ooo I Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 ' Terry I Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Wakefield . Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 I Wakefield I Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 I Washington I Fire Alarm Upgrade $11,600 I Washington Security cameras $7,900 I Washington Energy efficient lighting I $165,281 I Watson I Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson ,Asbestos abatement $182,241 I Watson Energy efficient lighting I $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement I $10,000 Watson  Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $800,000 . Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $622,160 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade I $8,400 Western Hills ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191 ,946 Western Hills Intercom I $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Drainage Repair I $29,200 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Williams - Energy efficient lighting I $122,719 Wilson HVAC for Cafeteria : $56,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion i $1 ,263,876 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Woodruff Parking addition $175,000 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 t:st. GompletIon Date Sep-05 Nov-04 Dec-02 Nov-04 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Apr-02 Mar-03 May-05 Jun-01 Aug-05 Nov-04 Aug-00 Oct-03 Jan-02 Aug-03 Aug-02 Aug-03 Dec-01 Jun-04 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Dec-04 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Oct-04 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-05 Oct-04 Aug-04 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Nov-05 Mar-04 Dec-03 Jun-01 Mar-05 Feb-04 Aug-03 Aug-05 Aug-02 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: December 15, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Board Auditor Report BACKGROUND: Monthly report to School Board. RATIONALE: Summary report of activities. FUNDING: No changes. RECOMMENDATION: None. PREPARED BY: Sandy Becker\n:c C: -0 ~ m :..n.. ~ ::,: z 0 i C: -0 0 ~ m Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS December 15, 2005 Board of Directors Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Audit Report - December This is the seventy-fourth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two high schools, two middle school and two elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity and related funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. b) The AAB has forwarded a Booster Club Guidelines Package to be included in official publications of the District after review. Board Policy and Regulation a) The routing of Professional Leave and Travel Requests is being worked on to make the process more efficient and to prepare for the process being automated to improve documentation and provide information for decision making. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Working with Procurement on the use ofbarcode scanners for checking and updating inventory records. This is being done to help more quickly update and check electronic equipment records at the various sites. c) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. Provided training with the Arkansas PT A on financials controls and financial preventive maintenance. Audit Report - December 2005 Page 2 of2 d) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. e) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. f) Developed skills test for financial positions. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) c) d) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Assisting schools to track and reconcile Teacher School Supply Funds. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Assisting LRSD PT A's in financial process training. Reviewing payroll documentation for Time Piece (automated payroll software). Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org.\nc C: -0 ~ m ~ % 8..... i: I .zm.. . DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 15, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Technology Report BACKGROUND: Since the last Board meeting the following technology activities have taken place:  Online Agenda Project Boardroom Equipment Pre-wiring and electrical wiring for all equipment has been completed. Laptops have been received and are being configured. Installation of equipment will begin December 19. Online Agenda Application The application installation and configuration on the District servers began the week of December 5. Training for application users will be held January 10---12 at the Technology Center with Board member training being conducted on January 12 at the Administration Building either before or after the Board Agenda meeting. Communication LRSD will communicate rollout of online agenda access via the following:  District website  Article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette  Local educational access channel  Global email to all LRSD staff  Article in newsletter mailed to all LRSD parents in early January This communication will include an overview of the application and instructions as to how to access the board documents.\nz:: C: ~ ?\nm  E-rate Applications for 2006-2007 The E-rate window for 2006-2007 applications opened on December 6. The deadline for filing all applications is February 16. The District's RFP for all telecommunications services will be issued before the winter break. Telecommunications is the major E-rate application that will be filed for next year. Other applications will be the continuation of Edline for secondary schools, maintenance of the existing telephone system, maintenance of the Safari video networks, and network electronics. RATIONALE: To implement the LRSD Technology Plan 2003 - 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services Lucy Neal, Coordinator, Instructional Technology DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 15, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Polley \u0026amp; Regulations Revisions: Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements, with Regulations Regulation - I0-R - Student Schedules Regulation - IHBDA-R2 - Academic Improvement Plan {AIP) Regulation - IHCC-R - Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses, Grades 6-12 Regulation - IKC-R - Class Rankings/ Grade-Point Averages BACKGROUND: Policies and regulations are periodically updated to ensure accuracy and alignment with new state law and regulations. RATIONALE: Due to changes in state law regarding graduation requirements, advanced placement exams, and full day attendance for students in grades nine through twelve (9-12), policy and regulation revisions are needed to ensure compliance. FUNDING: No funding required. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the recommended policy and regulation revisions. PREPARED BY: Dennis Glasgow, Senior Director, Curriculum Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent, Educational Services LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF GENERAL EDUCATION GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS The Little Rock School District Board of Education believes that students should graduate from high school possessing the skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed for responsible citizenship, life-long learning, and productive employment in our modern economy. Programs for post-secondary preparation will be available to equip students for the advanced training that will be needed for the work of the 21 st century. The Little Rock School District will be responsible for providing the educational opportunities and experiences that will enable our students to take full advantage of post-secondary education and employment opportunities available to them after graduation. The District shares with the state of Arkansas the commitment to ensure all students have access to a rigorous curriculum. The District's general graduation requirements meet and exceed the State's adopted Smart Core or Common Core curriculum. Diploma-Earning Options A student may earn a diploma from a Little Rock School District high school in one of four ways. Each has different requirements and different numbers of required units of credit. 1. Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the required 26 units. 2. Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the Little Rock Scholars curriculum of 28 units, including at least eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses. Hall High School students may take University Studies courses as substitutes for Pre-Advanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. 3. Diploma earned at the Accelerated Learning Center for completion of the 22 units required by the State of Arkansas. 4. Diploma with waived or altered requirements established by an Individual Education Program (IEP) team for a student identified with disabilities. Even though the graduation requirements may be changed by the Board of Education during the time a student is enrolled in high school, the requirements established for a student's graduation class (assuming graduation in four years of high school) are those he/she must meet, even though he/she may require more than four years to earn the necessary number of units. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) Transfer Students NEPN CODE: IKF All transfer students must meet the graduation requirements of the Little Rock School District in order to receive a diploma. The LRSD high schools will accept transfer credits, grades and grade placement for students who previously attended Arkansas high schools that are accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education (See JE for additional information). Students who transfer into a Little Rock School District high school from a home school or an unaccredited high school must attend at least two semesters in order to receive a high school diploma (see IKED and IKED-R) and must attend at least four semesters to be eligible for rank-in-class (See IKC-R). Foreign Exchange students who complete the senior year in good standing may, at the discretion of the principal, participate in the graduation ceremony. Requirement to Attend School for a Full Day Act 675 of 2003 requires students in grades nine through twelve (9-12) to schedule and attend a full school day. Students must enroll in no more than three hundred fifty (350) minutes of planned instructional time each day as a requirement for graduation. Students may be assigned to no more than one (1) block each year or one-half block each semester for study hall or organized tutoring. Enrollment and attendance in vocational-education training courses, college courses, and school work programs may be used to satisfy the requirement of the law. Enrollment and attendance at a post-secondary institution by an eligible student for credit shall be counted by the high school at the following rate: Number of college credits (semester Credit toward the required 30 hour hours) week 1 3 2 6 3 9 4 12 5 15 6 18 7 21 8 24 9 27 10 30 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) ADE Seal NEPN CODE: IKF In order to receive the ADE Seal, students must complete the state's recommended core curriculum with a minimum grade point average of 2.75 (See Standards for Accreditation 14.01 and 14.02). Magnet Program Seal Students who participate in the District's high school magnet programs may meet the magnet curriculum requirements through completion of the designated Career Focus courses established for each magnet. In order to receive a Magnet Seal, magnet students must complete all the requirements of the magnet program. Students transferring into a magnet program after the freshman year may earn a diploma from that high school, but they will not earn the Magnet Seal. Arkansas Scholars Seal (privately sponsored) Arkansas Scholars, a program of the Arkansas business \u0026amp; Education Alliance, is a partnership between the District and the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce's Education Committee. Many local businesses have agreed to recognize the achievement of Arkansas Scholars status as a symbol of high quality education. A special Arkansas Scholars seal will be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards established by the Arkansas Scholars program: 1. Earn a grade of \"C\" or above in all courses. 2. Achieve a 95 percent or better attendance record for each of the four years of high school. 3. Complete high school in eight consecutive semesters. 4. Complete successfully at least three units in science, three units in mathematics, three units of social studies, and four units in English. Honors Diploma Seal A special Honors Seal will be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards: 1. Completes the units required for the Little Rock Scholars curriculum, which includes and goes beyond the requirements of the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board for unconditional admission to any public two-year or fouryear institution of higher education in Arkansas and which includes, but goes beyond, the requirements for eligibility for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. The Little Rock Scholars curriculum also reflects the admission requirements of the most competitive universities in the United States of America. 2. The Little Rock Scholars curriculum requires the successful completion of a minimum of eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses over a four-year period. Hall High School students may take University Studies courses as substitutes for Pre-Advanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. Other approved dual-credit courses 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) offered to LRSD students in collaboration with area colleges/ universities may also be substituted for the Pre-AP or AP requirement. 3. Earns a grade-point-average of at least 3.5. Students designated for valedictory or salutatory recognition must have completed the Little Rock Scholars curriculum. Recognition of Graduates Each high school may design its own traditions to commend and celebrate the achievements of the following sets of graduates: 1. The valedictorian and salutatorian\n2. Students earning an overall average of 3.5 or above\n3. Students earning Magnet Program, Arkansas Scholars, Little Rock Scholars, and/or Honors Diploma Seals\n4. Members of the National Honor Society or similar honors organization\n5. Scholarship recipients\n6. Students with perfect attendance throughout high school\nand 7. Students whose other achievements are worthy of special recognition. Participation in Graduation Ceremony In order to be a participant in the graduation ceremony, the student must be within one unit of completing the graduation requirements and must have paid the tuition for the one-half or one unit to be taken in summer school (or, alternately, in another approved credit-earning program). All high school students and their parents will be informed in writing of this expectation when course lists and graduation requirements are published for the spring registration process. Principals will make a determination of potential graduates at the end of the junior year and each quarter of the students' senior year and inform students and their parents immediately if it is determined that the student is in danger of not graduating. Such students will be advised of all the appropriate credit-earning options, including, but not limited to, evening high school, summer programs, credit recovery. correspondence courses, online courses, credit-by-examination, and placement at the Accelerated Learning Center. Award of Diploma The award of the high school diploma will not be made until all graduation requirements are met. 4\n.,,, ,~ ,- :-o c\u0026gt; ~!\n.-,,z_ ,\u0026gt;...V .\u0026gt;.. ~~ c,-\u0026lt; 0 \u0026lt;5 \u0026gt;,... Z fJ) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) Specific Course Requirements The following table specifies the required courses for graduation for each curriculum area. High School Graduation Requirements Little Rock School District Required, Classes of 2007 and After Reguired1 Arkansas Core Curriculum (Meets Arkansas Smart Core curriculum) Classes of 2007 and After English-4 units English-4 units English I {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English I {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill {ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand English Ill {ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Enalish IV (ESL, Reaular, or AP). Enalish IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communicatlons-1/2 unit Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications IA -one-half unit Communications IA--one-half unit Mathematics--4 units Mathematics- 4 units Algebra I {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra I or its equivalent* Algebra II {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry or its equivalent* Geometry {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) All math units must build on the base of algebra One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for and geometry knowledge and skills. the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Comparable concurrent credit college courses All students must take a mathematics course in may be substituted where applicable. grade 11 or 12 .  A two-year algebra equivalent or a two-year geometry equivalent may each be counted two units of the four (4) unit requirement. Science-3 units Science-3 units Phisical Science (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Physical Science\nand Biology I\nand One Biologi I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand either additional unit Chemistty I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Phisics I (ESL Reaular or Pre-AP) Social Studies-3 units Social Studies-3 units Civics {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Civics {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government {ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Government {ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand World History {ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand World History {ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Reaular, or AP) United States History (ESL, Reaular, or AP) 5 Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education IA Physical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety Health and Safety Fine Arts-1 unit Fine Arts-1/2 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Career Focus-6 units Career Focus-6 units At least six units from any of the approved Career Six units from any of the approved Career Focus Focus programs to include at least one unit from any programs. of the approved technology courses and one-half unit of English Language Arts {from any English, Journalism, or Communciations course. Modern Grammar (1/2) is stronalv recommended.) Electives-3.5 units A fourth year of both science and social studies is encouraged, as are at least two units of foreign language. AIP classes will gualify as local electives onlv. Total-26 units Total-22 units Little Rock Scholars Curriculum The Board of Education recommends that students elect the challenge of a more rigorous graduation plan than the minimum requirements, including at least eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses (or University Studies courses at Hall High or approved dual-credit courses). Uttle Rock Scholars English--4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand Enalish IV (ESL, Reaular, or AP). Oral Communications IA (1/2 unit). Mathematics --4 units (In grades 9-12) Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Sclence--4 units Physical Science (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand either Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Physics I (ESL, Regular. or Pre-AP) One additional unit Social Studles--4 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand One additional unit Foreign Language -2 units Two units of anv one foreian lanauaae Physical Education -1/2 unit Physical Education IA Health and Safety--1/2 unit Health and Safety 6 !JI 0 \u0026gt;:::l Cm 2\n,o cnn -\u0026lt;\n,o il:m mm z\n,,\n... ~ Fine Arts-1 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Career Focus~ units Six units from an)1 of the aQQroved Career Focus Qrograms to include one unit from anli'. of the aQQroved technologli'. courses and English Language Arts-1/2 unit (An)1 one-half unit from English, Communications, or Journalism. Modern Grammar Is stronalv encouraaed.) Electlves-1.5 units Total-28 units (Requires completion of eight Pre-AP or AP courses) Reaulred ACC Students Class of 2007 and After Engllsh-i units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications IA (1/2 unit). Mathemattcs-i units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Sclence-3 units Physical Science (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand either Chemistrv I (ESL, Reaular, or Pre-AP) or Phvsics I /ESL Reaular or Pre-AP) Social Studles-3 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States Historv (ESL, Reaular Pre-AP, or AP) Physical Educatlon-1/2 unit Phvsical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safetv Fine Arts-1/2 unit One unit from art, dance drama, or music Career Focus-6 units Six units from anv of the aooroved Career Focus oroarams. Total-22 units Last Revised: December 15, 2005 Adopted: July 22, 1999 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-15-1101, Standards of Accreditation 9.03, 14.01, 14.02 Cross References: Board of Education Policies and Regulations IKED, JE, IKED-R, IKC-R, and IKEC-R1, and the LRSD Student Handbook 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF-R GENERAL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS English Proficiency To ensure that the maximum number of students acquire proficient-level knowledge and skills as measured on the high school assessments, all schools are encouraged to provide the double-period of English I Workshop for freshmen. The additional instructional time provided by this schedule allows for the development and/or reinforcement of critical knowledge and skill necessary for success. The credit earned in the second period of this program can be counted as an elective to meet graduation requirements. One-half unit could also be used to satisfy the additional one-half unit of English language arts that is required to balance the Communications IA requirement. Modern Grammar, however, is the course the District strongly recommends to satisfy this requirement. English I Pre-AP All schools are also encouraged to provide a double-period English I Workshop Pre-AP so that students have sufficient time and support to develop the critical knowledge and skills necessary for success in advanced courses and in assessments. The credit earned in the second period of this program can be counted as an elective to meet graduation requirements or, as above, as the one-half unit required to balance Communications IA. Pre-AP students are also strongly encouraged to take Modern Grammar. English Prerequisites Each level of required English is a prerequisite for the next level. Students are not generally allowed, therefore, to take two required English courses concurrently. In order to keep students on track to graduate in four years, however, the following exceptions are permitted: 1. A student in grades 9-11 who failed only one semester of the prerequisite English course may enroll concurrently in the one-semester course and in the next full-year English course (for example: a student may concurrently enroll in the second semester of English I and at the same time in English 11). Enrollment in the one semester of the failed course may be during the regular school day, in the evening high school, in an approved correspondence course, or in an approved distance-learning program. !II 0 \u0026gt;=I Cm 2::c (/)(') :\"1\"1:::mC mm z\no: \"\"\n?\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF-R (continued) 2. Senior students who still need credit for either one or two semesters of English Ill may take both English Ill and English IV concurrently. The same options for earning credit outlined in #1 above apply. In no case are these exceptions recommended. They are, however, permitted in order to facilitate a student's on-time graduation. Bible Courses Taken in Private, Parochial, or Home Schools Since the District offers a one-semester course in The Bible As/In Literature, the District will accept a one-half unit in Bible as a transfer course from a private, parochial, or home school. Bible/religion courses taken in other schools in excess of one semester cannot be used to satisfy graduation requirements\nnor will they be calculated as credit or grade points in the calculation of the grade-point average or rank-in-class. (See IKC-R.) English-as-a-Second Language (ESL} ESL students must be scheduled in core classes with ESL-endorsed or ESL-trained teachers, regardless of the school they attend. To facilitate monitoring, ESL students should be scheduled using the ESL course numbers, even if there is not a separate grouping for the course. In such instances, two course numbers are used in one class period with a given teacher. For example, a teacher might be assigned to teach both 051504 ESL English I Workshop and 051014 English I Workshop in one period. (See IHBEA-AD.) If appropriate according to student needs, schools may schedule ESL students into two periods of ESL English at each grade level. Fourth Year of Mathematics Students must complete four units of mathematics in grades 9-12. There is no need for students to accelerate their mathematics in middle school unless they intend to take as many high school mathematics courses as possible. In order to satisfy the requirement of four units of mathematics in grades 9-12, a student may choose one of the following sequences: Algebra I, Algebra II, Statistics or Statistics AP, and Geometry Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, and Transition to College Mathematics Algebra I, Algebra 11, Geometry, and Pre-Calculus Algebra II, Statistics or Statistics AP, Geometry, and Transition to College Mathematics Algebra II, Statistics or Statistics AP, Geometry, and Pre-Calculus LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF-R (continued) Algebra 11, Geometry, Pre-Calculus, and Calculus AB Geometry, Statistics or Statistics AP, Transition to College Mathematics, and Pre-Calculus Geometry, Statistics or Statistics AP, Pre-Calculus, and Calculus AB Geometry, Pre-Calculus, Calculus AB, and Calculus BC Geometry, Statistics or Statistics AP, Pre-Calculus, and Calculus BC Social Studies Courses Only grade 9 students are to be placed in Civics to satisfy the graduation requirement. Students in grades 10-12 should be placed in a full year of United States Government. Students may enroll in either World History (regular, ESL, or Pre-AP) or World History AP to satisfy their graduation requirement. Students may enroll in either United States History (regular, ESL, or Pre-AP) or United States History AP to satisfy their graduation requirement. Physical Education Credit Only one unit of physical education may be taken toward the satisfaction of graduation requirements (one-half required\none-half elective). Athletic practice for competition, whether scheduled during the school day or after school hours, does not earn credit. Physical Education Waivers The one-half unit of required physical education may be waived upon receipt of a statement by a licensed physician that a student is mentally or physically incapable of participating in a regular or modified physical education program\nor when the requirement is contrary to the religious teachings of the student, as indicated in a written statement, signed by a lawful custodian of the student. The one-half unit of Physical Education required for graduation cannot be waived through the procedures outlined in IMP-R. Those waiver procedures pertain solely to the one additional semester of physical training for grade 9 students that are mandated in Act 1748. Foundation Courses The following one-semester \"Foundation Courses\" are prerequisites for most courses in Business Education, Marketing Education, Family and Consumer Science, Career and Technical Education, and courses taught at Metropolitan: Keyboarding (generally LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF-R (continued) required at grade 6), Career Orientation (required at grade 7), and Computer Technology: Introduction. Technology Courses Keyboarding is a prerequisite for all Technology Application courses. A student who completed at least one semester of Keyboarding in middle school has met that prerequisite and need not repeat the course in high school. Keyboarding taken in middle school, however, does not earn high school credit. A student may complete the requirement(s) for Technology Applications from the following list of approved courses: Keyboarding Applications (1/2) Word Processing A (1/2) Word Processing B (1/2) Computer Technology: Introduction (1/2) Multimedia Applications A (1/2) Multimedia Applications B (1/2) Database Management (1/2) Spreadsheet Applications (1/2) Desktop Publishing A (1/2) Desktop Publishing B (1/2) Programming A (1/2) Programming B (1/2) Computer Applications I Computer Applications II Computer Applications Ill Computerized Business Applications (1) Computerized Accounting I (1) Computerized Accounting II (1) Web Site I/Foundations Web Page Design II Travel and Tourism SQL Database Foundations SQL Database Programming Environmental and Spatial Technology (EAST) Lab 1-I1-111-IV (1 each) lnternetworking Technologies I (1) lnternetworking Technologies II (1) Enterprise Information Science (1) Industrial Technology Education (2) Computerized Commercial Art 1-11-111 (Parkview) (1 each) Computerized Commercial Art 1-11-111 (Metro) (3 each) Computer-Aided Drafting 1-11-111 (3 each) Computer Graphics/Printing Technology 1-11-111 (3 each) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF-R (continued) Microcomputer Systems Technology 1-11 (3 each) Introduction to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Remote Sensing Dual-Credit Technology Application Courses Several college/university courses have been pre-approved for dual credit, provided that the student wishing to take one or more of these courses can be admitted to the college/university program and pays the required tuition and fees (see IHCDA-R). The pre-approved college/university courses and their LRSD equivalents are listed in the High School Curriculum Catalog. In no case may the same course(s) satisfy both Technology Applications requirements and/or the technology courses in one of the areas for Career Focus. However, if a student uses the first three units of credit in a Career and Technical Education program to satisfy the Career Focus requirement, he/she may use the second three-credit course to satisfy the Technology Applications requirement. Career Focus Programs All students are required to complete at least six units in an approved Career Focus Program, whether the student is pursuing the Required Curriculum or the Little Rock Scholars Curriculum prescribed for graduation. Students may not use the same courses to satisfy more than one category of graduation requirements, except as explicitly specified. Last Revised: December 15, 2005 Date: December 7, 2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ID-R STUDENT SCHEDULES Grades 9-12 Students in grades 9-12 must be enrolled in a full day academic program that includes four units (eight courses) each semester in a school with an A/B block schedule or three and one-half units (seven courses) in a school with a seven-period daily schedule. One unit may be placement in a study hall or enrollment as a student assistant/monitor. The principal is authorized to modify this requirement if there are extenuating circumstances. Extenuating circumstances include the following: 1. The student is enrolled in a concurrent program at a college or university. 2. The student is enrolled in a school-sponsored work program. 3. The student has an illness that precludes full-time enrollment. 4. The student demonstrates a hardship of needing to support self and/or family. 5. The student demonstrates other reasons acceptable to the district inclusive of legal matters. Dropping/Adding Courses, Grades 9-12 According to Arkansas Accreditation Standards, a student must be enrolled in a course for at least 60 clock hours in order to receive one-half unit of credit. Students, therefore, are not permitted to change their class schedules after the tenth class day of each semester to ensure that the school is in compliance. The following exceptions to the ten-day rule are permitted, but only with the high school principal's permission: 1. The student is changing from one teacher's class to another teaching the same course. 2. The student is changing from one level of a course to another, such as from the regular level to the Pre-AP level or from Pre-AP to the regular level. 3. The student is exiting an ESL adapted course in order to move into a mainstreamed equivalent course. 4. The student is dropping a course in order to enroll in a study hall or other non-credit period (only one such period is allowed in any one semester). Requirement to Attend School for a Full Day Act 675 of 2003 requires students in grades nine through twelve (9-12) to schedule and attend a full school day. Students must enroll in no more than three hundred fifty (350) minutes of planned instructional time each day as a requirement for graduation. Students may be assigned to no more than one (1) block each year or one-half block each semester for study hall or organized tutoring. Enrollment and attendance in vocational-education training courses, college courses, and school work programs may be used to satisfy the requirement of the law. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ID-R (continued) Enrollment and attendance at a post-secondary institution by an eligible student for credit shall be counted by the high school at the following rate: Number of college credits (semester Credit toward the required 30 hour hours) week 1 3 2 6 3 9 4 12 5 15 6 18 7 21 8 24 9 27 10 30 Grades 6-8 Students must take all courses, including a double period of the Reading/Writing Workshop at each grade level, 6-8, approved by the Board of Education for the required middle school curriculum. Principals may waive the second period of Reading/Writing Workshop at the Pre-AP level at parent request, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the student and without question if the student is performing at the ProficienU Advanced level on the state Benchmark literacy examination. Courses not required by the State of Arkansas may be waived through the waiver process. (See Policy IBA, IBA-R, and IBA-R Exhibit.) Additionally, all grades 6-8 students must participate in at least one hour per week of physical training, including at least three sessions of 20 minutes each. (See IMP-R.) Middle schools may schedule classes seven periods a day, or they may elect to use the A/B block schedule, enabling students to take eight courses every two days. Grades 3-5 All students in grades 3-5 must have instruction in all the areas specified in the Arkansas Accreditation Standards. LRSD time requirements are as follows: English Language Arts/Reading 2  hours daily at grade 3\nAt least 2 hours daily at grades 4-5 Mathematics At least one hour daily Science Daily instruction\nmay be interdisciplinary 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) Social Studies Music or Visual Art Physical Education NEPN CODE: ID-R Daily instruction\nmay be interdisciplinary At least one hour per week At least one hour per week, including no less than 20 minutes three times per week Time requirements that go beyond the Arkansas Accreditation Standards must be observed unless the school applies for and receives a waiver. (See IBA, IBA-R, and IBA-R Exhibit.) Grades PreK-2 All students in grades 3-5 must have instruction in all the areas specified in the Arkansas Accreditation Standards. LRSD time requirements are as follows: English Language Arts/Reading 2  hours daily Mathematics At least one hour daily Science Instruction may be interdisciplinary\nat least Social Studies Music or Visual Art Physical Education every other day, if not every day Instruction may be interdisciplinary\nat least every other day, if not every day At least one hour per week At least one hour per week, including no less than 20 minutes three times per week Time requirements that go beyond the Arkansas Accreditation Standards must be observed unless the school applies for and receives a waiver. (See IBA, IBA-R, and IBA-R Exhibit.) A sample pre-kindergarten daily schedule is attached that meets all licensing and LRSD requirements. Revised: February 24, 2005 Revised: December 18, 2003 Date: October 21 , 1999 Cross References: Board of Education Policies and Regulations, IBA, IBA-R, ID and IMP-R 3 ID-R: Attachment 1 Request for Waiver of School Day Scheduling Requirements Administrative Regulations ID-R Little Rock School District Name of Student- --------------ID Number- ----- Classification I request a waiver from the scheduling requirements in Administrative Regulations ID-R. I understand that in order to be eligible for such a waiver, I must provide proof of one or more of the following extenuating circumstances:  need to take fewer courses due to poor health (verification by a licensed physician is required)\n need to take fewer courses in order to go to work\n need to take fewer courses due to responsibilities to care for a child or other family member\n need to take fewer courses in order to free a period for remedial instruction or for study hall (verification required by an assistant principal, a counselor, and/or a teacher)\n-  need to take fewer courses in order to enroll in a post-secondary course (verification required of application to enroll and admission). Therefore, I request that during the next semester/school year (circle one) I be permitted to enroll in only ___ courses rather than a full day academic program. My proof of extenuating circumstances is either attached through signed statements or follows below: Signature of Student Signature of Parent/Guardian Date Approved/Disapproved (circle one) Signature of Principal Date 4 !II 0 \u0026gt;~ ~~ Cl\u0026gt; 0 -\u0026lt;:io\nl:m mm z:,,\n\"\"'i!:: Sample Pre-K Schedule ID-R: Attachment 2 Time Mondav Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 7:30- Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers 8:00 Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Science Social Science Social Science Social Science Social Science Social Studies, Art Studies, Art Studies, Art Studies, Art Studies, Art 8:00- Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time 8:15 Explanation and Explanation and Explanation and Explanation and Explanation and Directions for today's Directions for Directions for Directions for Directions for activities todav's activities today's activities today's activities today's activities 8:15- P.E Music Library/Guidance P.E Music 8:45 8:45- Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time 9:30 Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Choice of Centers Choice of Centers Choice of Centers Choice of Centers Choice of Centers Math, Science Social Math, Science Math, Science Math, Science Math, Science Studies, Art Social Studies, Art Social Studies, Art Social Studies, Art Social Studies, Art 9:30- Outside Play: Outside Play: Outside Play: Outside Play: Outside Play: 10:00 Including Including Including Including Including Gross Motor, Art, and Gross Motor, Art, Gross Motor, Art, Gross Motor, Art, Gross Motor, Art, Dramatic Play and Dramatic Play and Dramatic Play and Dramatic Play and Dramatic Play Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities 10:00- Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time 10:45 Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Hands Hands Hands Hands Hands 10:45- Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch 11 :15 Social Skills Social Skills Social Skills Social Skills Social Skills Language Language Language Language Language Development Development Development Development Development 11 :15- Outside Play Outside Play Outside Play Outside Play Outside Play 11 :45 Gross Motor Gross Motor Gross Motor Gross Motor Gross Motor Art Art Art Art Art Dramatic Play Dramatic Play Dramatic Play Dramatic Plav Dramatic Plav 11 :45- Language Arts/ Language Arts/ Language Arts/ Language Arts/ Language Arts/ 12:15 Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Hands Hands Hands Hands Hands 12:15- Story Time/Rest Story Time/Rest Story Time/Rest Story Time/Rest Story Time/Rest 1:15 Period Period Period Period Period 1 :15- Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time 2:15 Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Science, Social Science, Social Science, Social Science, Social Science, Social Studies, and Art Studies, and Art Studies, and Art Studies, and Art Studies, and Art 2:15- Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time 2:35 Story Story Story Story Story Review of Review of Review of Review of Review of Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Dismissal Dismissal Dismissal Dismissal Dismissal 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHBDA-R2 ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN {AIP) In compliance with Act 2243 of 2005, elementary classroom teachers and both middle and high school teachers of English language arts and mathematics will develop an Academic Improvement Plan (AIP) for each student who  is not performing on grade level (K-2) as measured by developmentally appropriate testing\n is not \"proficient\" on any part of the state's Benchmark examinations in grades three through eight (3-8)  is not scoring \"proficient\" on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, geometry, and/or algebra. Beginning with the state assessments given in the spring of 2005, the following sanctions apply:  A student who does not meet satisfactory pass levels is required to participate in remediation activities outlined in the student's individualized academic improvement plan (AIP).  With regard to benchmark assessments, a student will not be promoted to the next grade until the student is deemed to have participated in an academic improvement plan or the student passes the appropriate benchmark assessment.  With regard to end-of-course assessments, students must participate in remediation activities outlined in the student's individualized academic improvement plan in order to receive credit on . his or her transcript.  In 2006 - 2009 school years, students not scoring \"proficient\" on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, geometry, and/or algebra are required to complete the remediation activities outlined in the student's academic improvement plan (AIP) to receive credit.  Beginning with 2009-2010 school year, a student is required to pass an end of course assessment or to finish and meet a satisfactory pass level on an appropriate alternative exit course in order to receive credit for the course on his or her transcript and in order to graduate. Schools and individual teachers are encouraged to develop plans for additional students who, in their judgment, require remediation or intervention. The Academic Improvement Plan (AIP) will document a student's achievement through District-adopted assessment tools, consideration of personalized education services (special education, English-as-a-Second Language, Title I, gifted programs, etc.), identification of areas of need, specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented (see IHBDA-R), and progress. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHBDA-R2 (continued) The Academic Improvement Plan (AIP) and the student's progress toward grade-level or \"proficient\" performance must be shared with parents/guardians at the parent-teacher conferences that are regularly scheduled. If parents do not attend the scheduled parent-teacher conferences, alternate conference times may be scheduled or the form may be mailed. The principal must review and sign all AIPs. The AIP will be used to document parent-teacher conferences. Academic Improvement Plans are to be filed in the students' permanent record folders at the end of each school year or when the student withdraws from the school. Last Revised: December 15, 2005 Date: August 24, 2000 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHCC-R PRE-ADVANCED PLACEMENT AND ADVANCED PLACEMENT COURSES GRADES 6-12 Placement Procedures for Pre-Advanced Placement Courses Students are eligible in Pre-Advanced Placement based on the following established criteria: 1. Proficient in literacy based on the most recent administration of the state benchmark exams: 2. \"B\" average or above in the preceding class 3. Students who earn at least a \"C\" in a Pre-Advanced Placement course may, upon request, be automatically enrolled in the next level course. No teacher recommendation is required. 4. An additional requirement for Pre-Advanced Placement Algebra I is the achievement of an NCE of 64 or greater on the most recent administration of the norm-reference test\nA student may not be excluded from a Pre-Advanced Placement course simply because he/she was not enrolled at that level the previous year if the placement criteria have been met. A waiver placement for Pre-Advanced and Advanced Placement courses will be provided for course enrollment at parent request. Students enrolled in Pre-Advanced and Advanced Placement courses on a waiver basis must maintain a \"C\" average the first nine weeks to remain enrolled in the course(s). Responsibility for Monitoring Enrollment Counselors must routinely check each year to make sure that students with grades of \"A\" or \"B\" in regular-level courses and/or who are scoring at the highest levels on the state's criterion-referenced test or the norm-referenced tests are placed appropriately in Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses. It is the responsibility of both teachers and counselors actively to recruit students into these courses. Accountability and the Quality Index Schools are held accountable for ensuring that increasing percentages of students are enrolled in these rigorous courses. !JI 0 \u0026gt;:::l Cm 2\na u, n ....\na l::m mm z:,,: ....\n!:: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHCC-R (continued) Weighted Grades for Advanced Placement Courses See IKC-R Class Rankings/Grade-Point Average for an explanation of weighted grades for Advanced Placement courses only. B's and C's received in AP courses are to be viewed and treated (but not recorded on the transcript or other official records) as the next higher letter grade when identifying students for the Cum Laude Society, \"All B's\" Honor Roll, and other academic honors and recognition for which the number of A's and/or B's is considered. Advanced Placement Examinations Students are expected to take the applicable AP exam (s). According to the Advanced Placement Rules (3.06) students must take the applicable AP exam to receive weighted credit for the course. Students taking AP courses will receive weighted credit as described in IKC-R Class Rankings/GradePoint Average. Credit will be given for each grading period during the course of the year, but will be retroactively removed from a student's grade for any course in which the student fails to take the applicable AP exam. Students who do not take the AP exam will receive the same numeric value for the grade he/she receives in the course as if it were a non-AP course. The student's score on the exam does not affect the student's grade for the course. Last Revised: December 15, 2005 Date: October 21, 1999 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R CLASS RANKINGS/GRADE-POINT AVERAGES All grades, except those noted in the \"exceptions\" below, earned for high school courses, including excess elective units, will be used in calculating the grade-point average and rank-in-class. Grades included in the computation are as follows: 1. Grades earned for high school courses, whether taken in the regular day, evening school, or summer school program. 2. Grades earned in alternative education programs, including those in LRSD, administered by school districts or other organizations which are accredited through their state department of education or a regional accreditation organization, such as North Central Association of Schools and Colleges (NCA). 3. Transfer grades from accredited schools outside the Little Rock School District. 4. Algebra I (or higher-level mathematics'course) and Level I foreign language (or higher-level foreign language course) taken in eighth grade. 5. Only one (1) unit of physical education. (One-half unit is required\none-half unit may count as an elective. Therefore, only the grades for one unit of physical education will be computed in the grade-point average.) 6. Grades earned in approved concurrent credit college courses offered in cooperation with institutions of higher education {see IKEC-R1 ). 7. Grades earned in summer enrichment programs conducted by institutions of higher education, if the course and credit were approved by the District (see IKEC-R1). 8. Failing grades, unless the courses was retaken and passed (see Exceptions, #1 ). 9. Grade earned for one semester of Driver Education taken from an accredited high school. 10. Grades earned on credit-by-examination to make up failed courses (see IKEC-R3). 11. Passing grade earned on advancement-by-credit for Keyboarding (see IKEC-R6). 12. Grades earned in the District's home-bound programs. 13. Grades earned in approved correspondence courses (see IKEC-R2). 14. Grades earned in approved on-line or distance-learning courses (see IKECR5). 15. Courses in which a student earns an NC (no credit due to excessive absences), unless a course was retaken and passed (see Exceptions, !XI 0 \u0026gt; =l Om 2:,:, u, n -\u0026lt;:,:, !Cm mm z::o: --~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R (continued) #1 ). (Regardless of the student's grade in a course for which he/she earns an NC, the NC, which equals O points, replaces the grade and is used in the calculation of the grade-point average. Exceptions The following grades will not be included in the computation of the grade-point average or rank-in-class: 1. Failing grades (or courses in which students earned an NC for nonattendance) for those courses retaken and passed (effective for all grades 9- 12 students in fall 2001 ), regardless of when the student failed the course). 2. The lower grade of courses retaken to improve understanding and skills (effective for all students re-taking courses previously passed from fall 2004 onward). 3. Grades in courses taken through home schools or in unaccredited schools. 4. Grades on district-administered examinations to determine credit for transfer students from home schools or unaccredited schools. 5. Grades earned in external rehabilitation programs and correctional programs that are not accredited by a state department of education or a regional accreditation organization such as North Central Association or Schools and Colleges (NCA). 6. Courses with grades of \"pass\" or \"fail\" or \"satisfactory\" or \"unsatisfactory.\" 7. Grades in courses that are officially \"dropped\" with the permission of the principal. 8. Grades or credits in below-level or remedial courses. 9. Grades for religion courses taken in non-public schools that are in excess of one-semester equivalent of the LRSD course in Bible as/in Literature. 10. A failing grade earned in Keyboarding in the advancement-by-credit program. 11. Non-credit courses such as Athletics, Office Monitor, Student Council, etc. Re-Enrollment in Courses In order to strengthen understanding and skills needed for advanced study, students may retake a course in which they have previously earned a passing grade of \"D\" or \"C.\" Both the original entry and the retaken entry will be shown on the transcript but only the higher grade symbol will be shown and figured in the calculation of the grade point average. The lower grade symbol will be replaced with the grade symbol \"RT\" for retaken. A student may make up a failed course, as well as a course in which a student earned an NC, in several ways-retake the course during the regular day, evening high school, credit recovery or summer program\nearn credit for a failed course through credit-by- 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R (continued) examination\nand/or retake the failed course through correspondence, on-line, or distance learning. Both the failed entry and the retaken entry will be shown on the transcript but only the passing grade symbol will be shown and figured in the calculation of the grade point average. The failing grade symbol will be replaced with the grade symbol \"RT\" for retaken. A student retaking a course he/she failed due to excessive absences does not have the option of credit-by-examination. A student retaking a course which he/she previously passed does not have the option of summer school or credit-by-examination. Assessment of Transcripts for Transfer Students Transcripts are official records of the culmination of each student's educational experience on the secondary level. Therefore, it is vital that all final grades earned in grades 6-12 be shown in the transcript history, regardless of where they were earned. This is absolutely essential in grades 9-12 in order for cumulative GPA's, credits, and rankings to be accurate. It is the responsibility of the transferring student and his/her parent/guardian to provide the necessary releases, clearances, and information required to obtain an official transcript from the previous school. Upon the receipt of the official transcript, all final grades indicated on that transcript should be transferred exactly as shown to the Little Rock School District's transcript history. The course descriptions shown for each final grade should also be entered as shown. When possible the name of the school should be shown above the grades. Only final grades are entered in the transcript history. Transfer or interim grades or withdrawal grades from other schools should not be entered unless they are final grades. The LRSD uses letter grades, not percentages on transcripts. If the official transcript received from another school shows only percentages, the percentage should be converted to a letter grade using the key provided by the previous school. If no conversion key is provided or obtainable, the percentages shown will be converted to the letter grade indicated on the Arkansas State Grading Scale. Transfers from Home Schools and/or Unaccredited Schools Students who transfer into a Little Rock School District from home schools or schools that are not accredited through a state department of education or a regional accreditation organization such as North Central Association of Schools and Colleges (NCA) must attend the accredited high school for a minimum of four semesters in order to be eligible for rank-in-class calculations. Only the courses taken at the accredited high school will be used in calculating the grade-point average. 3 !II 0 \u0026gt;:::l Om 2::c \"-\u0026lt;':n:c il:m mm Z:0: \"\"'i!:'i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R (continued) Transfer Students' Weighted Grades Weights assigned to grades from other districts or schools for courses that are not Advanced Placement courses, or \"honors\" courses approved for that school district by the Arkansas Department of Education, or dual high school and college credit courses approved by the Arkansas Department of Education for weighted-grade status will not be honored by any LRSD high school in the calculation of the grade-point average or rank-in-class. (See Arkansas Rules and Regulations on \"Uniform Grading Scales for Public Secondary Schools.) Transfer Students from Foreign Schools Foreign exchange students not seeking a diploma from an LRSD high school will not be eligible for rank-in-class. Computing the Grade-Point Average and Rank-in-Class In determining the grade-point average and rank-in-class, the following scale will be used. Also, grades earned in concurrent credit college courses, unless they have been approved for weighted-grade or honors status by the Arkansas Department of Education, will be assigned the following numeric values when such courses are used to compute a student's grade-point average. A= B= C= D= F= NC= 90-100 = 80-89 = 70-79 = 60-69 = 59 and below = 4 points 3 points 2 points 1 point O points 0 points The following scale will be used for Advanced Placement courses, as well as for dual credit courses approved by the Arkansas Department of Education for weighted-grade status, whether taken in LRSD or other districts. It will also be used for \"honors\" courses approved by the Arkansas Department of Education for students who have transferred in from other districts. (See ''Transfer Students' Weighted Grades\" above.) A= B= C= D= F= NC= 90-100 = 80-89 = 70-79 = 60-69 = 59 and below = 5 points 4 points 3 points 2 points O points 0 points 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R (continued) Rank-in-Class The student's rank-in-class will be computed each year in grades 9 and 10 and each semester in grades 11 and 12 and will be available upon request for information to the students and to his/her parent(s)/guardian(s). Although tentative ranking of seniors is done at the end of the seventh semester for college admission, scholarship applications, and/or recognition programs conducted before graduation, the final ranking of seniors will be computed at the end of the eighth semester when semester grades are reported. When a seventh-semester rank-in-class is provided by a Little Rock School District high school official, the high school must include the information that the final rank in class is established at the end of the eighth semester. Release of Information Rank-in-class information will be released to appropriate school, college, or university personnel or to others only at the request or consent of the student, or the parent if the student is a minor, or in response to a judicial order or pursuant to any lawfully issued subpoena. Senior Honors Ties in Rank-in-Class (Effective for the Classes of 2000, 2001, and 2002) In the event two or more students tie for valedictory or salutatory honors, both (or more) students will receive equal recognition. For purposes of award of any valedictory scholarship following the eighth-semester calculations of rank-incl. ass, the student with the highest total number of grade points will be declared the valedictorian. If a valedictory scholarship is awarded prior to the end of the eighth semester, then the seventh semester calculations will be used to make the determination. Honors Recognition In order to be eligible for honors recognition at graduation, the graduating student must have completed the \"Recommended Curriculum,\" successfully completed at least eight advanced courses (Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and/or University Studies courses)\nand achieved a grade-point average of at least 3.5 (see IKF.). Each high school will establish its own traditions for recognizing and awarding honors graduates and their parents. 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R (continued) Definition: Unaccredited School An unaccredited school is a school that has not earned accreditation status by a state department of education or through a regional accreditation organization, such as North Central Association of Schools and Colleges. Credits from home schools and/or unaccredited schools are generally not transferable to accredited schools except through credit-by-examination programs. Definition: Concurrent Credit College Courses Concurrent credit college courses are courses that are offered and taught under the direction of an accredited institution of higher education. Students receive both high school and college credit for successful completion. Implementation Date The provisions of these regulations are effective for the class of 2000, except that the regulations on Senior Honors are effective for the class of 2003. (See also IKF.) Notification These regulations will be published annually in the High School Course Selections publication. Last Revised: December 15, 2005 Date: October 21, 1999 Cross References: Board of Education Policy IKC, Administrative Regulations IKEC-R1 through IKEC-R6, Board of Education Policy IKF and Arkansas Uniform Grading Scales for Public Secondary Schools 6 DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 15, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Proposed Changes in the Middle and High School Curriculum Programs for 2006-2007 BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Board Policy IG, Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review, and Board Regulation IGE-R2, Approval of New Courses, proposed new courses are to be submitted to the Board for approval in December of each year. RATIONALE: In response to the diverse needs of our students as well as our commitment to continuous cultivation of their growth, courses were amended, deleted, and developed so that our students will continue to have a comprehensive and rigorous program of studies. FUNDING (Discussed under Impact Statements in Table that follows): RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the recommended course additions and changes. PREPARED BY: Dennis Glasgow, Senior Director, Curriculum Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent, Educational Services Proposed Middle School Course Additions, Deletions and Changes: Action School Course Proposed Rationale Impact Statement All Middle Pre-Algebra Addition Seventh and eighth grade Algebra I This would replace the Schools students miss the benefit of seventh math that students would and/or eighth grade mathematics. normally take the year Since they must take the seventh and before they take Algebra I. eighth grade Benchmark Exams, this No impact on FTE's or course will compact the essential Pre- budget. Algebra skills into one course that students will take the year before taking Algebra I Proposed High School Course Additions, Deletions and Changes: Action School Course Proposed Rationale Impact Statement Parkview AP Music Addition The addition of this course will AP courses are Theory V, 2 meet the needs of advanced automatically approved by semesters students who take AP Music ADE: thus, we do not Theory IV during the junior year. have to seek approval. No impact on FTE's, master schedule, or budget since the AP Music IV and proposed AP Music V students will be in the same class with the same teacher. Parkview Career Addition This course is required to This Is a Workforce Communicatio complete a program of study in Education course\nthus, ns,2 AudioNisual and Performing Arts no additional approval semesters and Communications. needed from ADE. Career-Tech and Carl Perkins will fund. No additional FTEs are reauired. Dunbar Global Addition\nDunbar is an International A new (or reinstated Studies, 2 however, the Studies magnet but has not had course) will have some semesters course was a Global Studies course since impact on the master previously the original teacher of Global schedule and on the offered Studies left. A qualified teacher distribution of core and is now available. elective teachers. Books and materials will be needed. Hall STRIVE Addition This is a computer-based This Is a Workforce delivery system that integrates Education course\nNo basic academic skills to prepare additional FTE required\nstudents for vocational skills funded through Career-training and entry level jobs. Tech and Carl Perkins Content of reading and math budgets. lessons is selected on the basis of each student's selection of a vocational interest from 15 available options and is specifically geared toward special populations. Action School Course Proposed All High 031015 Change in Schools Programming course A, 1 semester prerequisites All High 031023 Change in Schools Programming course B, 1 semester prerequisites Fair Senior Addition Seminar, 2 semesters All High Computer Addition Schools Applications (CA) I, 11,111, 1 semester Fair and 492580 SQL Addition Central (Structural Query Language) Database Fundamentals , 1 semester Fair and 492590 SQL Addition Central (Structural Query Language) Database Programming, 1 semester Rationale Current 11rereguisites: Keyboarding Pro11osed 11rereguisites: Keyboarding and Geometry (stronolv recommended) Current 11rereguisites: Keyboarding and Programming A Pro112sed 11rereguisites: Keyboarding and Geometry (strongly recommended) The course content is intended to facilitate students' transition from school to work. This capstone course will infuse the internship, senior project, career guidance, higher education exploration, electronic portfolio, and SCANS skills study. This is a self-paced course that allows students to move through two or all three courses within a semester. A basic programming course is being offered currently in the high schools. This first semester course offers highly advanced programming language and organizational structure training. A basic programming course is being offered currently in the high schools. This second semester course offers highly advanced programming language and organizational structure training. Impact Statement None None This is a Workforce Education course\nthus no additional approval is needed from ADE. No additional FTEs are needed. Career and Technical Ed will fund course materials and training. Thi! 1! a W51rkforce ~!!U!,!tlQn !.21.!rst: thus, no additional approval is needed from ADE. can be taught by any business education teacher already on the staff of the high schools\nit is strongly recommended by HSTW. No additional staff is needed\ncourse will be funded through career-Tech and car1 Perilins budget. This Is a Workforce Education course\nNo additional FTEs are needed. The goals and objectives are being infused into an existing course as a pilot. Course will be funded through Career-Tech and Car1 Perkins budoet. This Is !! W51rkforce E!!ucati2n cou!Je\nNo additional FTEs are needed. The goals and objectives are being infused into an existing course as a pilot. Course will be funded through career- Tech and car1 Perilins budget. !JI 0  :::1 Cm 2\"' U\u0026gt; (\") -4:,0 !l:m mm z:,,: '\"\"i!!: Action School Course Proposed Rationale Impact Statement Parkview 123400 Music Change an The course is a pre-requisite for All we would need to do is Theory Ill, 2 existing course to AP Music theory IV. The add Pre-AP label to the Semesters add the Pre-AP curriculum meets the rigor that existing course. Label should be in a Pre-AP Course All High 033001 Change in Current 12rereguisites: None Schools Multimedia course Word Processing A and B or Applications in prerequisites Computerized Business Business A, I Applications and Desktop semester Publishing A Proi:1osed 12rereguisites: Word Processing I or Computerized Business Applications or CA I, II, 111, and Desktop Publishing A All High 033013 Change in Current 12rereguisites: None Schools Multimedia course Multimedia Applications in Applications in prerequisites Business A Business B, 1 Proi:1osed 12rereguisites: semester Multimedia Applications A All High 172135 Travel Change in title Current title and 12rereguisite: None Schools and Tourism, and in Travel and Tourism 1 semester prerequisites Keyboarding Proi:1osed title and 12rereguisite: Introduction to Travel and Tourism Word Processing A or Computerized Business Applications or CA I, 11, Ill All High 031006 Change in Current i:1rereguisite: None Schools Computerized prerequisite Word Processing A Business Pro1:12sed i:1rereguisite: Applications, 2 Keyboarding semesters All High 172103 Change in content Current descri11tion: Workplace None Schools Workplace and/or skills taught readiness teaches the skills and Readiness, 1 or in the course attributes needed to succeed in the semester description changing workplace through video, interactive videodisc, computer, and print lessons. The course is divided into three units: problem-solving, teamwork, and self-management. Pro11osed descri11tion: Workplace Readiness is a one-semester course offered in grades 10-12. It focuses on problem solving, teamwork, communication skills, the use of technology, and self-management. The course is divided into five units: resources, interpersonal skills, information, systems, and technoloav. All High 031017 Desktop Change in Current 11rereguisites: None Schools Publishing A, 1 prerequisites Word Processing A and B or semester Computerized Business Applications Pro122sed 11rereguisites: Word Processing A or Computerized Business Annlications or CA I, II Action School Course Proposed All High 032017 Desktop Change in Schools Publishing B, 1 prerequisites semester All High AIP Pre- Addition Schools Algebra All High AIP Algebra I Addition Schools All High AIP Geometry Addition Schools All High AIP Eleventh Addition Schools Grade Literacy Action School Course Proposed Hall Web Site I- Addition Foundations, 1 semester Hall Web Page Addition Design II-Site Designer, 1 semester Rationale Qyrr~nt 12rereguisites: Keyboarding and Desktop Publishing A PrQllQSed 12reregui~ites: Desktoo Publishina A Local credit course to remediate students who are not proficient on the Eighth Grade Math Benchmark Exam. Local credit course to remediate students who are not proficient on the Algebra I EOC Exam. Local credit course to remediate students who are not proficient on the Geometry EOC Exam. Local credit course to remediate students who are not proficient on the Literacy EOC Exam. Rationale Some web design is infused into our Word Processing Course\nhowever, this course will provide enough training to allow students to become nationally certified in Webmaster Desian. Some web design is infused into our Word Processing Course\nhowever, this course will provide enough training to allow students to become nationally certified in Webmaster Desian. Impact Statement None Increase in math FTEs will be required\npossible decrease in FTEs for elective courses\nNovaNET or Plato e-learning system will be utilized for the course. Increase in math FTEs will be required\npossible decrease in FTEs for elective courses\nNovaNET or Plato e-learning system will be utilized for the course. Increase in math FTEs will be required\npossible decrease in FTEs for elective courses\nNovaNET or Plato e-learning system will be utilized for the course. Increase in literacy FTEs will be required\npossible decrease in FTEs for elective courses\nNovaNET or Plato e-learning system will be utilized for the course. Impact Statement This Is a Workforce Education course\nno additional FTE is needed. Career-Tech and Car1 Perkins budget will fund. This Is a Workforce Education course\nno additional FTE is needed. Career-Tech and Car1 Perkins budget will fund. !II 0 \u0026gt;=I ~~ cnn ....\no l::m mm z\n:,,\n\"\"\"'\n!:\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: December 15, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Elementary Textbook Adoption Timeline Extension BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Board Regulation IJ-R 1, Textbook Adoptions, the textbook adoption selection for elementary must be approved by the Board of Directors at the December board meeting. However, due to extenuating circumstances this timeline can not be met. RATIONALE: The math textbooks were approved by the State Board in late September and the Commissioner's memo announcing the textbook list was electronically sent to school districts on October 18. Additionally, the sponsored ADE Book Caravan, which is the start of the process for districts, was held on November 14. Consequently, the local adoption process began later than originally intended. The textbook adoption committee needs ample time to conduct a comprehensive examination and evaluation of each of the six state recommended textbooks. As a result of the late start, the committee is unable to complete its charge to meet the established December deadline. An extension of the timeline would afford the committee sufficient time to complete its task and bring a recommendation to the Board in February. FUNDING: NIA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Education approve the timeline extension. PREPARED BY: Dr. Olivine Roberts !I' 0 \u0026gt;=I Cm 2\na en n ....\na :11:m mm z\no: .... j!:'\n.!.I,' z \u0026gt;z (\") ~ en DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 15, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Guiding Principles and Goals BACKGROUND: An organizational audit completed in March 2005 by consultants Dr. Dennis Smith and Mr. Robert Klempen provided the Little Rock School District with an outline of best practices used by successful school districts around the country. Among the findings was the need for the LRSD to develop a smaller and more responsive central administration. An administrative reorganization began on July 1, 2005 and eliminated more than 100 positions. The reorganization enabled the district to more sharply focus on its schools, the hub of its core business, and to establish administrative line authority to run the schools and staff authority to support them. The final phase of the district restructuring began in late July 2005 as the Board sought to link its core beliefs, as detailed in the 2003 LRSD Strategic Plan, to employee performance. By October 2005, the Board and the district's senior administrative team had developed a series of guiding principles and measurable goals. These principles and goals, which are rooted in the 2003 LRSD Strategic Plan, are the heart of the district's new employee performance acco.untability system. RATIONALE: The guiding principles and measurable goals clearly define the educational expectations of the Board and the community at large. The net result is an accountability system that will enable the Board and the community to gauge how well the district is performing against expectations. FUNDING: This recommendation carries no direct financial implications. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the guiding principles and measurable goals that accompany this agenda item.  !ID 0 \u0026gt;::::l Om l:\n.o en n ....\no l:m mm z\n,,: .... ii!: !.I.D, z \u0026gt;z n ~ en PREPARED BY: Joseph Mittiga Government/Public Affairs Officer LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District 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 though 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. GUIDING PRINCIPLE ONE We expect all students to reach their full potential related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship and service to others. Goal A: Goal B: GoalC: Students will demonstrate continued and improved academic achievement. Students will be provided a comprehensive and rigorous curriculum. Students will demonstrate positive citizenship and service to others. GUIDING PRINCIPLE TWO We effectively manage resources in order to achieve the district's mission. Goal A: Goal B: GoalC: District resources will be allocated in an equitable manner. A positive fund balance will be maintained to ensure the fiscal solvency of the district. District facilities will be operated in an efficient and effective manner. GUIDING PRINCIPLE THREE We encourage parents to be knowledgeable about and participate in their child's educational program. Goal A: Goal B: GoalC: The district will support outreach programs that engage parents in their child's education. Parents will feel welcome at school. Staff will assist parents in accessing those school resources necessary to support their child's education. !JI 0 \u0026gt;::::1 Cm 2\nu en n ....\nu l:m mm z\n,,: \"\"\n!:\ni\"' .!J.,I z  ~ ~ en GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOUR We are committed to providing a safe and orderly learning environment. Goal A: Goal B: GoalC: Schools will promote a safe learning environment. School facilities will be clean, secure and well maintained. Students will treat each other with respect and demonstrate socially acceptable behavior. GUIDING PRINCIPLE FIVE We expect all employees to be responsible for providing or supporting quality educational experiences for all students. Goal A: A qualified and well-trained staff will provide an effective and supportive environment for students. GUIDING PRINCIPLE SIX We are committed to building effective community partnerships. Goal A: Meaningful private and public relationships will be established and the community will feel valued and recognized for its contributions. Goal B: Schools will establish partnerships to address local social and economic issues. DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 15, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Otter Creek Attendance Zone Adjustments to Zone Blocks 3635, 3654, and 3655 BACKGROUND: Enrollment data and facility operations for Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Watson and Otter Creek Elementary Schools' attendance zones reveal a disparity in enrollments and a need to maximize the capacity of Mabelvale Elementary. The demolition of the Cloverdale Elementary facility due to the structural failure of the foundation required the relocation of those students to other elementary locations throughout the LRSD district. Watson and Mabelvale Elementary Schools were the recipients of the majority of students from Cloverdale Elementary. Otter Creek Elementary receives a total of 103 students from the Otter Creek attendance zone blocks 3635, 3654 and 3655, which are located in the northeast quadrant of the Mabelvale Elementary area. The present enrollment at Otter Creek Elementary is 580 students which is 43 students over the capacity of 537 students\na total of four portable classrooms are currently in use at Otter Creek. Mabelvale and Watson are under utilized with 365 students enrolled at Mabelvale, approximately 78 students under capacity\nWatson Elementary has an enrollment of 522 students, approximately 69 students under capacity. If no modifications are made to the current Otter Creek attendance zones, an additional portable will be required on the Otter Creek Elementary campus for the 2006-2007 school year. To reduce the need for additional classrooms at Otter Creek Elementary and increase the utilization of Mabelvale Elementary, it is recommended that we remove the attendance zone blocks of 3635, 3654 and 3655 from the Otter Creek Elementary attendance zone and incorporate those zone blocks into the Mabelvale Elementary attendance zone. .!.l,l z \u0026gt;z C') ~ u, We propose that all students presently attending Otter Creek Elementary from the zone blocks of 3635, 3654 and 3655 be \"grandfathered\" and allowed to finish their elementary education at Otter Creek Elementary. All new registrants and Pre-K students from zone blocks 3635, 3654 and 3655 would be assigned to Mabelvale Elementary. RATIONALE: The operational efficiency of district facilities and building capacities are reviewed annually prior to student registration in January. In addition, the district's Comprehensive Planning Study (COPS) Committee, will continue to review attendance and facilities needs and will report to the board as needed. The need to reduce the use of portables on our school campuses whenever possible by aligning the school capacities, attendance zones, and student enrollment lessens overall operational costs to the LRSD. Additional students housed in portables on a school campus negatively impact the school's infrastructure and impact operations of the cafeteria, media center, restrooms and parking. Detailed enrollment and capacity of the elementary schools in the southwest quadrant of the district are provided for your review. FUNDING: NIA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that zone blocks 3635, 3654, and 3655 be transferred from the Otter Creek attendance zone to the Mabelvale Elementary attendance zone. Board action at this time will allow sufficient notification to parents and the community prior to student registration in January 2006. It should be emphasized that this action takes into consideration all students presently attending Otter Creek Elementary and provisions to allow their attendance through the end of their elementary school years. PREPARED BY: Hugh Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District Enrollment Data (P4 - 5th Grade) October 1, 2005 Enrollment Black% Cloverdale 113 75.2 Mabel vale 338 76 Otter Creek 580 64.5 Watson 458 91.5 November 28, 2005 ~ .~ ....\n,:, Elementarv:Schools . r,.~\\ Enrollment Black% Cloverdale 0 0 Mabel vale 365 78.1 Otter Creek 580 65.0 Watson 522 88.1 Relocated Cloverdale Students: Mabel vale Increase Watson Increase + 27 +63 + 90 (Student Increase) -.. .,. ,White% 6.19 18.6 14.8 9.2 26.5 8.9 1.5 6.98 ,.. . :t White% Other %  0 0 11 10.9 21.4 13.6 1.5 10.3 ~ Opportunities Elsewhere ~ :c ! ~\n,o z~ C) 0 ~!!? \u0026gt;\u0026lt; z 5C, \n,o \u0026gt;m ~~ 0\n,o C:\n,i: ~(I\u0026gt; Im:: -z, .?.I, ,z. z C') ~ (I\u0026gt; Current School Gender Not currently attending F LRSD M Total F BALE M Total F BASELINE M Total F BOOKER M Total F BRADY M Total F CARVER M Total F CHICOT M Total F DODD M Total F FAIR PARK M Total F GIBBS M Total F KING M Total F MABELVALE ELEM M Total F MEADOWCLIFF M Total F OTTER CREEK M Total F WATSON M Total F WOODRUFF M Total F TOTAL M Total Little Rock School District Current School Attendance for Zone Blocks (3635, 3654 and 3655) Black White Hispanic Asian 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 8 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 39 1 9 0 41 2 6 0 80 3 15 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 52 1 12 0 67 4 8 0 119 5 20 0 CIS 12/1/05 Native Am Other Total 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 50 1 3 53 1 4 103 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 67 1 4 84 1 6 151 Little Rock School District Student Counts by Grade, Race, and Gender for Selected Zone Blocks for Otter Creek Attendance Grade Gender Black White Hispanic Asian Native Am Zone Other 01 F 7 0 0 0 0 0 M 4 0 0 0 0 2 02 F 2 0 1 0 0 0 M 6 0 0 0 0 0 03 F 6 0 2 0 0 0 3635 M 9 0 0 0 0 0 04 F 2 0 0 0 0 0 M 7 0 0 0 0 1 K F 4 0 0 0 0 0 M 5 0 1 0 0 0 P4 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 2 0 1 0 0 0 01 F 4 0 0 0 0 1 M 4 1 2 0 0 0 02 F 5 0 5 0 0 1 M 5 0 0 0 0 1 03 F 6 0 2 0 0 0 3654 M 5 1 1 0 1 0 04 F 6 0 0 0 0 0 M 6 0 2 0 0 0 K F 2 0 2 0 0 0 M 6 0 1 0 0 0 P4 F 5 0 0 0 0 0 M 3 1 0 0 0 0 01 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 1 1 0 0 0 0 02 F 0 1 0 0 0 0 M 3 0 0 0 0 0 03 F 1 0 0 0 0 0 3655 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 F 1 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 K F 1 0 0 0 0 0 M 1 0 0 0 0 0 P4 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 11 0 0 0 0 1 01 M 9 2 2 0 0 2 Total 20 2 2 0 0 3 F 7 1 6 0 0 1 02 M 14 0 0 0 0 1 Total 21 1 6 0 0 2 F 13 0 4 0 0 0 03 M 14 1 1 0 1 0 Total 27 1 5 0 1 0 F 9 0 0 0 0 0 Total 04 M 13 0 2 0 0 1 Total 22 0 2 0 0 1 F 7 0 2 0 0 0 K M 12 0 2 0 0 0 Total 19 0 4 0 0 0 F 5 0 0 0 0 0 P4 M 5 1 1 0 0 0 Total 10 1 1 0 0 0 Total F 52 1 12 0 0 2 M 67 4 8 0 1 4 Total 119 5 20 0 1 6 as of 11-18--05 Total 7 6 3 6 8 9 2 8 4 6 0 3 5 7 11 6 8 8 6 8 4 7 5 4 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 12 15 27 15 15 30 17 17 34 9 16 25 9 14 23 5 7 12 67 84 151 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\n::: !..l,l z z\u0026gt; n 1: \"' 2004-2005 Capacities SCHOOL Central HS Fair HS Hal/HS McClellan HS Parkview Mag. HS Sub-Total Cloverdale Middle Dunbar Middle Forest Heights Middle Henderson Middle Mabe/vale Middle Mann Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Sub-Total Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbriaht Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson Kirn, Mabe/vale McDennott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Riqhtse/1 Rockefeller Romine Steohens Terry Wakefield Washinaton Watson WestemHills Williams Wilson Woodruff Sub-Total Gr1nd Total Little Rock School District 20CU-2005 Capacities Capacity 2276 (12-03) 1200 1754 (12-03) 1440 *includes annex 1200 7870 885 (12-03) 780 780 960 681 (12-03) 900 750 750 6486 488 (12-03) 360 645 409 556 509 489 271 304 400 532 565 (8-17-04) 358 321 471 715 443 . 453 358 283 537 (12-03) 350 296 481 * P1 - 5th Grade 507 (12-03) 646 575  includes portables 489  dental clinic + 18 836 591 (12-03) 320 490 340 314 15702 30053 12/6/2005 DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 15, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.C.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2005 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 8, 2005 for EYE are considered intern teachers. PREPARED BY: David ~~i. Senior Director of Human Resources\n\u0026gt;=\u0026lt; Personnel Changes Page2 December 15, 2005 NAME START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Resignations/Terminations Certified Emploll:ees Blackwell, Willie Chemistry/ 8-13-97 Reason: Accepted another MCCLELLAN 11-17-05 position Bufford, Sherrill Special Education/ 8-13-97 Reason: Accepted another FULBRIGHT 12-9-05 position Riley, Leah Elementary I/ 9-15-69 Reason: Retired BRADY 12-30-05 New Certified Emploll:ees Barlett, Denise Art/ 11-14-05 HENDERSON Mascoe, Ryan Mathematics/ 10-13-05 CENTRAL Mothershed, Michelle Elementary V/ 11-16-05 FRANKLIN Scogins, Sue Mathematics/ 11-14-05 FOREST HEIGHTS Williams, Lula Mathematics/ 10-4-05 HALL Zavalza, Margarita Spanish/ 11-8-05 CENTRAL/MCCLELLAN SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 6-14 51845.00 TCH925 4-15 49842.00 SPE925 6-21 60562.00 TCH925 2-08 38666.00 TCH925 annual 25374.00 prorated 4-01 34747.00 TCH925 annual 26784.15 prorated 4-06 39392.00 TCH925 annual 25440.67 prorated 2-16 32129.85 TCH925 annual 21085.21 prorated 1-09 38318.00 TCH925 annual 30933.80 prorated 1-11 40640.00 TCH925 annual 27516.67 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 December15,2005 ~ :z: !~\n,o' -z,n... c,o ~!:!? )\u0026lt;Z START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL =C) =-\n,o CLASS SALARY  m NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE ~~ O\n,o c\n., ~\"' Zavalza, Reynaldo Spanish/ 11-8-05 4-18 53326.00 !mI: MCCLELLAN TCH925 annual ~ 36106.15 prorated Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Em(!loyees Banks, Lorice Instructional Aide/ 8-8-03 33-14 15249.00 Reason: Job abandonment KING 10-25-05 INA925 Dawson, Bruce CARE/ 4-22-05 4-01 6.25 Reason: None given CARE 11-15-05 CARE per hour Deadmon, Carolyn Custodian/ 9-2-91 31-16 22752.00 Reason: Retired MCDERMOTT 11-15-05 CUS12 Eaton, Douglas Director/ 6-3-91 75-20 95808.00 Reason: Accepted another SCHOOL 12-15-05 ADN12 position CONSTRUCTION Fields, Janice CARE/ 8-19-05 1-08 8.08 Reason: None given CARE 11-15-05 CARE per hour Harrison, Jami CARE/ 8-19-05 3-08 8.89 Reason: None given CARE 11-15-05 CARE per hour Milam, Lisa CARE/ 1-24-05 1-04 7.44 Reason: None given CARE 11-30-05 CARE per hour Moreland-Adams, Robbie Nurse/ 11-11-04 52-07 32712.00 ?\u0026lt; Reason: None Given FRANKLIN 12-21-05 NURSES .., z \u0026gt; \u0026gt;~ Turner, Jr., Louis Instruction Aide/ 8-16-05 33-16 16192.00  m 8 en Reason: Resigned without CHICOT 11-15-05 INA925 zc )J,\"0 notice\n--\u0026lt;~ c3 Wilson, Robert Custodian/ 8-19-97 31-13 20904.00 \"'~ ~ Reason: Terminated FULBRIGHT 12-16-05 CUS12 New Non-Certified Em(!loyees Cole, Christopher Analyst I/ 11-28-05 60-10 45420.00 .!.I,' INFORMATION AN12 annual z \u0026gt; SERVICES 26478.89 z (') prorated ~ \"' Personnel Changes Page4 December 15, 2005 NAME Collins, Carl Davis, Vertie Deane, Christy Dillard, Brandy Duncan, Mineka Griffith, Keysha Howard, Amy Janss, Gloria Johnson, Tonya Lovett, Frederick --- -- - - -- ---------- - . START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Painter/ 11-21-05 49-07 29904.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; MAINT annual OPERATIONS 17815.15 prorated Instructional Aide/ 11-7-05 33-09 13140.00 OTTER CREEK INA925 annual 9162.49 prorated Instructional Aide/ 11-28-05 33-16 16192.00 TERRY INA925 annual 10240.35 prorated Security Officer/ 10-21-05 36-10 15536.00 HALL SOFR9 annual 11609.32 prorated CARE/ 11-7-05 3-03 8.10 CARE CARE per hour CARE/ 8-29-05 3-17 10.41 CARE CARE per hour Instructional Aide/ 11-28-05 33-16 16192.00 TERRY INA925 annual 10240.35 prorated Instructional Aide/ 11-28-05 33-16 16192.00 BRADY INA925 annual 10240.35 prorated CARE/ 12-05-05 3-03 8.10 CARE CARE per hour Instructional Aide/ 11-14-05 33-16 16192.00 FRANKLIN INA925 annual 10853.02 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 December 15, 2005 NAME McKnight, Devon Sullivan, Patricia Williams, Cynfranesia Buckelew, Richard START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Analyst I/ 11-21-05 60-10 45420.00 COMPUTER AN12 annual INFORMATION 27058.72 SERVICES prorated Child Nutrition/ 11-21-05 3-01 9401.00 FULBRIGHT FSH550 annual 6216.79 prorated Custodian/ 11-15-05 31-01 5718.50 CARVER CUS925 annual 3822.69 prorated Non-Certified Promotions Promoted from Electrician Trade Specialist to Electrician Foreman .!J,,i z  zn\nE \"' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: December 15, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District receives donations from businesses and individuals on a regular basis. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District that donations are not formally accepted until they are approved by the Board of Directors. RATIONALE: District policy states that, in order to maintain the centralized fixed asset property accounting system, all property donation requests are forwarded to the Director of Procurement. The Procurement Department forwards the requests, along with the appropriate recommendations, to the Board of Directors for acceptance and approval. In order for proper recognition and appreciation to be conveyed to the donor, donor's name and current mailing address should be included in the donation memo. FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached donation requests be approved and accepted in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. PREPARED BY: ~arral Paradis, Director of Procurement Gwen Caraway, Fixed Asset Property Manager\n\u0026gt;=\u0026lt; DONATIONS School/De(!artment Item Donor Central High School $149.27 cash to be Marion W. Fulk used to purchase a tent for the boys' track team J.A. Fair High School $500.00 grant to be The Walton Foundation used for technology Wal-Mart Store #126 in Desktop Publishing Fulbright Elementary Field trip, valued at Alltel Corporation School $499.50, for Mrs. Gray's second grade class to see \"Dora, the Explorer\" on October 18, 2005 Jefferson Elementary \"Agency Hands in the The Allstate Foundation School Community\" grant check in the amount of $500.00 to the Stars Program McClellan High School $50.00 cash for incentive Miriam Bernard of program for students Salon Benefits, LLC scoring proficient and advanced on the AR ACT AAP Algebra test McClellan High School $50.00 cash for incentive Mike Parker of Parker program for students and Associates Metal Sales scoring proficient and advanced on the AR ACTAAP Algebra test McClellan High School $50.00 cash for incentive Raymond House program for students scoring proficient and advanced on the AR ACT AAP Algebra test McClellan High School $50.00 cash for incentive McClellan High School PTSA program for students scoring proficient and advanced on the AR ACT AAP Algebra test School/Department Rightsell Academy Rightsell Academy $710.05 check to be used for incentives $200.00 cash to be used to purchase rainy day games for students Donor Second Baptist Church Rightsell PTA !.D., z \u0026gt;z 0 ~ u, Litt{e 'Rock Centra{ Jfigli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutli Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, ..'Arkansas 72202 'Pfione 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 11/10/2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT I' FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL~ t,~CLL,v SUBJECT: DONATION Marion W. Fulk of 105 Colonial Court, Little Rock, AR 72205, donated $149.27 to purchase a tent for our boy's track. team. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. J A. Fair Magnet High School Science and Technology Systems 13420 David 0. Dodd Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Phone 501-447-1700 . Fax 5-1-448-1701 To: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement From: Randy Rutherford, Princip~-R Re: Donation Date: November 18, 2005 I would like to recommend that the following donation to J. A Fair High School Be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District: A grant from the Walton Foundation in the amount of $500.00 to be used for technology in Desktop Publishing. Kenita Thompson Wal-Mart Store #126 700 South Bowman Rd. Little Rock, AR 72212 Fulbright Elementary Memo To: From: CC: Date: Darral Paradis, Director Of Procurement Deborah Mitchell, Principal November 4, 2005 Re: Donations to Fulbright Elementary Alltel Corporation, PO Box 3373, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 has generously donated a field trip for Mrs. Gray's Second Grade Class to see Dora The Explorer on October 18, 2005. The trip is valued at $499.50. It is recommended that this donation be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District board of Directors. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, \u0026amp;~\u0026amp;J~) Deborah Mitchell Principal DM:lam .. - t ,-.. ' ' -\n-. -- - r - - :, . ' . NOV 4. 2~S5 !. ...... _ t... ..... -- .. _ ... _ J  .: ... ~ - R-- Check # 2089136 Check Date 10/18/05 Invoice Date 11 H 05 CELEBRITY ATTRACTIONS 300 S SPRING STE 100 LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 CELEBRITY ATTRACTIONS Invoice Description Number ACR21311 TICKETS FULBRI ALL TEL CORPORATION 000001 799 0 54 Vendor # 18169726 Amount t499 _50 2089136 Gross Discount Net Amount Amount Amount 499 . 50 499 . 50 ----------- --------- -- ----------- 499 .50 499 . 50 LITTLE ROCK, Al 72203 l~y THE AUTHENTICITY OF THIS MULTI-TONE SECURITY DOCUMENT.  CHECK BACKGROUND AREA CHANGES COLOR GRADUALLY FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. f ~  ,7,\"\"'  .,.,_ N' .. ,,, - . \"\"\" .... - _. . - - .. --- -~ r----~~~--: ._,._, ~olll..,Tf.~ .. TJW't .. 11\"\"~ J.llltEl ALL TEL CORPORATION PO BOX -3373 AP HELPDESK (501) 905-7388 FOUR HUNDRED NINETY NINE AND 50/100 Pay to the order of: CELEBRITY ATTRACTIONS 300 S SPRING STE 100 LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 .y LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203 Check Number: 2089136 Control Number 18169726 ..!!::lliL 111 Date Pay this Amount 1 10/18/05 I s. ...... 499.50 1 NOT VALID AFTER 180 DAYS 81 nkof Amuica NA ~ d,, Aitla nt, 1 D,k,lb Cou~t~, Gur1ia ~ --______ ______ _________ _________ _:_ ____ ~ UIJIORJZED_Sllil,IA.I.U RE ___ _ !I' .., z \u0026gt;z (\") ~ JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL October 25, 2005 To: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management From: Roberta Mannon, Principal Jefferson Elementary School Re: Donation to Jefferson Elementary School The Jefferson STARS program is pleased to accept the Agency Hands in the Community grant check for $500.00 from the Allstate Foundation. The Allstate Foundation 8711 Freeport Parkway North Irving, TX 75063 Attn: Accounts Payable A-2 It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Sincerely, Roberta Mannon Principal r~- l' n.... ... \" ....... -  McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement Larry Buck, Princi~ Donation November 7, 2005 I would like to recommend that the following donation to McClellan High School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District: A donation of $50.00 from Miriam Bernard of Salon Benefits, LLC, PO Box 22416, Little Rock, AR 72221. This donation is to be used for a Student Incentive Program. This program is to award students who scored proficient and advanced on the Arkansas ACT AAP Algebra test. r:--:,. \"\":\": ~- r : ~,., ~ ~~ ~~ t,. .. , ... ..: _\n...... ~ - ..... 9417 Geyer Springs Road Phone 447-2100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 .?..,' z \u0026gt;z 0 \u0026gt;,... U\u0026gt; McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL TO: FROM: RE: DATE: THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement Larry Buck, Principal@J Donation November 4, 2005 I would like to recommend that the following donations to McClellan High School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District: A donation of $50.00 from Mike Parker of Parker and Associates Metal Sales, PO Box 257, Mabelvale, AR 72103. A donation of $50.00 from Raymond House, 12000 Cherrystone Circle, Little Rock, AR 72210. A donation of $50.00 from McClellan High School PTSA, 9417 Geyer Springs Rd., Little Rock, AR 72209 These donations are to be used for a Student Incentive Program. This program is to award students who scored proficient and advanced on the Arkansas ACT AAP Algebra test. S ,-, --.l~ ~ _ ,._.., _ 9417 Geyer Springs Road  Phone 447-2100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Rightsell Academy Katina Ray, Principal 2700 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone (501) 447-6700 Fax (501) 447-6701 ~ Rightsell ... United for Student Achievement!~ To: Darral Paradis From: Katina Ray, Principal Date: 11/07/2005 Re: Donation Rightsell Academy recei,ed a check in the amount of S7 l 0.05 from Second Baptist Church, 222 East Eighth Street, Little Rock, AR 72202. The money has been deposited in our school acti,ity account to be used for incenti\\'es. It is my recommendation that tl1is donation be accepted in accordance with tJ1e policies of tJ1e ljttJe Rock School District.\n\u0026gt;=\u0026lt; !..\", z \u0026gt;z C') ~ en Rightsell Academy Katina Ray, Principal 2700 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone (501) 447-6700 Fax (501) 447-6701 ~ Rightsell ... United for Student Achievement! ~ To: Darral Paradis ,, From: Katina Ray, Principal , \u0026lt;S [_, Date: 11/07/2005 Re: Donation 'The Right,\nell PTA has donated S200 to the school. The money will be used for rainy clay games for the students. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: December 15, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Financial Reports BACKGROUND: Financial reporting is designed to keep the Board of Directors up-to-date regarding the District's current financial condition. Financial reports are submitted monthly to the Board for review and approval. RATIONALE: November 2005 financial reports are submitted for the Board's review and approval. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the financial reports as submitted. PREPARED BY: Jean A. Ring, Director Finance and Accounting LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2004 AND 2005 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2004/05 11 /30/04 COLLECTED 2005/06 11 /30/05 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 61,436,691 23,738,299 38.64% 67,268,610 23,880,924 35.50% DELINQUENT TAXES 12,135,000 3,879,273 31 .97% 9,200,000 5,604,871 60.92% 40% PULLBACK 31,250,000 0.00% 33,000,000 0.00% EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 205,000 0.00% 210,000 0.00% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 155,000 0.00% 145,000 0.00% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 185,000 0.00% 204,000 0.00% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 485,000 66,215 13.65% 365,000 68,212 18.69% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 245,000 138,537 56.55% 750,000 345,521 46.07% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 215,000 124,843 58.07% 195,000 127,964 65.62% TOTAL 106,311 ,691 27,947,167 26.29% 111,337,610 30,027,491 26.97% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 22,000 11 ,183 50.83% 21 ,500 9,963 46.34% TOTAL 22,000 11 ,183 50.83% 21 ,500 9,963 46.34% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 65,082,694 23,704,408 36.42% 66,095,155 23,416,098 35.43% ALTERNATIVE LEARNING 1,927,250 963,624 50.00% 1,100,000 0.00% ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 193,739 0.00% 200,000 0.00% NATL SCHL LUNCH STUDENT FUNDING 6,498,240 2,362,996 36.36% 6,877,920 2,501 ,060 36.36% PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1,141 ,165 1,141 ,165 100.00% 953,144 953,144 100.00% SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS(STRS/HEAL TH) 8,275,000 2,775,052 33.54% 8,200,000 3,589,874 43.78% VOCATIONAL 1,350,000 528,811 39.17% 1,785,000 842,674 47.21% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 2,100,000 95,850 4.56% 2,425,000 319,457 13.17% EARLY CHILDHOOD 5,542,510 2,593,434 46.79% 4,000,000 2,352,400 58.81% TRANSPORTATION 4,125,000 1,325,044 32.12% 4,252,900 1,415,633 33.29% M TO M TRANSFERS 4,575,000 1,244,739 27.21% 4,100,000 1,214,454 29.62% ADULT EDUCATION 934,380 159,488 17.07% 926,543 127,273 13.74% AT RISK FUNDING 395,000 9,400 2.38% 10,000 0.00% TAP PROGRAM 382,903 7,645 2.00% 288,623 142,623 49.41% TOTAL 102,522,882 36,911,656 36.00% 101 ,214,285 36,874,690 36.43% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 770,000 0.00% 770,000 0.00% TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,295,000 8,155 0.63% 1,370,524 13,285 0.97% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,849,008 0.00% 2,194,000 0.00% TOTAL 3,914,008 8,155 0.21% 4,334,524 13,285 0.31% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 212,770,581 64,878,161 30.49% 216,907,919 66,925,428 30.85% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 22,887,794 5,898,962 25.77% 20,152,896 2,413,281 11 .97% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,500,000 686,501 15.26% 4,784,200 683,181 14.28% MAGNET SCHOOLS 27,964,934 4,700,776 16.81% 28,849,578 5,105,249 17.70% CHARTER SCHOOL 1,340,000 800,000 59.70% TOTAL 55,352,728 11 ,286,239 20.39% 55,126,674 9,001 ,711 16.33% TOT AL REVENUE 268,123,309 76,164,400 28.41% 272,034,593 75,927,139 27.91% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2004 AND 2005 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2004/05 11/30/04 EXPENDED 2005/06 11/30/05 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 117,324,912 34,814,130 29.67% 122,589,665 35,389,606 28.87% BENEFITS 36,185,811 9,790,728 27.06% 35,925,642 10,124,163 28.18% PURCHASED SERVICES 20,959,918 6,423,581 30.65% 22,438,191 6,918,919 30.84% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,725,914 3,462,370 39.68% 10,128,394 5,486,667 54.17% CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,760,600 457,890 16.59% 2,473,965 542,650 21 .93% OTHER OBJECTS 10,770,418 440,411 4.09% 10,759,804 617,761 5.74% DEBT SERVICE 12,474,809 4,590,834 36.80% 12,344,267 4,670,033 37.83% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 209,202,382 59,979,944 28.67% 216,659,928 63,749,799 29.42% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,258,999 5,488,675 21.73% 22,422,961 4,598,387 20.51% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 5,007,809 1,520,297 30.36% 5,428,425 2,078,406 38.29% MAGNET SCHOOLS 27,964,934 7,196,468 25.73% 28,849,578 7,784,180 26.98% CHARTER SCHOOL 1,340,000 306,064 22.84% TOTAL 58,231 ,742 14,205,440 24.39% 58,040,964 14,767,037 25.44% TOT AL EXPENSES 267,434,124 74,185,384 27.74% 274,700,892 78,516,835 28.58% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 689,184 1,979,016 (2,666,300) (2,589,696) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET, M \u0026amp; 0, CHARTER 4,005,957 4,005,957 3,074,390 3,074,390 OPERATING 6,531 ,706 6,531,706 10,753,692 10,753,692 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET, M \u0026amp;\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_1099","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","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":["2005-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"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/1099"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting Happy RECEIVED NOV 1 5 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING , .. NOVEMBER 2005 .. !II \"'D z\u0026gt;\n~ -um ~i:l ~z mm\n,:,C \":e'cn= -a: \u0026gt;.... l5 z r\u0026gt;\n,:, m .0 ~\n,:, ,-\n..: lD V\u0026gt; n-.. ~\n,:,  i 0 =I l\nj z \"' I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests November 17, 2005 5:30 p.m. 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Carver Magnet Elementary School and Raytheon Aircraft Company Forest Heights Middle School and Easy Cash Pawn and Jewelry Otter Creek Elementary School and the Greater Little Rock Optimist Club C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Regular Board Meeting- 10-27-05 :- Regular Board Meeting November 17, 2005 Page2 VI. BOARD POLICY AND REGULATIONS REVIEW A. Second Reading: AC - Nondiscrimination Second Reading: ACD - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Religion Second Reading: ACH - Anti-Harassment VII. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES A. Policy Deletion: IHCA-Summer School B. Quarterly Update Report VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Proposals for Salary Increases Building Maintenance Employees Bus Drivers, Aides and Monitors B. Personnel Changes IX. FINANCE \u0026amp; SUPPORT SERVICES A. B~ard Disbursing Officers B. Mitchell Elementary School C. Additional Funding for Bond Project Forest Heights Middle School D. Additional Funding for Bond Project Child Nutrition Bond Project E. Donations of Property F. Financial Report X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT :- n  -.:1 i= Rl .... c OE oz ~~ !ll~ -c::\no,..o. n.z... ,... c5 nz ,j.!.:. en .., ~~ nm oc\nEC: :~ :\n~ lii=l enm -\u0026lt;\na enen\na \u0026gt;m en~ c..:, :\n..a.. ~ ~ \u0026gt;=:inm .... g Oz z=I en i5 z en .?.,' ~~ ~ il ..,m ~~ ~z mm\naC enc: :.-.c, \u0026gt; n... . en c5 z ~\na m c~ \na ,-,-\n::aen n-.. =--~  E n =I f\nl z en I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL 11. PROCEDURAL MA TIERS/ WELCOME TO GUESTS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION NEW PARTNERSHIPS C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS 0. LRC.TA DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 November 17, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Partners in Education BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. RATIONALE: The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. FUNDING: Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the board approve the following partnerships: Carver Magnet Elementary School and Raytheon Aircraft Company Forest Heights Middle School and Easy Cash Pawn and Jewelry Otter Creek Elementary School and Greater Little Rock Optimist Club PREPARED BY: Debbie Milam, ViPS Coordinator RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY 2400 Grundfest Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Raytheon Aircraft Company Partnership with George Washington Carver Magnet School Little Rock, Arkansas 2005 Partnership Activities I. Career Day - March 19, 2005 A RAC's Chief Pilot spoke to four 2nd grade classes 1. Presentation entitled \"Planes Come in Many Shapes - How a Plane Flies\" 2. Gave each student a brochure about RAC planes and a frisbee 11. Mentoring Program A Volunteers from RAC 1. Provide support to teachers and administrators as requested 2. Provide support/services to students as identified 3. Provide motivational speakers for students Ill. Book donation A RAC's Women's Net\\vork Initiative group will donate books. Carver's Literacy Coach will present proposals for group to consider. IV. Tour of Company A 5 th grade students will tour RAC facility B. RAC will provide a pizza lunch for students V. Safety Presentation A RAC Safety Engineer will speak to students LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CARVER MAGNET SCHOOL Carver Magnet Partnership Activities with Raytheon Aircraft Company 2005-2006 1. Display of winning Invent America, Science and Math Fair projects at Raytheon. Carver specialists, Kim Washington and Suellen DiMassimo would set up and take down after contact to Arti Vanzandt.) 2. Birthday cards sent to Raytheon employees produced by Carver students during art chasses. (Raytheon to get birthday list to Erik Brown, Art Specialist.) 3. Invitations to Raytheon for classroom readers during VIPS Reading Day and Read Across America. (Carver contacts, Lori Watts and Karen Sebourn, Media Specialists) 4. Campus Leadership Representative from Raytheon. We would appreciate one of our contacts attending our four meetings per year. We will get at least a week's notice. This is an advisor activity.) 5. Building of a relationship between Raytheon team members and our Young Astronauts Specialist, Ed Scott, for further support. 6. Raytheon speakers for Career Week. (Contact\nCounselor, Tracye Thomason) 2100 East WH Street Phone 447-4000  Little Rock , Arkansas 72202 !JI !!l C 0 m ~ \u0026gt; !:l iz5 !I: m .z. . ~ ~ ~ !\"' \"m' 0~ ,. ...\",,', \"n'-\"..' :....~  11: n =I l\nj z \"' !\"' a, C 8 !!l C \"0 ~ m Outline for Partnership between Forest Heights Middle School and Easy Cash Pawn and Jewelry Easy Cash Pawn and Jewelry will provide: 1.) donated musical instruments for the school 2.) discounted musical instruments for the school. 3.) donations to silent auctions, carnivals and other appropriate school events Forest Heights Middle School will provide: 1.) acknowledgement of Easy Cash's partner status on concert programs 2.) an invitation to school events, volunteer recognition and band concerts 3.) an opportunity for Easy Cash's owner to meet students playing with donated instruments PARTNER-IN-EDUCATION CONTRACT GREATER LITTLE ROCK OPTIMIST'S CLUB AND OTTER CREEK ELEMENT ARY SCHOOL The staff and students of Otter Creek Elementary School are pleased to enter into a partnership with the Greater Little Rock Optimist's Club. As part of our willingness to become involved, all parties commit to the following activities: GREATER LITTLE ROCK OPTIMIST'S CLUB    Will sponsor the Just Say No Program for Otter Creek by funding Red Ribbon Week activities and providing \"Just Say No\" Tee shirts to Just Say No members. Will participate in the activities of Otter Creek when possible . WiU volunteer to speak on career awareness to students as requested. OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL   Student groups will perform for Club meetings such as caroling during December or performing skits related to saying no to drugs and violence. Staff will include members in activities and events taking place at school. Jan\n, Tucke., Mndp~(\\/lM./4_., 7fv {,{'--\u0026lt;'.,i/' Kathryn Varady, Counselor ~0,-ly1'1v'. /{i14-~ Paul JHg, Pre,\ndent ,Q J/M ~ a, C 8 !!l C.. , ~ m LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: November 17, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: November 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: Demolition of the Cloverdale Elementary School building has been completed, and the site has been cleared. A reason to abandon the building because of concern about the structural integrity was verified during the demolition. The actual damage to the floor structural system was worse than an earlier engineer's opinion had indicated. Preliminary planning for adding classrooms at Fulbright and Terry has begun. The planning also includes recommendations on solving the car and bus traffic at both schools. Identification of funding sources for this will be done as well. RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action necessary. PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer :,-, ..... Ill :z::c 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: ~ m .\u0026gt; :,.s.. ~~ ,- C: on -\u0026lt; ~ ~ c5 6~ c5~ zm I\n,o -\u0026lt; :::Cl\"i \u0026gt;n m en !\" .z.... m \"q'i\"~' 0 ,- :!\nl~ 0 a ~ Facility Name Central Media Gibbs CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD NOVEMBER 17, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Project Description Cost Roof $85,000 Addition $705,670 t:st. compIet1on Date Dec-05 Dec-05 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - FALL/ WINTER 2005-06 t:st. completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Booker IHVAC (QZAB) $239,560 Unknown Brady I Metal Roof $250,000  Unknown Central HVAC (QZAB) $919,760 Unknown Dunbar HVAC (QZAB) $278,800 Unknown Fair Park HVAC (QZAB) I $79,480 Unknown J. A. Fair Sewer Line $82,900 Unknown Mann HVAC (QZAB) $382,400 Unknown BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. compIetIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Administration Annex I Electrical Upgrade $9,166 Unknown Alternative Learning Center IADA Adaptations $43,134 Unknown Alternative Learning Center Restroom Renovation $37,742 Unknown Alternative Learning Center I Electrical Upgrade $2,696 Unknown Booker Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Chicot Electrical Upgrade I Unknown Unknown Child Nutrition Renovation $6,500 I Unknown Dodd Restroom Renovation $26,959 Unknown Forest Heights Remodel $1,547,000 Unknown Fulbright ADA Adaptations $21,567 Unknown Fulbright Renovate Restrooms $10,784 Unknown Fulbright Addition/Traffic Planning $2,500 Unknown Geyer Springs Replace Restroom Stalls $4,313 I Unknown ADA Adaptations $21,567 I Unknown Henderson Renovation I $450,000 I Summer2006 I - IRC ADA Adaptations I $21,567 Unknown Restroom Renovation I $21,567 I Unknown McDermott Restroom Renovation $32,350 I Unknown Mitchell Renovation $2,212,493 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown , Unknown Rightsell Renovation $2,494,000 I Unknown Terry Addition Planning $2,500 Unknown BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED t:sL 1.,ompIeuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Administration Annex ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown Adult Education ADA Adaptations I $248,020 Unknown Structural Repairs $53,918 ~ Unknown Alternative Learning Center Roof Repairs $26,959 I Unknown Booker ADA Adaptations $107,835 Spring 2006 -- Cashion Buildinf\n! ADA Adaptations I $21,567 Unknown Facility Services ADA Adaptations I $32,351 I Unknown Install Water Meters at Cooling Towers $4,313 Unknown Emergency Lighting Replacement $80,876 I Unknown Land Purchase - Booker I $100,000 I Unknown Garland Renovation $900,000 Partially Complete ADA Adaptations $188,711 Unknown Facility Name Henderson Quigley Rockefeller Transportation - Laidlaw West Little Rock School Facilitv Name Administration Administration Administration Administration Administration Annex Alternative Learning Ctr. Alternative Learning Ctr. Badgett Badgett Bale Bale Bale Bale Baseline Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady Brady Carver Central Carver Carver Central Central Central Parking Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central Central Central Central Central Chicot Chicot Cloverdale Elementary Cloverdale Elem. CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD NOVEMBER 17, 2005 BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED Project Description Cost ADA Adaptations $70,093 Restroom Upgrades $53,918 Dressing Room Renovation $37,742 ADA Adaptations $26,959 Interior Renovation $16,175 ADA Adaptations $32,351 New School $11,782,638 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Description Cost Asbestos abatement $380,495 Fresh air system $55,000 Fire alarm $32,350 HVAC $70,000 Energy monitoring system installation I Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 I Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Fire alarm $18,250 Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Energy monitoring system Partial roof replacement $269,587 HVAC $664,587 1 Renovation $953,520 Gym Roof $48,525 ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Energy monitoring system installation I $23,710 Asbestos abatement $10,900 Fire alarm $34,501 Addition/renovation $973,621 Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Asbestos abatement $345,072 Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Media Center Expansion $167,490 Parking lot $111,742 HVAC Renovation - Band Area $225,000 Reflecting Pond $57,561 Student parking $174,000 I Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 I Irrigation System $14,500 Purchase land for school Unknown Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 I 'Front landing tile repair $22,470 Drainage I $64,700 I Sound Attenuation $43,134 I Demolition I $520,150 I Energy efficient lighting I $132,678 Est. Completion Date Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Est. Completion Date Mar-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Nov-04 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Oct-04 Aug-04 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Nov-04 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Sep-05 Oct-05 Aug-03 Dec-04 Sep-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Oec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Jul-04 Nov-05 Jul-01 2 :,-, ... Pl ::c z 0  C: ~ m !\" z... m ~i\ng j!: ::ID\u0026gt; ... C: C ~ ~ CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD NOVEMBER 17, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Dodd Fire Alarm Upgrade $9,200 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace rooftop HVAC $215,570 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,149,023 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 Fair Park Remodel $799,000 Fair Park Parking Lot $185,000 Fair Park Roof $245,784 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 J. A. Fair 16 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music I room addition $3,155,640 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 J. A. Fair Press box I $10,784 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 J. A. Fair 'Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 -Forest Park ,Restrooms $152,881 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Fulbright  Energy efficient lighting I $134,463 Fulbright I Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright I Replace rooftop HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright . Parking lot $140,000 ~bright Roof repairs $200,000 Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Geyer Springs Roof Repair $161,752 Gibbs 1 Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs -- Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Hall- - Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 -- - Hall - Energy efficient lighting I $42,931 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 -- Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 I - ----intercom I Hall I Hall Security cameras $10,600 -- Henderson Skylight Replacement $319,000 Henderson --- -- I Lockers $43,854 - - Henderson Energy efficient lighting $193,679 -- Henderson Roof replacement gym $107,835 Henderson -- - 'Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 . I Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase 2 I $250,000 IRC - - -- Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Jefferson -- Asbestos abatement I $43,639 I Jefferson - --- - Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm I $1,630,000 Laidlaw - -----,-Parking lot $269,588 Mabelvale Elem. HVAC (QZAB) $220,000 I Mabelvale Elem. Site Work $6,000 Est. Completion Date Jul-01 Nov-02 Oct-04 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Nov-04 Mar-01 Aug-03 Aug-05 Aug-05 May-05 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Aug-05 Nov-03 Aug-03 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Jun-04 Apr-01 Jul-01 Sep-03 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 Nov-05 Dec-04 Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-02 Qct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Nov-05 Oct-05 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD NOVEMBER 17, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED FacilitvName Project Description Cost Mablevale Elem I Fire Alarm Upgrade $12,000 I Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 I Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers $134,793 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Mann Asphalt walks The total $1.8 million Mann Walkway canopies is what has been Mann Boiler replacement used so far on the Mann Fencing projects listed Mann Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. McClellan Parking Lot Overlay $65,000 I McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 McClellan Security cameras $36,300 McClellan I Energy efficient lighting I $303,614 I McClellan Stadium stands repair $235,000 I McClellan Intercom $46,000 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade $7,700 McDermott Energy efficient lighting $79,411 McDermott Replace rooftop HVAC units $476,000 Meadowcliff 1Fire alarm $16,175 Meadowcliff Asbestos abatement $253,412 I Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 I-Meadowcliff Remodel $365,600 Metropolitan Replace cooling tower $37,203 I Metropolitan - Replace shop vent system I $20,000 Metropolitan Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 I Mitchell Building Remediation $165,000 Mitchell Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Mitchell !Asbestos abatement I $13,000 Oakhurst (Adult Education) New Windows $215,000 Oakhurst 1HVAC renovation $237,237 Otter Creek Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Otter Creek Asbestos abatement I $10,000 Otter Creek Parking lot $138,029 I Otter Creek 6 classroom addition I $888,778 I- Otter Creek Parking Improvements $142,541 Parkview 'Addition I $2,121,226 Parkview HVAC controls I $210,000 I Parkview Roof replacement I $273,877 Parkview Exterior lights $10,784 Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Parkview Locker replacement I $120.000 I I-Parkview Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Procurement I Energy monitoring system installation I $5,290 Procurement Fire alarm I $25,000 Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle I Cafeteria Ceiling I $33,378 I Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle I Replace Entry Doors I $13,990 Est. Completion Date Oct-04 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Mar-04 Apr-04 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Apr-05 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Jul-04 Sep-04 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Oct-05 Dec-00 May-01 Aug~ Jul-04 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-05 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug~ Aug-02 Oct-02 Aug-03 Dec-04 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Aug-03 Aug-05 Auo-05 .\u0026gt; s:- ~ el re: c'in -\u0026lt;~ riil zc5 !!J\u0026gt; c5~ zm I\n,c -\u0026lt; ::Cl'j nm \u0026gt;cn CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD NOVEMBER 17, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost I Pulaski Heights Elementary Clean Exterior Walls I $98,660 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground $17,000 . Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation I $3,755,041 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 I Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting I $137,004 I Rockefeller Replace rooftop HVAC $539,175 Rockefeller Parking addition $111,742 j Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 I Scott Field Track Renovations $289,056 I Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 i Southwest New Corridor Ceiling $300,000 Southwest Addition I $2,000,000 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 I Southwest New roof I $690,000 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 I Southwest Drainage / street widening I $250,000 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,ooo I Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II I $3,679,000 : Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 I Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 1 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Washington Fire Alarm Upgrade $11,600 Washington 1 Security cameras I $7,900 Washington Energy efficient lighting I $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting I Watson Asbestos abatement I $\n~~:~~~ I Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $8QQ,QQQ I Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $622,160 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade $8,400 Western Hills ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191 ,946 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Drainage Repair $29,200 Williams Renovation I $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Wilson HVAC for Cafeteria $56,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 Wilson 1 Parking Expansion I $110,000 Woodruff Parking addition $175,000 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 t::st. 1_\nomp1euon Date Sep-05 Nov-04 Dec-02 Nov-04 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Apr-02 Mar-03 May-05 Jun-01 Aug-05 Nov-04 Aug-00 Oct-03 Jan-02 Aug-03 Aug-02 Aug-03 Dec-01 Jun-04 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Dec-04 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Oct-04 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 __ Aug-02 -- Aug-02 Aug-05 ---Oct-04 --- Aug-04 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Nov-05 --- Mar-04 Dec-03 Jun-01 Mar-05 Feb-04 Aug-03 __ Aug-05 Auo-02 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: November 17, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Board Auditor Report BACKGROUND: Monthly report to School Board. RATIONALE: Summary report of activities. FUNDING: No changes. RECOMMENDATION: None. PREPARED BY: Sandy Becker Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 17, 2005 Board of Directors Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Audit Report - November This is the seventy-third communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two high schools, two middle school and two elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity and related funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. b) The AAB has forwarded a Booster Club Guidelines Package to be included in official publications of the District after review. Board Policy and Regulation a) The routing of Professional Leave and Travel Requests is being worked on to make the process more efficient and to prepare for the process being automated to improve documentation and provide information for decision making. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Working with Procurement on the use ofbarcode scanners for checking and updating inventory records. This is being done to help more quickly update and check electronic equipment records at the various sites. c) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. Provided training with the Arkansas PT A on financials controls and financial preventive maintenance. Audit Report- November 2005 Page 2 of2 d) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. e) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. f) Developed skills test for financial positions. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) c) d) e) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Assisting schools to track and reconcile Teacher School Supply Funds. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2005. Eleven schools participated. Sharefest had eleven school participate on October 29, 2005. Sharefest 2005 was a success for each of the schools. A story is on the District website. Assisting LRSD PT A's in financial process training. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. :n .... ~ :z:c\nC:\ng !\nm LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: November 17, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Technology Report BACKGROUND: Since the last Board meeting the following technology activities took place:  The Technology Plan Revision Committee continues to work on the revised technology plan for the district. Focus groups made up of teachers from all schools have been set up to gather input on needs and priorities for the plan. The new plan covers the years 2006-2009.  The online agenda project continues: - Online Technologies was selected to install audio-visual equipment in the Boardroom and administration building lobby. Installation will begin late in November, once all the equipment has been delivered. - Board members selected either a notebook or laptop computer and those have been ordered. - The NovusAgenda on-line application will be installed and configured on the LRSD servers beginning the first week of December. - Training for all district users will be held January 10 - 12, 2006 at the LRSD Technology Center. - Training for Board members will be held in conjunction with the January 12 agenda meeting in the LRSD administration building board room. RATIONALE: To implement the LRSD Technology Plan 2003 - 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services Lucy Neal, Coordinator, Instructional Technology DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 November 17, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Policy Review and Proposed Revisions BACKGROUND: The Board conducts periodic reviews of policies and regulations to ensure that these regulatory directives remain current and complete. Board member Tony Rose requested a review of specific policies and has suggested updates as follows: Policy AC - Nondiscrimination The current policy AC, Nondiscrimination, was adopted in September 1998. The proposed revision of this policy changes the term \"sex\" to \"gender and sexual orientation.\" The changes are indicated on the first reading proposal attached. Policy ACD - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Religion Policy ACD, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Religion, was adopted by the Board in September 1998. The proposed revision of this policy replaces the language of the entire policy, emphasizing the Board's commitment to nondiscrimination based on religious beliefs. Policy ACH - Anti-Harrassment The current policy ACH, Anti-harassment, consists of language that should be considered as regulatory administrative directives. The proposed revision separates the policy from the directives. RATIONALE: To ensure that the Board's policies and regulations remain up-to-date and accurate. The Board approved these policies on first reading at the October board meeting. FUNDING: No funding required. .!D., !B ~ z z m r- RECOMMENDATION: The administration recommends approval on second reading of Policies AC, ACD, and ACH. PREPARED BY: Roy G. Brooks LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: AC NONDISCRIMINATION The commitment of the Little Rock School District to the most fundamental principles of academic freedom, equality of opportunity, and human dignity requires that decisions involving students and employees be based on individual merit and be free from discrimination in all its forms. It is the policy of the Board of Education that there will be no discrimination because of race, color, religion, ~. gender, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or handicap/disability in the placement, instruction, and guidance of pupils\nthe employment, assignment, training, or promotion of personnel\nthe provision and maintenance of physical supplies and equipment\nthe development and implementation of the curriculum, including the activities program\nand in all matters relating to the instruction, supervision, administration and Board policy development. Revised: Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: Title VI and Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title I and Title 11, Civil Rights Act of 1991 Equal Pay Act of 1963 Executive Order 11246 of 1995 Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972 and regulations, 34 C.F.R. part 104 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Sections 503 and 504 Section 504, 34 C.F.R. part 104 Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990 Vietnam-era Veterans Readjustment Act, 1974 Age Discrimination Act, 1975 Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 1967 Arkansas General Laws Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1997 Cross References: Board of Education Policies ACA, ACB, ACC, ACD, ACE, ACF .!J,,I m ~ zz m r- .\u0026gt; s:-\ng !\nl r- C: i\"in -\u0026lt;?\niii i5 6~ iz5m en I :,0 -\u0026lt; :Ci\"\u0026gt; \u0026gt;nemn !ZI 0 C: ! m ~ C: ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACD NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION Tho ~irst Amendment to tho United States of America's Constitution requires that public schools remain religiously neutral. All students, staff, and faculty have tho right to choose or not to choose their ovm religion and there will be no discrimination of any kind based upon an individual's religion. It is the policy of the Board of Education that no student, faculty, or staff in the Little Rock School District will, on the basis of religious belief, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any District educational program, activity, or employment. Revised: Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: See Code AC Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy AC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE : ACH ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY It is the policy of the District to maintain a learning environment that is free from harassment. The District prohibits any and all forms of harassment because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, national origin, religion, or disability or protected activity (i.e. opposing unlawful harassment or discrimination or participating in an investigation. Any such conduct will result in disciplinary action and notification to the proper authorities. It will be a violation of District policy for any student, teacher, administrator, or other school personnel of the District to harass a student through conduct of a sexual nature, or regarding race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, national origin, religion, disability, or protected activity as defined by this policy. It will also be a violation of District policy for any teacher, administrator or other school personnel of the District to tolerate sexual harassment or harassment because of a student's race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, national origin, religion, disability or protected activity as defined by this policy, by a student, teacher, administrator, other school personnel, or by any third parties who are participating in,  observing, or otherwise engaged in activities, including sports events and other extracurricular activities, under the auspices of the District. For the purpose of this policy, the \"school personnel\" includes school Board of Education members, school employees, agents, volunteers, contractors, or persons subject to the supervision and control of the District. The District will act to promptly investigate all complaints, either formal or informal, verbal or written, of harassment because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, national origin, religion, disability or protected activity to promptly take appropriate action to protect individuals from further harassment\nand, if it determines that unlawful harassment occurred, to promptly and appropriately discipline any student, teacher, administrator or other school personnel who is found to have violated this policy, and/or to take other appropriate action reasonably calculated to end the harassment.\n,,,~ ~ :s ,.. C: c'in -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; omc\"5' 5 f\nc5:\nzm I\ni:, -:J:\u0026lt;c\"\u0026gt; Om  u, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH continued This policy will be broadly interpreted as evidence of the District's commitment to equality of opportunity, human dignity, diversity, and academic freedom. No person will retaliate or threaten retaliation against another person for reporting, testifying or otherwise participating in any investigation, or proceeding relating to a complaint of harassment. Revised: Adopted: July 23, 2001 Legal References: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 1965, 42 U.S.C.  2000d Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.  1681 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.  794 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.  12134 Cross References: Student Handbooks and Personnel Handbook 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH-R Anti-Harassment Regulation PROCEDURE FOR COMPLAINTS OF HARASSMENT These regulations are intended to protect the rights of students, employees, administrators, the Board of Education and visitors on District property and to outline procedures, which will be followed in the event harassment occurs on District property or at an event sponsored by the District. The following definitions will be used for the purpose of enforcing the AntiHarassment Policy, ACH. DEFINITIONS Racial or Color Harassment Racial or color harassment includes unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's race or color, such as nicknames emphasizing stereotypes, racial slurs, comments on manner of speaking and negative references to racial customs. Sexual Harassment Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical conduct or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. It also includes conduct that is not sexual in nature but that is engaged in because of the gender of the victim. It includes conduct that is also criminal in nature such as rape, sexual assault, stalking, and similar offenses. Under federal law, sexual harassment is prohibited regardless of the sex of the harasser, i.e., sexual harassment may occur even if the harasser and the person being harassed are the same sex. Sexual Orientation Harassment Harassment on the basis of sexual orientation is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's sexual orientation, such as negative name-calling and imitating mannerisms. Marital Status Harassment Harassment on the basis of marital status is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's marital status, such as comments regarding pregnancy or being an unwed mother or father. !D \"D m\na ~z z I!! LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH-R (continued) National Origin Harassment Harassment on the basis of national origin is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's national origin, such as negative comments regarding surnames, manner of speaking, customs, language, or ethnic slurs. Religious Harassment Harassment on the basis of religion or creed is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's religion or creed, such as derogatory comments regarding surnames, religious tradition, or religious clothing, or religious slurs, or graffiti. Disability Harassment Harassment based on a person's disabling mental or physical condition and includes any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's disabling condition, such as imitating manner of speech or movement, or interference with necessary equipment. REPORTING PROCEDURES Any person who feels he/she is being harassed may wish to consider informing the offending person that the behavior is inappropriate and not appreciated. Oftentimes, this is all that is required to stop the harassing behavior. You are not, however, required to take this step prior to filing a complaint. Any student, District personnel, or visitor who believes he/she has been the victim of harassment by a student, teacher, administrator or other school personnel of the District, or by any other person who is participating in, observing, or otherwise engaged in activities, including extracurricular activities, under the auspices of the District, is encouraged to immediately report the alleged acts to the building principal. If the principal is the perpetrator of the harassment, the report of the incident will be made to the appropriate Assistant Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for School Services or the Director of Human Resources. Any teacher, administrator or other school official who has knowledge of or receives notice that a student or visitor has or may have been the victim of harassment by a student, teacher, administrator, or other school district personnel is required to immediately report the alleged act(s) to the building principal unless the principal is the perpetrator. If the harassment involves the 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH-R (continued) principal, the incident will be reported to the appropriate Assistant Superintendent or Associate Superintendent for School Services. Upon receipt of the report, the principal, Assistant Superintendent or Associate Superintendent will notify Safety and Security personnel to conduct an investigation of the allegation. A third party may be involved in the investigation. The parent of the student (victim) will be notified immediately, unless after consultation with the student, it is determined not to be in the best interest of the student. If the alleged harassment is committed by a student, the student's parent/guardian will be notified that an investigation is being conducted. Complaints will be kept confidential to the extent possible. A prompt, thorough and impartial investigation will be conducted of all complaints of violation of this policy. Upon completion of the investigation, a written report will be submitted to the principal, Assistant Superintendent, or Associate Superintendent. The report will include a determination as to whether the allegations have been substantiated as factual and whether they appear to have violated District policy and/or law. Notification of the outcome of the investigation will be sent to all parties involved. If the allegation is substantiated, the District will take immediate and appropriate corrective action, including the following: 1. a student will receive a disciplinary sanctioned as outlined in the Student Handbook, and/or notification to the proper authorities. 2. a staff member will receive a disciplinary sanction as outlined in the Employee Handbook and/or the proper authorities will be notified. 3. a report of the incident regarding a visitor who committed an act while on District property or at an event sponsored by the District, will be referred to the proper legal authorities. 3 !II ~ m\n,o ~ zz ,m... -- --- --------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH-R (continued) Notwithstanding this policy, .employees may file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. EEOC. Employers who wish to file a charge must do so within 180 days of the last act of alleged harassment. Revised: Adopted: July 23, 2001 Legal References: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 1965, 42 U.S.C.  2000d Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.  1681 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.  794 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.  12134 Cross References: Student Handbook and Personnel Handbook 4 DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 November 17, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Policy Deletion - IHCA (Summer School) BACKGROUND In 1982, the Board of Education adopted a Summer School policy stating that operational costs of summer programs would be covered by pupil tuition and/other grants, exclusive of local and state tax funds. In July 1999, the Board adopted a revised Summer School policy that emphasized PreK-3 extended opportunities that received state funding. This funding no longer exists. During the 2003-2004 school year, the District was advised by legal counsel that according to A.C.A. 6-16-702, that summer fees could not be levied on students who qualified for free and reduced price lunch. The majority of LRSD summer school participants (2004 and 2005) qualified for free tuition thus leaving the district to bear the total financial burden. Act 2243, of the State of Arkansas 85th General Assembly, 2005, addresses Public School Assessment and Remediation. Each student identified as not meeting satisfactory pass levels on the Benchmark and end-of-course exams will be given an Academic Improvement Plan (AIP) for remediation. In response, the District will implement a comprehensive program of focused intervention and acceleration activities aligned with students' needs. Credit recovery will be made available for high school students who require make up. Credit recovery programs will be available as needed on a year round schedule. Additionally, a variety of focused intervention and acceleration activities will be made available for students requiring these services. These may include, among other things, before and after school tutoring programs, acceleration programs operating during the academic day, Saturday school or summer programs as funding allows. RATIONALE This policy has become outdated. The elimination of this policy will update efficiency and compliance. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the elimination of policy IHCA. PREPARED BY: Junious Babbs Dr. Olivine Roberts DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 November 17, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Quarterly Update Report BACKGROUND: The fifth quarterly written update (December 1) by the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department was completed in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). This report includes descriptions of research activities related to four step-2 evaluations currently being conducted by Ors. Steven Ross and James Catterall, and development of evaluation designs for four proposed step-2 evaluations to be completed by these researchers this school year. Ors. Ross and Catterall have completed all observations of classes, interviews, focus groups, and surveys of principals, teachers, students, and parents participating in CompassLearning, Reading Recovery, SMART/THRIVE, and Year-Round (ExtendedYear) Education. Quantative data analysis cannot be completed until electronic formatted benchmark scores are received. Dr. Catterall has signed a contract to conduct a study during this school year focused on the A+ program. Dr. Ross is expected to sign a contract soon to conduct three additional studies: Knowledge Points, Pre-K Literacy, and 21 st Century Learning Centers. RATIONALE: The Court's remedy requires PRE to perform 8 \"step-2\" evaluations. FUNDING: None Necessary RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept the Quarterly Update Report. DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 November 17, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Proposals for the 2005-06 school year: Building Maintenance Employees Bus Drivers, Aides and Monitors Security Officers BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District negotiates contracts for support personnel in conjunction with the annual negations with certified staff. RATIONALE: This Little Rock School District operates on these agreements for contract purposes. The recommendations include language changes to the contracts and a salary recommendation consistent with the salary increases provided to other employee groups. FUNDING: District Operations Budget RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the changes be approved for the three employee groups whose proposed contract revisions are attached: 1) Building Maintenance Employees\n2) Bus Drivers, Aides and Monitors\nand 3) District Security Guards. PREPARED BY: David E. Hartz, Senior Director of Human Resources 0 n ::z:113 -0 6~ z.,, C: ::0 --\u0026lt;o ::Oc... =Im c5n z--\u0026lt; !II\n:\n: ~ z z ,m- !II I: ::::i n ::c ~ rm In I: m z ij ~n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" November 1 7, 2005 To: Little Rock School District Board of Directors From: Dr. Roy Brooks, Superintendent of Schools l::\u0026gt;t'I Prepared by: David E. Hartz, Sr. Director of Human Resources RE: Proposal for the 2005-2006 school year for Maintenance Employees 1. The District will apply  percent to the 2004-2005 salary schedule to create a 2005-2006 salary schedule. 2. Tne District will give the step increase for all eligible employees for the 2005- 2006 school year. 3. The District will pay up to $263.00 for eligible health insurance plans the 2005- 2006 school year. 4. The District agrees to review this recommendation provided the result of the Lake View decision increases the State foundation funding (above 5,400) per student. 810 W. Markham  Little Rocle, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT BETWEEN BUS DRIVERS, AIDES AND MONITORS AND THE UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR 2005-2006 C n  ::C CD -0 6~ z~ C: ,0 -\u0026lt;o ,0 c... =Im i5 n z-\u0026lt; !II I: =I n ::c ,p.:.!. m i:\nffi .z.. . ! ARTICLE6 EXTENT OF AGREEMENT Any individual contract between the employer and an individual bargaining unit member, heretofore executed, shall be subject to and consistent with the terms and eensisteat conditions of this Agreement. Any individual contract hereafter executed shall be expressly made subject to and consistent with the tenns of this or subsequent Agreements to be executed by the parties. If an individual contract contains any language inconsistent with this Agreement, this Agreement, during its duration, shall be controlling. ARTICLE9 DISCIPLINFJJlJST CAUSE E. Discharge during Initial Period Employees who have not completed the initial probationary period of 180 workdays may be discharged for any cause that is not arbitrary or capricious. G. Grievance during Initial Period Employees who have not completed the initial probationary period of 180 work days shall have access to the Grievance Procedure for disciplinary actions or discharge after sixty (60) days of employment. J. Serious Offenses Following examples of serious offenses for which an employee may be recommended for immediate termination. These offenses may include but are not limited to: Note: 3. Possession of a knife, box cutter, dirk, brass knuckles, martial arts implement, razor, ice pick, BB gun, pellet gun, stun gun, blackjack, unauthorized tools, sword, spear in cane, billie club, sap, facsimile weapon, or any other instruments that is specifically designed, made or adapted, to cause physical injury to another person. Last Paragraph: Private Vehicle Once an at-fault accident or moving violation is removed from an employee's driving record, it will be removed from their personnel file unless bodily injury requiring medical attention or a death was a result of the accident. District Vehicle Once an at-fault accident or moving violation committed by a driver, aide or monitor while operating an LRSD school bus is removed from the employee' driving record, it shall be removed from their personnel file after 10 years unless a bodily injury occurs requiring medical attention or a death was a result of the accident. C n  :i:: a, -0 6~ ~ :8 -\u0026lt;o\na\u0026lt;= Im c5 n z-\u0026lt; !I' \"Cl ~ z z m,... D. Reporting Time ARTICLE 14 HOURS OF WORK All transportation Drivers, Aides and Monitors will be required to report to work no later than 6:00 a.m. in the morning and 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon. E. Assignment/Re-assignment of Bus Routes 3. By Oetober l of eeeh ye\u0026amp;F By the fll\"St week in October (unless an emergency prevents the Administration from compiling the necessary information) all routes will be open for bidding. Employees will be afforded an opportunity to \"bid\" on-routes of their choice. For this purpose a route will be considered to be a combination of morning/afternoon school runs assigned to an individual bus to make most effective use of limited vehicular resources. The assignment of routes will be based on driver seniority. This will be the only time during the school year that all routes will be open for bidding. Scheduled bidding times will be established by management and strictly followed. Each driver will be allowed fifteen (15) minutes to bid. Those drivers who cannot be present may authorize a unit member or management to bid for them if their proxy is given in writing. Those who exceed their time or fail to show will be placed at the bottom of the list. E. ARTICLE 19 LEAVES Jury Service and other Related Appearances Any employee called for jury duty, or who is subpoenaed to testify during work hours in any judicial or administrative matter related to district business, including requested attendance during an arbitration fact-finding proceeding shall be paid his/her full compensation for such time with no loss of any leaves, seniority, or loss of any other benefits. Those subpoenaed during non-work hours for district related business should be paid at the staff development rate. Whee suhpoeeaed iA ROA Distriet Rllated eusie866, the le88 will ee without pay 0Meept atteooaaee iooeeti\u0026gt;,ie pay. C n ::,:: ID -0 6i ~\ng -to :,0 '= l m c5 n z-t !11 \"II m ~ z z p:! !11 I: =l n ::,:: ,m,...... m In I: zm ij ARTICLE 20 WAGES A. The salary schedule of the transportation department incorporated in this agreement will fix the employees salary for the duration of this Agreement: 1. .S% increase to the pay scale for the 2005-2006 school year. 2. The District agrees to pay bus drivers, aides and monitors the same percentage increase awarded to teachers should negotiations reopen as a result of the Lake View decision increasing the State Foundation funding per student. 3. The top out stipend of $7S0 will be paid to all eligible employees. 4. The District will pay up to $263 per employee per month to help defray insurance costs for 2005-2006. Appendix A Driver Pay Codes Laid field trips shall be calculated from 30 min11tes before scheduled pick up until 30 minutes after the last stop last drop off. Substitute Drivers will receive an increase of $2.50 a day above the normal daily rate for regular drivers. C o:z: a , -0 i\nz C ~\ng -\u0026lt;o\no \u0026lt;= Im c5 0 z-\u0026lt; !II ~\no is zz rm !II IC ~ :z: !:: m ::\nIC m !i ! r a ..,c o:z ~c u, ~ .... e :z:c.. -\u0026lt;IT !\" !: ARTICLE 25 EFFECTIVE DATES AND DURATION This agreement shall remain in full force and effect from July 1. 2005 through June 30, 2006 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused their corporate names to be hereunto subscribed by their respective presidents and attested to by the Superintendent of Schools of the Little Rock School District and the Executive Director of the Little Rock School District. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT President ATTEST: Superintendent LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION President ATTEST: Executive Director NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT BETWEEN SECURITY GUARDS AND THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR 2005-2006 !I' \"D m\nIll ~ z z m r- TA 10-20-05 JUST CAUSE SECTION 1. SECTION 2. SECTION 3. SECTION 4. SECTION 5. SECTION 6. ARTICLES No employee shall be disciplined (including warnings, reprimands, suspensions, reductions in rank, discharge, lay-off, temtinations or other actions that would adversely affect the employee without just and sufficient cause. The specific grounds fomting the basis for disciplinary action will be made available to the employee and the Association in writing. No security officer will suffer the loss of pay for any disciplinary suspension until such time as the employee has had a decision rendered at Level II of the grievance procedure. An employee shall be entitled to have present a representative of the Association during any disciplinary action. When a request for such representation is made, no action shall be taken with respect to the employee until such representative of the Association is present provided that the Association representative must be available within twenty-four (24) hours of notice of the impending action. Further, in the event that a disciplinary action is taken, the employee shall be advised of the right to representation under this provision of the Agreement prior to the action being taken. If the employee refuses representation, he/she shall be required to sign a form affimting such refusal. The employer agrees to follow a. policy of progressive discipline which nomtally includes one (1) written warning, one (1) written reprimand, suspension without pay, and discharge with exception of certain offenses which may be grounds for immediate tem,ination or provide for a specified penalty. Any disciplinary action taken against an employee shall be appropriate to the behavior which precipitates said action. Suspension without pay will normally be for three (3) to ten (10) working days. Employees who are terminated shall be given all benefits to the date of tem,ination, at the time of temiination. Employees who have not completed the initial probationary period may be discharged for any cause that is not arbitrary or capricious. 19 SECTION 7. SECTION 8. Employees who have not completed the initial probationary period shall not have access to the grievance procedure for disciplinary action or discharge. Following are examples of serious offenses for which an employee will be recommended for immediate tennination. These offenses may include, but are not limited to: 1. Convicted, pleaded nolo contendere or forfeited collateral, for any felony or misdemeanor which is manifestly inconsistent with the safe and efficient operation or reputation of the school or department. 2. Fighting, threatening or attempting to do bodily injury to an employee or student. Bodily injury means physical pain and any impairment of physical condition. 3. Possession of a knife, box cutter, dirk, bras knuckles martial arts implement, razor, ice pick, BB gun, pellet gun, stun gun, blackjack, unauthorized tools, sword, spear in cane, blllie club, sap, facsimile weapon, or other instrument specifically designed, made or adapted to cause physical injury to another person. 4. Stealing or misappropriation of property of the School District or the employees of the Little Rock School District. 5. Malicious mischief, the abuse, misuse or deliberate destruction or damaging of property, tools or equipment of the Little Rock School District or other employees of the Little Rock School District. 6. Altering, tampering or falsification of time cards, \"sign - in or our rosters or other reporting documents relative to attendance, or promptness or departure. 7 . Drinking alcoholic beverages on the job or during the duty day\nor the possession of, or introduction of, any alcoholic beverages on LRSD property at any time. This also indudes reporting to work while under the influence of alcohol. Refusing to take an alcohol test for probabl e cause. B . Use of non-prescribed narcotics, and/or the use, possession, or transmitting on LRSD vehicles or premises of drugs or substances capable of modifying mood and/or behavior. Re f using to take a drug test for probable cause. 20 C o  ::ca, -0 6 i !:E\n-o-\u0026lt; c.o... ~m c50 z--\u0026lt; !I' ~ ~ z z ,m... !I' IC ~ 0 ::c ,,m...... m ~ IC zm ~ r a ..,c 02\n,a C m-,: !!l~ :cc.. --\u0026lt;rr !\"!: 9. Insubordination, including refusal or failure to perform work assigned and/or refusal to obey orders of supervisors. 10. Disorderly, disruptive or immoral conduct in LRSD vehicles or on LRSD premises. 11. The making of or publishing of false, vicious or malicious statements concerning a supervisor or other employee of the Little Rock School District. 12. Falsification of personnel or other official school or insurance records, or making false statements or concealing pertinent information when applying for employment. 13. Falsifying or refusing to give testimony concerning accidents involving school vehicles and/or incidents which are being investigated. 14. Failure to observe or purposefully disregard school district and department policy or procedure. 15. Use of District facilities, personnel, or equipment for nonDistrict purposes. 21 ARTICLE9 TA 10-20-05 PERSONNEL FILES SECTION 1. SECTION 2. SECTION 3. SECTION 4. SECTION 5 Employees shall, upon request, have the right to inspect all contents of their complete personnel file, kept with the employer, as well as employment references upon leaving the District. No secret, duplicate, alternate or other personnel file shall be kept anywhere in the District. Anyone, at the employee's request, may be present in this review. No item from any anonymous source may be placed in the personnel file. Any item(s) detrimental to any employee's employment status and which are without substance, no longer pertinent or otherwise in appropriate, shall be removed from the employee's personnel file and destroyed upon request by the employee. Each employee shall have the right, upon reasonable written request, to review and reproduce any contents of his/her personnel file, except personnel references. A representative of CTA may accompany the employee in such reviews and may, upon written authorization by the employee, review and reproduce any contents of the employee's personnel file. An employee's personnel file shall be open to inspection only by the employee, Superintendent or designated Administrator, or individual authorized in writing by the employee. Upon reasonable written request by the employee, the Superintendent or his/her designee shall sign to verify contents. Upon mutual consent between the employee and the Human Resources Director, a written reprimand which has not been used for a period of two years as the basis for disciplinary action against the employee may be removed from the employee's file and will be placed In a non-personnel file maintained by the Human Resources Director. This will apply only to reprimands written on August 11, 2005 or beyond. 22 0 o ::ca, -0 61 Z-o C\no .... 0\no \u0026lt;= Im l5 n z .... !ID ril\no is zz ,m... !ID TA 10-20-05 ARTICLE 10 EMPLOYEE EVALUATION SECTION 1. SECTION 2. Each employee, upon employment or at the beginning of the school year, whichever is later, shall be apprised in specific terms of his/her responsibilities, which shall be consistent with the District adopted job description. Employees will be informed of the specific criterion upon which they will be evaluated and who is responsible to evaluate the employee. Each employee shall be given a copy of the evaluation form. The evaluator shall distribute this material, including an explanation. Evaluators shall be administrative personnel of the District. Employees shall be evaluated by their immediate supervisor. However no supervisor shall be allowed to take any disciplinary action including placing an individual on probation. Evaluation criteria shall be limited to the specific skills outlined in District approved job descriptions. Evaluation criterion shall not require the employee to give unreasonable service or loyalty to any individual or to tolerate or endure abusive behavior or dangerous or threatening circumstances. (The evaluation instrument shall only denote satisfactory, unsatisfactory or very good for each criteria and overall performance and shall have appropriate space for explanatory comments.) It shall be the District's responsibility to assist employees in becoming oriented to the District and to improve their work performance through direct observation of the employee.The appropriate supervisor/administrator shall provide written summaries of these observations, together with any recommendations the administrator may have for the employee. All employees shall be evaluated at least once a year. If an employee's work performance is determined to be unsatisfactory by their immediate supervisor, then this employee should be placed on performance probation. This probationary period should normally be twenty (20) days\nhowever, this period may be extended by the supervisor/administrator if he/she believes that the deficiencies may be corrected with additional time. The initial twenty (20) day probationary period must have occurred before an annual performance evaluation can be rated as unsatisfactory. 23 SECTION 3. SECTION 4. SECTION 5. Any non-probationary employee who disagrees with an observation or recommendation may submit a written answer, which shall be attached to the file copy of the observation in question. Any overall unsatisfactory rating, observation or recommendation which adversely affects the non-probationary employee's professional standing may be grieved through the grievance procedure. In the event termination or non-renewal of the employee's contract is recommended, the employee and the Association shall be furnished a copy of such recommendation by certified mail or hand delivery with a statement of the reasons on which it is based. If an employee who has completed the required probationary period receives a notice pursuant to Section 4 above and desires a hearing, that employee is entitled to appeal the recommendation through the terms of the grievance procedure. 24 0 n  ::CID -0 6i ~:E -\u0026lt;o :,0 \u0026lt;-. =Im i5 (\") z-\u0026lt; !D \"O m ~ z z p:! f a ..,c oz ~c !!l~ :cc.. -\u0026lt;IT p\u0026gt;  ARTICLE 12 TA 10-20-05 HOURS OF WORK AND OVERTIME SECTION A. Add: On approval from both the principal and employee, the employee may elect to work eight (8) straight hours and have a thirty (30) minute lunch period that may be interrupted in the event of an emergency. If the employee does work eight straight hours, he/she is entitled to two (2) fifteen (15) minute breaks, one In the morning and one in the afternoon. SECTION E. Security Officers requested to supervise students shall be paid an additional $3.00 an hour for the major portion of each hour, rounded to the nearest  hour, up to a maximum of $6.00 per day. TA 10-20-05 ARTICLE 18 LEAVES SECTION A. Sick Leave will be granted in accordance with prevailing Public Law entitled \"Minimum Sick Leave Law for Non-Certified Employees.\" Conditions of Sick Leave Provision: At the beginning of each school year all security guards will be credited with the appropriate number of sick leave afforded them under the \"Minimum Sick Leave Law for Non-Certified Employees.\" b) If the employee resigns or leaves his/her employment position before the end of the school term, the Little Rock School District may deduct from his/her last pay check full compensation for any days ef sick leave taken in excess of the dayseamed. c) An employee is entitled to sick leave days only for reason of personal illness or illness or death in his/her immediate family. d) A record of sick leave used and accumulated must be maintained by the District. Sick leave that is unused during any school year shall be carried forward until 175 days have been accumulated. e) An employee who qualifies for sick leave may use any amount up to his/her total number of accumulated days. f) Accumulated sick leave that used may be restored up to 175 days in the same manner that they were first accumulated. g) The Superintendent of Schools may advance three days sick leave to employees upon the recommendation of the supervisor or department head. h) In cases where an employee ffequeRlly claims establishes a pattern of sick leave use for personal illness or upon an absence of 5 days or more due to personal illness, the District may require a doctor's certificate verifying the illness. i) When an employee has expended all sick leave days regardless of the nature of the absence, they must return to work, or request a Leave of Absence within five (5) days of their last sick day. Employees not adhering to this procedure will be considered as resigning their position. 37 !:D i ~z z ,m... Section 2. Section 3. Sectlon4 Qualified employees may take up to twelve (12) weeks of unpaid leave under the terms of The Family and Medical Leave Act except immediate family shall be defined as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife, grandparents, grandchildren, sister-inlaw, brother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, fatherin- law, aunt, uncle, and other persons living in the same household. After the leave has been approved, the employee will receive his/her full normal health care coverage for up to the twelve (12) weeks of the leave. Security officers may use up to the equivalent of two sick leave days for personal reasons Attendance Incentive-Attendance will be given to all security guards who have perfect attendance. If a security guard is required to serve jury duty, these absences will not count against the employee. The employee shall not miss any days for sick leave, military leave, be on leave without pay or be taken off payroll for any reason to qualify for the perfect attendance incentive stipend. ($200, $200, $200) $200 stipend for perfect attendance the first summer $200 stipend for perfect attendance the second semester $200 additional stipend if the employee has \"perfect attendance\" for the entire school year. $100 stipend for only missing day or $50 for only missing one day each semester will be considered under the same terms above. 38 TA 11-08-05 Article 18 Section D Attendance Incentive Attendance incentive will be given to all security guards who have perfect attendance. If a security guard is required to serve jury duty or uses two sick leave days pursuant to Article 18 section C, these absences will not count against the employee. C o :Z: ID -0 Ei i!j ~ jJ\n\"o\" 'co.... =lm i5 n z\"\"' !II E =l n :z: ~ m i\nffi\nTA 11-08-05 ARTICLE21 WAGES AND BENEFITS A. The salary schedule for security officers incorporated in this Agreement will fix the employees salary for the duration of this Agreement. 1. .5% for the 2005-2006 school year. Employees that qualify will receive a step increase. 2. The LRSD agrees to pay security officers the same percentage increase awarded teachers should negotiations re-open as a result of the Lake View decision increasing the State foundation funding per student 3. Any officer who has obtained a college degree from a college accredited by the North Central Association, or by some other accrediting agency of comparable rank, shall receive an annual stipend of $500 4. The District will pay up to $263.00 per employee per month to help defray insurance costs for 2005-2006 All security officers shall receive a printed copy of the contract as amended by the parties for the years 2005-2006. B. An employee who is on an approved unpaid leave of absence shall be eligible for COBRA benefits in accordance with applicable laws and state insurance regulations. The District shall reimburse the employee for 1 year an amount equal to the District contribution for active employees after receipt of proof of payment of COBRA premiums. ARTICLE 24 EFFECTIVE DATES AND DURATION This agreement shall remain in full force and effect from July 1. 2005 through June 30, 2006 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused their corporate names to be hereunto subscribed by their respective presidents and attested to by the Superintendent of Schools of the Little Rock School District and the Executive Director of the Little Rock School District. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT President ATTEST: Superintendent LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION President ATTEST: Executive Director C o ::ca, -0 61 ~\ng\n\",\",\" \u0026lt;'o- =l m c5 0 z\"\"\"' !%' \"V ~ z z ,m... !%' :IC ~ ::c ~ m i\n:IC mz ij DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 November 17, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.CA 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2005 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 8, 2005 for EYE are considered intern teachers. l)lA PREPARED BY: David E. Hartz, Senior Director of Human Resources !II -= =l C') ::c ,p.:.!. m In -zm= ij Personnel Changes Page2 November 17, 2005 NAME START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE ResignationsfTerminations Certified Employees Bruhl, Rita Elementary I/ 8-22-05 Reason: Personal ROMINE 10-31-05 Meazle, Adeline Elementary II/ 5-15-94 Reason: Health KING 11-1-05 Murphy, Nancy Geometry/ 1-18-05 Reason: None given HALL 10-25-05 New Certified Employees Baker, Jennifer English/ J. A FAIR 8-11-05 Branch, Karunda Physical Education/ 9-12-05 FELDER Bufford, Christen Oral Communications/ 10-24-05 HALL Flear, Tanya Special Education/ 9-26-05 FELDER Fowler, Ruby Physics/ 9-12-05 CENTRAL Fuller, Cynthia Special Education/ 8-11-05 MANN Holland, Lynn Business Education/ 10-10-05 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE Hooper, Ruth Vocal Music/ 8-11-05 HENDERSON SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 2-04 34021.00 TCH925 4-19 55076.00 TCH925 4-10 44036.00 TCH925 3-02 33789.00 TCH925 1-04 32512.00 TCH925 annual 28956.00 prorated 1-02 30770.00 TCH925 annual 22596.72 prorated 4-04 37069.00 SPE925 annual 31083.90 prorated 1-02 30770.00 TCH925 annual 27404.53 prorated 4-15 49842.00 SPE925 4-01 34747.00 TCH925 annual 27689.02 prorated 2-16 47955.00 TCH925 Personnel Changes Page3 November 17, 2005 0 n  ::ca, -0 6~ z\"D \u0026lt;=\na START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL --\u0026lt;o\na\u0026lt;- CLASS SALARY =Im NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE c5n z--\u0026lt; Jett, Amy Elementary II/ 10-21-05 1-01 30190.00 ROMINE TCH925 annual 22328.02 prorated King, Bobby English/ 9-19-05 6-20 58812.00 ALC TCH925 annual 50847.87 !\" prorated 8 z ~ c5 Mendilllo, Maria English/ 10-1-05 6-06 42556.00 ezn FOREST HEIGHTS TCH925 annual 34576.75 prorated Mitchell, Stacey Art/ 8-11-05 1-01 30190.00 FOREST HEIGHTS TCH925 .ii.\u0026lt;, Watson, Patricia Counselor/ 9-26-05 4-19 27538.00 ,...~\naZ mn FELDER CNL10 annual is\n24239.18 l::~ .... \"Cl prorated i~\n..a.. Whitehead, Jackie Special Education/ 8-11-05 6-19 57651 .00 HALL SPE925 Certified Promotions !II Barrett, Elizabeth 9.25 teacher contract to ESL Multilingual Community Assistant I: :::i (') :,m.:.c.. ,.... m Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Emj\n!lo:iees ,.... m Im: .z.. . \u0026gt;\na Burns, Lenette Secretary/ 8-11-04 31-13 20904.00 -\u0026lt; Reason: Accepted another CENTRAL 11-04-05 CLK925 position Collier, Myra Custodian/ 2-19-01 31-20 20063.00 Reason: Resigned without CENTRAL 11-2-05 CUS928 notice f a ..,c 02 Harris, Jacqueline Instructional Aide/ 8-17-05 33-06 12002.00 i:lc .e..n. \"' ~ Reason: Returning to school FULBRIGHT 11-2-05 INA925 ::C\u0026lt;- !...\". !\": Personnel Changes Page4 November 17, 2005 NAME Hines, Terry Reason: Personal Kenter, Linda Reason: Retired Moser, Matthew Reason: Resigned without notice Presley, Vera Reason: Resigned without notice Thompson, Dian Reason: Personal Young, Barbara Reason: Resigned without notice Adams, Scott Andrews, Janice Bass, Karlah Burton, Pamela START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Security Officer/ 8-8-05 FULBRIGHT 11-8-05 Instructional Aide/ 11-1-87 STEPHENS 1-1-06 Security Officer/ 4-04-04 MCCLELLAN 8-16-05 Instructional Aide/ 2-4-02 ADULT EDUCATION 11-8-05 Custodian/ 9-27-04 CARVER 11-7-05 Instructional Aide/ 2-16-01 HALL 8-11-05 New Non-Certified Employees Learning Specialist/ 9-22-05 INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY CARE/ 10-24-05 CARE Instructional Aide/ 10-17-05 MABELVALE MIDDLE Instructional Aide/ 8-23-05 FOREST HEIGHTS SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 36-10 15463.00 SOFR9 33-19 17705.00 INA925 36-10 15463.00 SOFR9 28-09 16956.00 AN10 31-01 11379.00 CUS925 33-16 16192.00 INA925 66-10 54336.00 AN12 annual 41619.00 prorated 2-01 7.58 CARE per hour 33-06 12002.00 INA925 annual 9147.47 prorated 33-09 13140.00 INA925 annual 12571 .78 prorated Personnel Changes Pages November 17, 2005 0 n ::cl:II -0 6~ !\ng START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL -\u0026lt;o\no c.. CLASS SALARY =Im NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE c5n z-\u0026lt; Dennis, Sue Child Nutrition/ 10-7-05 3-01 9350.00 PARKVIEW FSH550 annual 7590.59 prorated Freeman, Valeria Instructional Aide (.70)/ 10-17-05 33-16 11334.00 BOOKER INA925 annual 8638.65 prorated !\" 8 z Glover, Mona Instructional Aide/ 8-23-05 33-16 16192.00 ~ i5 MABELVALE MIDDLE INA925 annual z \"' 15490.81 prorated Gardner, Stephanie Instructional Aide/ 10-20-05 33-16 16192.00 FULBRIGHT INA925 annual 12078.36 ~ prorated .., \u0026gt;z - ~\no (\") Gray, Alicia Instructional Aide/ 10-28-05 33-16 16192.00 mm ~\"\" FOREST PARK INA925 annual ::::~ -\u0026lt;-o 11640.73 ~i prorated .... Jacko, Kimberly Custodian/ 10-24-05 31-01 5689.50 BALE CUS925 annual 4236.20 prorated !I' Jones, Cherise Instructional Aide/ 10-10-05 33-09 13140.00 E =I (\") FOREST PARK INA925 annual ::c m 10369.95 ,,-- m prorated In Em z... . Jones, Derrick Security Officer/ 9-22-05 36-11 15929.00 ~ MCCLELLAN SOFR9 annual -\u0026lt; 13653.43 prorated Kirby, Nathaniel Instructional Aide/ 8-15-05 33-03 16192.00 PULASKI HEIGHTS INA925 annual MIDDLE 16016.95 !\"\" Ct prorated ..,c oz fllc \"',: ~~ ~!: Personnel Changes Page6 November 17, 2005 NAME Meeks, Janice Reed, Latoya Scott, Uvita Sharp, Dawanna Spiridigliozzi, Anthony Walls, Linda Washington, Tiffany Woods, James Merritt, Reginald Palmer, Juana START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Child Nutrition/ 10-7-05 3-01 9350.00 MABELVALE MIDDLE FSH550 annual 7590.59 prorated CARE/ 10-24-05 1-01 6.98 CARE CARE per hour CARE/ 10-24-05 3-07 8.73 CARE CARE per hour CARE/ 10-24-05 1-07 7.92 CARE CARE per hour Instructional Aide/ 10-20-05 33-16 20568.00 ROCKEFELLER INA12 annual 13916.22 prorated Instructional Aide/ 10-14-05 33-06 8041 .34 GIBBS INA925 annual 6172.27 prorated CARE/ 10-24-05 2-01 7.58 CARE CARE per hour Instructional Aide/ 10-17-05 33-16 16192.00 TERRY INA925 annual 12340.93 prorated Non-Certified Promotions 9.25 month contract to 11 month contract INA 9.25 month contract to CLK 10 month contract LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: November 17, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Board Disbursing Officers and Legislative Representative BACKGROUND: Act 671 of 2003 amended Arkansas Code 6-13-618 requiring the Board of Directors to designate, by resolution adopted by majority vote, one (1) of its members to serve as the primary board disbursing officer of the District and may designate one (1) member as an alternate Board disbursing officer in the absence of the primary Board disbursing officer. Board Policy BJ directs that a person will be designated annually to serve as the Board's legislative representative. RATIONALE: To comply with the requirements set forth in State law and Board Policy. FUNDING: No funds are required for this action. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the attached Resolution designating the Board President as the primary disbursing officer for the Board, the Board Vice-President as the alternate disbursing officer for the Board, and Joe Mittiga as the Board's legislative representative for the 2005-06 school year. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen Chief Financial Officer C n % a, r--0z Cc z.,, C\n:a -to ::0c... =lm cz5 n_, !\"\" g z !\n0 z en RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DISBURSING OFFICERS AND A LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR 2005-2006 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors shall designate one (1) of its members who shall serve as the primary Board disbursing officer as required by Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-618\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors may designate one (1) or more Board members as an alternate Board disbursing officer in the absence of the designated primary Board disbursing officer as provided by Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-618\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors will annually designate a person who may or may not be a member of the Board to serve as its legislative representative as required by LRSD Board Policy BJ\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County designates the President of the Board as the primary disbursing officer of the District, the Vice-President of the Board as the alternate disbursing officer of the District in the absence of the President of the Board, and Joseph Mittiga as the Board's legislative representative. President Vice-President Adopted: DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 November 17, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Robert M. Daugherty, Ph.D. President SUBJECT: Future Use of the Mitchell School Building BACKGROUND: The Mitchell Academy building, constructed in 1908, is unable to meet current educational standards without extensive and costly repairs and renovations. The high cost of renovation, combined with low student enrollment, led the Board to close the school in December 2004. A committee, chaired by Board President Dr. Michael Daugherty, was formed to study alternative uses for the Mitchell building and present the Board with a recommendation. The committee held its first meeting in January 2005 and hosted subsequent meetings in the Mitchell neighborhood. A survey on reuse of the building was developed for area residents and approximately 130 responses were returned. In July 2005, at the direction of the Board, the district issued a Request For Proposal for the reuse of the Mitchell building with a submission deadline of August 31, 2005. RATIONALE: RFP responses were received from Neighborhood Builders, Inc., Little Rock, AR\nthe City of Little Rock, Little Rock, AR\nand, Rivendell Health Services/Alta Care of Arkansas, Benton, AR. The Mitchell committee reviewed the proposals and selected the City of Little Rock, which plans to use the building as a neighborhood hub of community programs and services, as its first choice. The Committee chose the City's proposal because it successfully met all eight requirements in the District's RFP at a level superior to the others submitted, because such a site did not conflict with Arkansas State Law, and because the proposal has the support of the Mitchell Community. FUNDING: The Committee recommends the District enter into negotiations with the City of Little Rock to reach an agreement for mutual funding and use of the Mitchell site. C, n :Z: ID -0 6i ~\nE -\u0026lt;o ::Cc.. =Im i5 n z-\u0026lt; !\" 8 z ?i iz5 UI RECOMMENDATION: The Committee recommends the District accept the proposal submitted by The City of Little Roel\u0026lt; and begin formal negotiations for funding renovations and the future use of the Mitchell building. The Committee also recommends the Board make a decision regarding the reuse of this building as soon as possible. PREPARED BY: Robert M. Daugherty DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 November 17, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Additional Funding for Forest Heights Bond Project BACKGROUND: The Forest Heights Middle School renovation project was delayed for several months due to changes in program need, leadership and concerns from the Campus Leadership Team. Since these issues have been resolved, the architectural firm has been given approval to proceed with the schematic. RATIONALE: Funds provided through the 2000 millage election were directed toward renovating the original classrooms which are currently in poor condition. The present appearance is an aversion to prospective parents and potential students. Under the revised scope of work, curb appeal will be enhanced because two of the original classroom buildings will be replaced by new ones with bright, modern classrooms containing an increased utilization of natural light. The current project also entails major maintenance work to the gymnasium roofs, upgrading the locker room and support facilities, and an expansion with a stage which will allow the cafeteria to support school programs. The campus appearance will be enhanced by landscaping and covered walkways to the newly constructed facilities. In addition there will be driveway changes in order to facilitate the drop off and pick up of students. It is believed that these changes will attract more middle school-bound students to the District than are now choosing to attend. FUNDING: Escalating prices and the revised scope of work have resulted in a shortfall of approximately $2.5 million (see attached worksheet). Funding for this project will come from the Bond Contingency Fund that has developed from previously completed projects. This is not to be confused with interest earnings that have accrued to date. C n :Z: CD -0 6i z.,, C: ::0 :':\"o\" .o.. =Im ~n z'\"\" !\" 8 z ?\n~ z V, RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the requested $2.5 million additional funding for this project which will provide a better academic environment to support District programs at Forest Heights. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen Chief Financial Officer LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: November 17, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Additional Funding for Child Nutrition Bond Project BACKGROUND: The Child Nutrition administrative offices are currently located underneath the west stands of Quigley Stadium. The warehouse facility is attached to the south end of the administrative site but not underneath the stadium seating area. Over time, weather conditions have created issues for the administrative portion of the building. RATIONALE: The permanent solution is to build a new modernized free-standing modular office building south of the present warehouse. This location is on land currently not being utilized but within the walled confines of the Quigley Stadium property. This location was chosen because of its proximity to the warehouse and the interconnectivity of the functions of both facilities that are necessary to properly feed and distribute food to all of the District's students. FUNDING: Current cost estimates for this project are approximately $396,000 but can be offset by available funds of $13,000 leaving a shortfall of $383,000. Funding for this project will come from the Bond Contingency Fund that has developed from previously completed projects. This is not to be confused with interest earnings that have accrued to date. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the requested $383,000 additional funding for this project which will upgrade and modernize a facility that provides service to our students. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen Chief Financial Officer !\" 8 z ?\nCl\u0026gt; ~ ::c ~ ?\u0026lt;\nzJ,J.o. C) 0 (IJCI\u0026gt; -z \u0026gt;\u0026lt; C)\n:::\nJ) \u0026gt;m ~i ~Cl\u0026gt; :I: -- ----- Child Nutrition Financial Status (11/03/05) November Funds Available: 2005 Remarks Bond $10,000 Study $6,500 Total $16,500 Funds Spent: Study $3,307 Total $3,307 Funds Available: Total $13,193 lncomp. Projects: Cost Estimate $396,200 Add metal bldg , relocate offices Total $396,200 Shortfall: $383,007 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: November 17, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District receives donations from businesses and individuals on a regular basis. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District that donations are not formally accepted until they are approved by the Board of Directors. RATIONALE: District policy states that, in order to maintain the centralized fixed asset property accounting system, all property donation requests are forwarded to the Director of Procurement. The Procurement Department forwards the requests, along with the appropriate recommendations, to the Board of Directors for acceptance and approval. In order for proper recognition and appreciation to be conveyed to the donor, donor's name and current mailing address should be included in the donation memo. FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached donation requests be approved and accepted in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. PREPARED BY: ~ c~arral Paradis, Director of Procurement '...j./Gwen Caraway, Fixed Asset Property Manager DONATIONS School/Department Item Donor Central High School Refrigerator, valued at Jeannie Deloach $500.00, to the boy's basketball program Central High School $500.00 cash to the Win \u0026amp; Lisenne Rockefeller Troubadours Club Central High School $250.00 cash to assist Ted Woodings on behalf students who have !DOCUMENTS, LLC been displaced due to recent hurricanes Central High School $200.00 cash to the Frank \u0026amp; Marcene Block Science Department at Central Central High School $200.00 cash to the Frank \u0026amp; Marcene Block Communications Department at Central Central High School Time and money, Kevin \u0026amp; Cathy Crass valued at $1,770.20, to the dedication of the Bernie Cox Field Fair Park Early $5,590.00 cash to be Second Presbyterian Church Childhood Center used to purchase computer printers and software, playhouses for the playground, books for the parent center and field trip tee shirts McClellan Magnet $100.00 cash to the Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. J. F. Riddle High School Future Business Leaders of America Club at McClellan McClellan Magnet $50.00 cash to be used Regions Bank/Baseline High School for incentives for students who scored proficient and advanced on the Arkansas ACT AAP algebra test School/De~artment Item Donor McClellan Magnet $150.00 cash to be used Boll Weevil Pawn Shop High School for incentives for students who scored proficient and advanced on the Arkansas ACTMP algebra test McClellan Magnet $250.00 cash to be used R.C.N. Enterprises, Inc. High School for incentives for students who scored proficient and advanced on the Arkansas ACT MP algebra test Woodruff Elementary $250.00 cash to be used Wal-Mart #126, as a match School to provide \"good conduct\" for volunteer hours from Incentives for students Woodruff parent and Wal-Mart employee, Tamela Warren Woodruff Elementary $500.00 cash to be used E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. through School to purchase supplies the annual Jim Yates for students in need Memorial Charity Golf Tournament School supplies, valued Electronic Data Systems =\" Woodruff Elementary ... School at $500.00, for students z \u0026gt;z in need n \u0026gt; r- \"' Little Rock School Halloween stickers, Little Caesar's Pizza District valued at $640.00, to be distributed to all elementary schools ..ittfe 'Roci Centra{ Jfigfi Scfioo{ 1500 Soutli 'Park Street Litt[e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 'Pfione 501-447-1400 J'ax 501-447-1401 DATE: 10/26/2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL~ /(. fl!J /:!tz ( t_\n '/4t'---- SUBJECT: DONATION Jeannie Deloach of 20 Heritage Park Circle, No. Little Rock, AR, 72116, graciously donated a refrigerator valued at $500 to our boy's basketball program. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted m accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. l\"'::'r' .. . ittfe 'Rock Centra{ J-fifJli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 Pfione 501-447-1400 J'ax 501-447-1401 DATE: 10/26/2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCU~MENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~Zdfi1 /r),(LJ:fi(U V SUBJECT: DONATION Win \u0026amp; Lisenne Rockefeller, P. 0. Box 3157, Little Rock, AR 72203, graciously donated $500 to the Troubadours. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. OCT 2 7 2Jil3 r. .. Littfe 1wck Centra{ J-filJfi Scfioo{ 1500 Soutli 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 J'ax 501-447-1401 DATE: 10/10/2005 TO: FROM: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL~ SUBJECT: DONATION Ted Woodings on behalf of !DOCUMENTS, LLC, 5272 River Road, Suite 740, Bethesda, Maryland 20816, graciously donated $250 to Central High School to assist students who are displaced due to recent hurricanes. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Litt{e 'Rock Centra{ J-[igli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutli 'Park Street .Litt{e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 'Plione 501-447-1400 ]\"ax 501-447-1401 DATE: 10/20/2005 TO: FROM: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~ SUBJECT: DONATION Frank \u0026amp; Marcene Block of 141 El Dorado Drive, Little Rock, AR 72212, donated $200.00 to our science department. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. OCT 21 2005 LittCe 'Rock Centra[ Jftnfi Scfioo[ 1500 Soutli Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 'Pfi.one 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 10/21/2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~~ SUBJECT: DONATION Frank \u0026amp; Marcene Block of 141 El Dorado Drive, Little Rock, AR 72212, graciously donated $200 to our Communications Department. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. OCT 2 1 2005 ~ ~ ::\n~: ~:\n.~ ~~: ~~: ~:: ,:.., ... ..... 11 ... .,w\n.,\n\\o. LJ Litt{e 'Rock Centra{ 3-{ifJli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Littfe 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 Plione 501-447-1400 :Jax 501-447-1401 DATE: 10/19/2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL 1{.twk/4Cu-._ SUBJECT: DONATION K.evin \u0026amp; Cathy Crass very graciously donated their time and money to the dedication of Bernie Cox Field. The total amount of their donation was $1,770.20. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Fair Park Early Childhood Center 616 North Harrison Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Judith Milam, Principal DATE: October 17, 2005 RE: Donation Second Presbyterian Church located at 600 Pleasant Valley Drive, wishes to make a cash donation to Fair Park Early Childhood Center in the amount of $5,590.00. These funds will be used to purchase computer printers, computer software, play houses for the playground, parent center books, and field trip tee shirts. It is recommended that this generous donation be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the board. Thank you for your consideration. CC: Dr Sadie Mitchell Associate Superintendent OCT 18 2005 Pay Date: 1om2005 Ck#: 47438 ID#: 4642 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY Invoice *Date *Description *Account# WISH LIST 2005 *9/23/2005 \"l' *000/55714 SECOND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GENERAL FUND 600 PLEASANT VALLEY DRIVE 227-0000 1-e1 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72227 *TOTAL R~Bank LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 81-10 / 820 Net $5,590.00 $5,590.00 047438 .__c_H_E_C_K_N__O. _.L__ _D_ A_TE_ ___J. MMm ti PAY TO THE ORDER OF Five Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Dollars And No Cents FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY 616 N HARRISON ATTN JUDY MILUM LITTLE ROCK AR 72205 47438 110 i.. 7 t. :1a11 ,:oa 2000 .o g,: ao oo s  o 2 b 211 10/7/2005 $5,590.00 McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL TO: FROM: RE: DATE: THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement Larry Buck, Princip@ Donation October 27, 2005 I would like to recommend that the following donation to McClellan High School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District: A donation of $100.00 from Mr. and Mrs. J.F. Riddle, P.O. Box 987, New Albany, MS 38652, for the Future Business Leaders of America Club at McClellan High School. RECEt\\H:D OCT 2 8 2005 9417 Geyer Springs Road  Phone 447-2100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement Larry Buck, Princip# Donation October 24, 2005 I would like to recommend that the following donation to McClellan High School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District: A donation of $50.00 from Regions Bank, Baseline Branch, 6101 Baseline Road, Little Rock, AR 72209, to be used for a Student Incentive Program. This program is to award students who scored proficient and advanced on the Arkansas ACTAAP Algebra test. OCT 2 8 2005 9417 Geyer Springs Road  Phone 447-2100  Uttle Rock, A\u0026lt;kansas 72209 ~ McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement Larry Buck, Princi~ Donation October 19, 2005 I would like to recommend that the following donation to McClellan High School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District: A donation of $150.00 from Boll Weevil Pawn Shop (located on Geyer Springs Rd, Little Rock, AR) 2001 Moores Lane, Texarkana, TX 75503, to be used for a Student Incentive Program. This program is to award students who scored proficient and advanced on the Arkansas ACT AAP Algebra test. f.\"l' ':\" II\"'.) n~.:iry!EHJ!EO Der 2 o 2005 9417 Geyer Springs Road  Phone 447-2100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement Larry Buck, Princip@ Donation October 14, 2005 I would like to recommend that the following donation to McClellan High School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District: A donation of $250.00 from R.C.N. Enterprises, Inc., (McDonald's on Geyer Springs Rd.) 52 Talais Drive, Little Rock, AR 72223 to be used for a Student Incentive Program. This program is to award students who scored proficient and advanced on the Arkansas ACT AAP Algebra test. OCT 1 7 2005 9417 Geyer Springs Road  Phone 447-2100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 'Jln 'E?(tenaea :)'ear 'Eaucation Schoo[\" To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: October 14, 2005 Re: Donations Wal-Mart #126 has donated $250.00 to Woodruff Elementary, as a match for volunteer hours to our school from Woodruff parent and Wal-Mart employee Tamela Warren. We sincerely appreciate this donation, which will provide \"good conduct\" incentives for our students We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Wal-Mart #126 Renita Thompson, Personnel Manager 700 Chenal Little Rock, AR 72211 Tamela D. Warren 912 Johnson Street Little Rock, AR 72204 OCT 1 '7 2005 17 - ~ .._ w (..:, ~J ~ :.': ~  ~ ~- --  : .. ~ 'l 3010 West 7th Street  Phone (501) 447-7300  Fax (501) 447-7301  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ''Jl.n 'Ex:_tencfecf ')ear 'Eaucation Schoo') To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: October 14, 2005 Re: Donations E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. has donated $500.00 to Woodruff Elementary to be used to purchase supplies for students who may not be able to obtain them otherwise. We sincerely appreciate this donation, which will provide supplies and an opportunity to help our students grow and learn. E-Z Mart selected Woodruff along with nine other campuses which serve their south/southeast area where they have stores located. The funds are made available through the Jim Yates Memorial Charity Golf Tournament held each year. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Kim Fowler Employee and Public Relations E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. 602 Falvey P.O. Box 1426 Texarkana, TX 75504-1426 OCT 1 7 2005 f'. :    c. ~:: ~~\n'.  ~N ~:rr .: - ~- ':_,J lo,.\n' _ .. ... :- !\n_. M. ... ..  -  .. ~ 3010 W es t 71 h Street  Phone (501) 447-7300  Fax (501) 447-7301  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ''Jl.n 'E\nctenaea :)ear 'Eaucation Schoof') To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: October 14, 2005 Re: Donations Electronic Data Systems (EDS), graciously donated school supplies to Woodruff Elementary, valued at $500.00. We sincerely appreciate this donation, which will be given to students in need of supplies. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Ms. Phylinthia Givens Financial Analysis Electronic Data Systems 500 President Clinton Avenue Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 OCT 1 7 2GD5 3010 West 7th Street  Phone (501) 447-7300  Fax (501) 447-7301  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 PROCUREMENT \u0026amp; MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1800 East 6th Street  Little Rock, AR 72202  (501) 447-2260  Fax: (501) 447-2261 DATE: November 3, 2005 TO: Board of Directors L~0 FROM: ~ Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management THROUGH: Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D., Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donation Little Caesar's Pizza donated Halloween stickers, valued at approximately $640.00, to the Little Rock School District. Stickers were distributed to all elementary schools within the District. The donor's mailing address is: Little Caesar's Pizza, Attn: Cathy Messer, 7500 Landers Road, Sherwood, AR 72117. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. Thank you. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: November 17, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Financial Reports BACKGROUND: Financial reporting is designed to keep the Board of Directors up-to-date regarding the District's current financial condition. Financial reports are submitted monthly to the Board for review and approval. RATIONALE: October 2005 financial reports are submitted for the Board's review and approval. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the financial reports as submitted. PREPARED BY: Jean A Ring, Director Finance and Accounting LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2004 AND 2005 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2004/05 10/31/04 COLLECTED 2005/06 10/31/05 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 61,436,691 23,738,299 38.64% 67,268,610 23,880,924 35.50% DELINQUENT TAXES 12,135,000 1,209,714 9.97% 9,200,000 1,215,320 13.21% 40% PULLBACK 31 ,250,000 0.00% 33,000,000 0.00% EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 205,000 0.00% 210,000 0.00% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 155,000 0.00% 145,000 0.00% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 185,000 0.00% 204,000 0.00% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 485,000 23,723 4.89% 365,000 55,739 15.27% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 245,000 105,513 43.07% 750,000 295,361 39.38% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 215,000 89,581 41 .67% 195,000 97,894 50.20% TOTAL 106,311 ,691 25,166,830 23.67% 111 ,337,610 25,545,239 22.94% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 22,000 11 ,183 50.83% 21 ,500 9,963 46.34% TOTAL 22,000 11 ,183 50.83% 21 ,500 9,963 46.34% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 65,082,694 17,787,800 27.33% 66,095,155 17,582,691 26.60% ALTERNATIVE LEARNING 1,927,250 481 ,812 25.00% 1,100,000 0.00% ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 193,739 0.00% 200,000 0.00% NATL SCHL LUNCH STUDENT FUNDING 6,498,240 1,772,247 27.27% 6,877,920 1,875,795 27.27% PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1,141 ,165 1,141,165 100.00% 953,144 953,144 100.00% SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS(STRS/HEAL TH) 8,275,000 2,081,289 25.15% 8,200,000 2,837,909 34.61% VOCATIONAL 1,350,000 308,278 22.84% 1,785,000 821 ,505 46.02% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 2,100,000 31 ,050 1.48% 2,425,000 315,387 13.01% EARLY CHILDHOOD 5,542,510 1,430,540 25.81% 4,000,000 2,352,400 58.81% TRANSPORTATION 4,125,000 1,325,044 32.12% 4,252,900 0.00% M TO M TRANSFERS 4,575,000 829,826 18.14% 4,100,000 809,636 19.75% ADULT EDUCATION 934,380 159,488 17.07% 926,543 127,273 13.74% AT RISK FUNDING 395,000 9,400 2.38% 10,000 0.00% TAP PROGRAM 382,903 7,645 2.00% 288,623 142,623 49.41% TOTAL 102,522,882 27,365,584 26.69% 101 ,214,285 27,818,363 27.48% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 770,000 0.00% 770,000 0.00% TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,295,000 8,155 0.63% 1,370,524 13,285 0.97% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,849,008 0.00% 2,194,000 0.00% TOTAL 3,914,008 8,155 0.21% 4,334,524 13,285 0.31% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 212,770,581 52,551,752 24.70% 216,907,919 53,386,850 24.61% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 22,887,794 2,623,611 11.46% 20,152,896 2,732,738 13.56% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,500,000 572,263 12.72% 4,784,200 501 ,410 10.48% MAGNET SCHOOLS 27,964,934 3,312,124 11.84% 28,849,578 3,829,793 13.28% CHARTER SCHOOL 1,340,000 350,000 26.12% TOTAL 55,352,728 6,507,998 11 .76% 55,126,674 7,413,941 13.45% TOTAL REVENUE 268,123,309 59,059,750 22.03% 272,034,593 60,800,791 22.35% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES ANO CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2004 ANO 2005 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2004105 10131104 EXPENDED 2005106 10131105 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 117,324 ,912 25,389,710 21 .64% 122,589,665 25,307,131 20.64% BENEFITS 36,185,811 6,545,838 18.09% 35,925,642 7,196,767 20.03% PURCHASED SERVICES 20,959,918 4,904,019 23.40% 22,438,191 4,920,662 21 .93% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,725,914 3,068,675 35.17% 10,128,394 4,697,771 46.38% CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,760,600 412,709 14.95% 2,473,965 358,990 14.51% OTHER OBJECTS 10,770,418 429,294 3.99% 10,759,804 96,874 0.90% DEBT SERVICE 12,474,809 4,590,834 36.80% 12,344,267 4,670,033 37.83% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 209,202,382 45,341,079 21.67% 216,659,928 47,248,229 21 .81% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,258,999 3,686,901 14.60% 22,422,961 3,093,252 13.80% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 5,007,809 1,476,865 29.49% 5,428,425 1,403,720 25.86% MAGNET SCHOOLS 27,964,934 5,151,960 18.42% 28,849,578 5,474,167 18.97% CHARTER SCHOOL 1,340,000 219,182 16.36% TOTAL 58,231 ,742 10,315,726 17.71% 58,040,964 10,190,321 17.56% TOTAL EXPENSES 267,434,124 55,656,805 20.81% 274,700,892 57,438,550 20.91% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 689,184 3,402,945 (2,666,300) 3,362,241 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET, M \u0026amp; 0 , CHARTER 4,005,957 4,005,957 3,074,390 3,074,390 OPERATING 6,531 ,706 6,531 ,706 10,753,692 10,753,692 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET, M \u0026amp; 0 , CHARTER 1,126,943 198,229 160,100 298,010 OPERATING 10,099,905 13,742,379 11 ,001 ,683 16,892,313 TOTAL 11 ,226,848 13,940,608 11 ,161 ,783 17,190,323 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2005 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-05 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06 10-31-05 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE MCCLELLAN 16,453.00 3,078.97 13,374.03 0.00 CONTINGENCY 9,989.19 9,989.19 SUBTOTAL 26,442.19 0.00 0.00 3,078.97 13,374.03 9,989.19 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 8,139.34 75,000.00 66,041 .49 12,477.63 4,620.22 NEW WORK PROJECTS 2,620,881 .45 655,309.00 1,474,919.84 425,697.07 1,375,573.54 SECURITY PROJECTS 14,541.25 14,541 .25 LIGHTING PROJECTS 0.00 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 6,796,760.46 582,300.00 1,130,153.21 473,037.24 5,775,870.01 RENOVATION PROJECTS 6,114,463.73 (83,909.00) 1,652,439.13 552,460.53 3,825,655.07 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,304,501 .46 1,247,947.58 435,334.20 291,480.14 2,825,634.70 SUBTOTAL 17,859,287.69 1,247,947.58 1,228,700.00 4,758,887.87 1,755,152.61 13,821,894.79 $2,189,175 QZAB BOND ISSUE CENTRAL 919,760.00 919,760.00 MANN 382,400.00 382,400.00 BOOKER 239,560.00 239,560.00 DUNBAR 278,800.00 278,800.00 FAIR PARK 79,480.00 79,480.00 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY 220,000.00 138,517.00 81 ,483.00 CONTINGENCY 69,175.43 69,175.43 0.00 0.00 2,189,175.43 138,517.00 0.00 2,050,658.43 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALES 624,935.56 624,935.56 MEADOWCLIFF PROJECT 18.00 18.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 14,017,116.18 (1 ,228,700.00) 12,788,416.18 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 PROCEEDS-OZAB SALE(2005) 0.00 2,189,175.43 (2,189,175.43) 0.00 INTEREST 5,829,676.83 652,359.29 6,482,036.12 SUBTOTAL 21,765,567.54 2,841,534.72 (3,417,875.43) 0.00 0.00 21 ,189,226.83 GRAND TOTAL aa ~l jll!Z ~~ ~ !!Dll ~a~ all J2.J!.I! ~ ll!l!l ~aa a~ l Za ~jl ~ az !!Zl Zll ~~ PROJECT CATEGORIES ADMINISTRATION NEW WORK PROJECTS SECURITY PROJECTS LIGHTING PROJECTS MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR RENOVATION PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS TOTAL PROJECT ALLOCATIONS THRU 10-31-05 895,526.80 39,489,532.86 265,814.17 4,862,548.33 19,947,450.50 51 ,071 ,693.84 15,292,448.46 14,082,237.15 145,907,252.11 EXPENSE 2000-01 889,772.32 443,467.00 113,930.47 2,641 ,482.13 791 ,385.63 397,615.34 575,016.53 I I 5,852,669.42 i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBi R 31, 2005 EXPENSE 2001-02 (485,325.77) 4,589,606.29 109,609.73 1,832,392.06 EXPENSE 2002-03 149,597.63 11 ,671,442.11 379,661 .38 4,21 a.294.40 3,455.350.67 I 4,119,045.21 115,666,239.90 4,325,201.40 4,500,374.61 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 EXPENSE I EXPENSE 2003-04 2004-05 114,896.16 I 143,447.12 I 15,993,062.06 3,515,764.95 27,732.73 0.00 9,012.76 : o.oo I 2,aa1,163.12 I 1,215,595.62 18,091,992.05 I 6,766,246.61 I 765,594.97 I 1,573,811.91 I I I 37,890,054.45 13,214,866.21 I I WNllnorov nx / SONIHV3H 'IX S\u0026gt;IHVW3H ONISOl:l x ENCUMBERED I EXPENSE 2005-06 : THRU 10-31-05 I SUBTOTAL I 66,041 .49 12,477.63 890,906.58 I 1,474,919.84 I 425,697.07 38,113,959.32 0.00 0.00 I 251,272.93 0.00 0.00 I 4,862,548.33 1,130,153.21 I 473,037.24 14,171,580.49 1.652.439.13 I 552,460.53 47,246,038.77 \"''\"' I 291,480.14 12,466,813.76 I I 4,758,887.87 I 1,755,152.61 118,003,120.18 I I I i ENDING ALLOCATION 10-31-05 4,620.22 1,375,573.54 14,541 .25 0.00 5,775,870.01 3,825,655.07 2,825,634.70 14,082,237.15 27,904,131 .94 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2005 I Fund Purchase Maturity Institution 1 Interest Rate\nType Principal Date Date I I I I I Operating 10-28-05 TFN I Bank of America 3.720% Repo I 8,250,000.00 Operating I 10-14-05 11-14-05 Bank of America 3.660% Treasury Bills 6,275,160.26 Operating 10-28-05 11-01-05 I Bank of America 3.700% Treasury Bills I 4,298,232.22 Total I 18,823,392.48 Activity Fund 10-17-05 TFN Bank of America 3.060% Repo I 650,000.00 Activity Fund 09-30-05 03-31-06 Bank of America 3.900% Treasury Bills I 799,911.20 Total I 1,449,911.20 I Bond Account 09-05-05 03-06-06 Regions 2.966% I CD I 400,000.00 Bond Account 10-21-05 TFN Bank of America 3.370% Repo 1,600,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-10-05 01-10-06 Metropolitan 2.400% i CD I 1,000,934.31 I Capital Projects Fund 01-31-05 01-29-06 Bancorp South 2.750% CD 2,139,266.38 Capital Projects Fund 08-16-05 02-13-06 Twin City Bank 4.250% I CD I 11,286,805.57 Capital Projects Fund 08-02-05 02-02-06 Twin City Bank 3.720% CD 4,636,194.86 Capital Projects Fund 07-08-05 01-09-06 Twin City Bank 3.770% ' CD I 10,500,000.00 I Capital Projects Fund 09-15-05 11-07-05 Bank of America 3.450% Treasury Bills 4,647,275.21 Capital Projects Fund 10-17-05 TFN Bank of America 3.190% Repo I 3,725,000.00 I Total I I I 39,935,476.33 Deseg Plan Scholarship 09-06-05 03-07-06 Bank of America 3.600% Treasury Bills 736,350.00 Total ' I I I 736,350.00 I I Rockefeller Scholarship I I 06-28-05 01-18-06 Bank of America 3.350% Treasury Bills 258,007.38 Total I 258,007.38 i I I Risk Management Loss Fund 10-17-05 03-14-06 Bank of America I 3.960% I Treasury Bills 499,785.64 Total I 499,785.64\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_1089","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","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":["2005-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"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/1089"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda RECEIVED OCT 2 6 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting OFFICE OF DESEG. MONITORING .I . ,, -::o m 4 C: ,I z31: ,\u0026gt; 1::0 I-\u0026lt; I-.,  C: I,..Zn... -~ I Z :en\n= I io n Im \u0026gt;c I~ ,- ~~\n:::l m  ::0 '\u0026lt;II ~ .,m::0 !?~ D- :-:0, \"'S!! \")::O\nim .,n - 0 5., Czl n =. ~ z \u0026lt;II I. 11. Ill. IV. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS October 27, 2005 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Carver Magnet Elementary with Raytheon Aircra'ft Company Otter Creek Elementary with Meyer Stagecoach Florist C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Review of Annual Report C. Student Assignment Report D. Budget Update E. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects F. Internal Auditors Report G. Technology Update APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Regular Meeting - 09-22-0S Special Meeting - 09-14-0S Special Meeting - 10-13-0S ,  \"0 -\na m  !:: )ii: ,z ,\u0026gt; ,'\n-a\u0026lt; '.,, ,- zC: )0 - - -~ \u0026gt;z = (I) := E\nE noo ,m )C : C: n~ ~ ..... ~ ~\n=1 ~m ~ill .. ~ !?~ -\na !l- ., I\n!a! .::,imo -,o 5 C) i,:Z ~ =l z~ (I) !II \"0  ~ z m\na (I) z m C C: 0  - z~ f)\na m IS:\na \n,,: ,'\".,', '~ ' ii: 0 =l N m z (I) October 27, 2005 Page2 VI. BOARD POLICY AND REGULATIONS REVIEW A. AD: Mission Statement B. First Reading: AC - Nondiscrimination First Reading: ACD - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Religion First Reading: ACH - Anti-Harrassment C. Second Reading: Policy GBK - Staff Concerns, Complaints and Grievances, with Regulations GBK-R D. DKC-R: Regulations for Out of Area Travel, Travel Expense Authorization, Reimbursement and Travel Limits VII. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes VIII. FINANCE \u0026amp; SUPPORT SERVICES A. Property Easement: J. A. Fair High School B. Property Easement: Gibbs Elementary School C. Donations of Property D. Financial Report IX. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions X. STUDENT AND/OR EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XI. ADJOURNMENT , \"ti --m\na .c ) !I: ,\u0026gt;\u0026gt;Z ,'\n-\u0026lt;a ,'- zC\"T':I )0 -t \" lS \u0026gt;z ~ u, I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ wi:1 ~nui: Tn n, ri:i:Tl: Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: October 27, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Partners in Education BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. RATIONALE: The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. FUNDING: Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the board approve the following partnerships: Carver Magnet Elementary School and Raytheon Aircraft Company Otter Creek Elementary School and Meyer Stagecoach Florist PREPARED BY: Debbie Milam, ViPS Coordinator !=' a, C: 8 !!l C: ~ m r\u0026gt;\na m '~\na ,':.\"~:.o,': 'ii: 0 =I f\n:j z Cl) RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY 2400 Grundfest Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Raytheon Aircraft Company Partnership with George Washington Carver Magnet School Little Rock, Arkansas 2005 Partnership Activities I. Career Day - March 19, 2005 A. RAC's Chief Pilot spoke to four 2nd grade classes 1. Presentation entitled \"Planes Come in Many Shapes - How a Plane Flies\" 2. Gave each student a brochure about RAC planes and a frisbee 11. Mentoring Program A. Volunteers from RAC 1. Provide support to teachers and administrators as requested 2. Provide support/services to students as identified 3. Provide motivational speakers for students Ill. Book donation A. RAC's Women's Net\\vork Initiative group will donate books. Carver's Literacy Coach will present proposals for group to consider. IV. Tour of Company A. 5 th grade students will tour RAC facility 8. RAC will provide a pizza lunch for students V. Safety Presentation A. RAC Safety Engineer will speak to students LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CARVER MAGNET SCHOOL Carver Magnet Partnership Activities with Raytheon Aircraft Company 2005-2006 1. Display of winning Invent America, Science and Math Fair projects at Raytheon. Carver specialists, Kim Washington and Suellen DiMassimo would set up and take down after contact to Arti Vanzandt.) 2. Birthday cards sent to Raytheon employees produced by Carver students during art chasses. (Raytheon to get birthday list to Erik Brown, Art Specialist.) 3. Invitations to Raytheon for classroom readers during VIPS Reading Day and Read Across America. (Carver contacts, Lori Watts and Karen Sebourn, Media Specialists) 4. Campus Leadership Representative from Raytheon. We would appreciate one of our contacts attending our four meetings per year. We will get at least a week's notice. This is an advisor activity.) 5. Building of a relationship between Raytheon team members and our Young Astronauts Specialist, Ed Scott, for further support. 6. Raytheon speakers for Career Week. (Contact\nCounselor, Tracye Thomason) Phone 447-4000 Littie Rock. Arkansas 72202 r\u0026gt; ~ C: C m :!i ~ czi ii: m :!i !=' a, C: 8 !!l C: ~ m r\u0026gt; ill ' I\nEa\n,,\n') \"' ~...,  ii: C\") =i l\nl z \"' Partnership Proposal Meyer Stagecoach Florist and Otter Creek Elementary Meyer Stagecoach Florist commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide a floral centerpiece each month to be used in the cafeteria for Super Citizens' and Peacemakers' Table of Honor. A drawing will be held and one of the students being recognized will win the centerpiece to take home.  Assist with other school activities throughout the school year when possible. Otter Creek Elementary commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide artwork for the florist  Provide choir to perform on holidays and/or special occasions  Acknowledge Meyer Stagecoach Florist as a Partner in Education  Invite the partner to school events and volunteer recognition events LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: October 27, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Annual Board Meeting BACKGROUND: The Arkansas Department of Education rules which govern Standards for Accreditation require that public school districts hold a public meeting prior to November 15 of each year to review and discuss its annual report detailing progress toward accomplishing its district's program objectives, accreditation standards, and proposals to correct deficiencies. Additionally, all accreditation and evaluation studies and reports shall be discussed. A brief review of the highlights from our annual report will be presented at the October Board Meeting. RATIONALE: To comply with 7.03.3 of the rules governing Standards for Accreditation. FUNDING: None required. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: Suellen Vann, Communications Director Joseph Mittiga, Governmental/Legislative/Public Affairs Officer :n .z.... m 0~ n~ 3\u0026gt; 0 C:  0 =I 0\no en ~ ..... m C') :z: z  -\u0026lt;\no m ~ r\u0026gt; !!l C: C =g ~..... \u0026gt;  en n en 1z5 :I: m !i !:I a, C: 8 !!l C: ~ m LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: October 27, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: 2005 - 2006 Student Enrollment Report BACKGROUND: The district's official October 1, 2005 enrollment report was submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education on Thursday, October 20, 2005. The report reflects an increase of 656 students in grades P4 - 12, with the total 2005-2006 count being 26,524. Last year (2004-05) at this same time enrollment stood at 25,868. RATIONALE: The October 1, 2005 Enrollment Report is an annual report due to the Arkansas Department of Education. The LRSD Office of Information Services, Student Registration and individual schools work together to compile the information submitted to ADE. FUNDING: The District has the potential of an increase in funding, from the ADE, when the first two quarter average of the 2005 - 2006 school year is compared with the average daily attendance of the 2004 - 2005 school year. ATTACHMENT: A comparison of the October 1, 2005 - 2006 and October 1, 2004 - 2005 is provided for your review. PREPARED BY: Dr. Linda Watson, Senior Director of Student Services :n .z.... m 0~ n j!: 3 \u0026gt; ,ooC =i !6 \"' :\u0026lt; g ...... z m ~ m ~ !\" n 0 z ~ ~ n.... . i5 z 00 z 0 1-0cUl5 HIGH SCHOOLS B w CENTRAL 1273 1033 FAIR 1006 127 HALL 1083 151 MCCLEUAN TT9 50 PARKVIEW 559 496 ACC 109 18 ALC 193 5 FELDER 32 2 ALT. AGENCIES 26 12 SUB TOTAL 5060 1894 MIDDLE SCHOOLS CLOVERDALE 491 27 DUNBAR 531 218 FOREST HEIGHTS 531 121 HENDERSON 503 65 MABELVALE 519 TT MANN 429 365 PULASKI HEIGHTS 411 307 SOUTHWEST 419 19 ALC 80 5 FELDER 2 1 ALT. AGENCIES 12 8 SUB TOTAL 3928 1213 ELEMENTARY BALE 273 23 BASELINE 219 17 BOOKER 324 253 BRADY 332 40 CARVER 290 211 CHICOT 418 34 CLOVERDALE 85 7 DODD 162 80 FAJRPARK 86 38 FOREST PARK 81 309 FRANKLIN 427 10 FULBRIGHT 152 445 GEYER SPRINGS 301 15 GIBBS 158 117 JEFFERSON 142 294 KING 409 .187 MABELVALE 257 50 MCDERMOTT 296 115 MEAOOWCLIFF 289 42 MITCHELL dosed OTTERCREEK 374 154 PULASKI HEIGHTS 152 167 RIGHTSELL 178 4 ROCKEFELLER 358 107 ROMINE 290 28 STEPHENS 527 11 TERRY 375 185 WAKEFIELD 366 20 WASHINGTON 516 78 WATSON 419 7 WESTERN HILLS 220 48 WILLIAMS 233 177 WILSON 242 15 WOODRUFF 219 17 ALT. AGENCIES 8 33 SUBTOTAL 9178 3338 GRAND TOTAL 18166 6445 10-21-05 LRSD OFFICIAL ENROLLMENT 2005-06 vs. 2004-05 1-0cUM 0 TOTAL %BLK B 116 2422 53% 1125 36 1169 86% 897 155 1389 78% 1103 35 864 90% 849 74 1129 49% 565 2 129 8,4'1, 112 2 200 96% 164 1 35 91% 0 38 70% 29 421 7375 69% 48-44 118 636 TT% 560 62 811 65% 453 24 676 79'4 533 62 630 80% 518 17 613 85% 515 56 850 50% 439 16 734 56% 404 22 460 91% 466 2 87 92'4 TT 0 3 67% 1 22 59'4 27 380 5522 71% 3992 38 334 82% 262 60 296 74% 235 30 607 53% 323 22 394 8-4% 248 32 533 54% 260 112 564 74% 392 21 113 75% 276 47 289 56% 141 6 130 66% 141 17 407 20% 71 3 440 97% 373 36 633 24% 144 17 333 90% 263 22 297 53% 164 6 442 32% 155 23 619 66% 363 31 338 76% 205 47 458 65% 253 32 363 80% 272 150 52 580 64% 314 15 334 45% 140 2 184 97% 262 12 4TT 75% 306 47 365 79% 245 9 547 96% 473 96 656 57% 307 105 491 74% 353 50 644 80% 427 32 458 91% 439 18 286 TT% 206 50 460 51% 240 19 276 88% 255 2 238 92% 215 1 42 19% 16 1112 13628 67% 8889 1913 26524 68% 17725 w 0 TOTAL %BLK 981 97 2203 51% 125 36 1058 85% 184 177 1464 75% 51 25 925 92% 465 78 1108 51% 18 6 136 82% 12 2 178 92% 17 2 48 60% 1853 423 7120 68% 24 98 682 82% 223 71 747 61% 133 22 688 TT% 57 55 630 82% 102 17 634 81% 368 66 873 52% 295 9 708 57% 15 12 493 94% 6 0 83 93% 13 0 40 68% 1236 350 5578 72% 26 31 319 82% 25 31 291 81% 253 29 605 53% 48 22 318 78% 204 32 496 52% 44 100 536 73% 17 67 360 TT% TT 43 261 54% 37 9 187 75% 270 20 361 20% 9 5 387 96% 381 29 554 26% 15 21 299 88% 120 26 310 53% 268 6 429 36% 211 33 607 60% 37 15 257 80% 102 51 406 62% 49 28 349 78% 5 1 156 96% 162 35 511 60% 137 9 286 49% 0 0 262 100% 126 21 453 67% 27 49 321 76% 15 11 499 95% 189 81 577 53% 12 86 451 78% 74 62 563 76% 11 6 456 96% 43 13 262 79% 172 49 461 52% 16 14 285 89% 18 2 235 91% 42 2 60 27% 3242 1039 13170 68% 6331 1812 25868 68% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: October 27, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: October 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: The media center expansion at Carver and the remodeling of Meadowcliff have been completed. I hope you have had an opportunity to see the finished products because you will be impressed. The demolition of Cloverdale Elementary School has begun and will be completed by the end of November. The attached report shows six (6) new projects that are being funded by the sale of QZAB Bonds for $2,189,175. The projects, identified as priority by the LRSD Maintenance Department because of the number of service calls for, equipment failures, replaced inadequate heating and air conditioning equipment in those six schools. RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action necessary. PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer ~ .... m 0 :,: z  -\u0026lt; :D m ~ Facility Name Central Media ~dale Elementary Gibbs Henderson Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. WITTiams CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 27, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I Project Description I Cost I t::st. t,\nompletJOn Date Roof $85,000 Dec-05 - - Demolition - $520,750 - Nov-05 Addition - $705,670 - Dec-05 Skylight Replacement - $319,000 - Nov-05 HVAC (QZAB) $220,0QQ__ Nov-05 - Site Work - $6,QQQ__ O-ct-05 Drainage Repair $29,200 Nov-05 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - FALL/ WINTER 2005-06 Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. compIetIon Date J. A. Fair Sewer Line $82,900 Unknown -- -- Rightsell Renovation $2,494,000 Unknown BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I t:st. t,\nompIeuon Date Administration Annex Electrical Upgrade $9,166 Unknown Alternative Learning Center Electrical Upgrade - - $2,696 Unknown Booker HVAC (QZAB) --- - - - $239,56~ - - Unknown Booker Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown - - - Brady Metal Roof - $250,000 Unknown Central HVAC (QZAB) $919.~ Unknown f-- - - - - Chicot Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown I- - - - Child Nutrition Renovation $6,500 Unknown f----- -- -- - -- Dunbar HVAC (QZAB) - $278,800 Unknown Fair Park HVAC (QZAB) $79,480 Unknown f----- - - - ~tHeights Remodel $1,547,~ - Unknown Fulbright Addition/Traffic Planning -- -- $2,500- Unknown --- -- Henderson Renovation -- -- $450,000 Summer 2006 Mann HVAC (QZAB) -- $382,400 Unknown --- -- Mitchell Renovation $2,212,493 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation - Unknown Unknown Terry Addition Planning $2,500 Unknown BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED I I I est. t,\nompIeuon Facilitv Name Project Descriotion Cost Date Administration Annex ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown Adult Education ADA Adaptations -- $248.~-- Unknown --- - -- - - -- Structural Repairs $53,918 Unknown - ~ative Learning Center ADA Adaptations $43,134 Unknown --- ~-- Roof Repairs -- $26,959 Unknown Restroom Renovation $37,742 Unknown -- Booker ADA Adaptations -- $107,835 Spring 2006 Cashion Building ADA Adaptations -- $21 ,567 Unknown Dodd Restroom Renovation $26,959 Unknown Facility Services ADA Adaptations - $32,351 Unknown Install Water Meters at Cooling Towers $4,313 Unknown I-Emergency Lighting Replacement $80,876 Unknown ~ - Land Purchase - Booker $100,000 Unknown - - - - --- Fulbright Renovate Restrooms $10,784 Unknown - -- -- ADA Adaptations $21 ,567 Unknown Garland - - - - - Renovation - $900,000 Partially Complete ADA Adaptations $188,711 Unknown - ----- Geyer Springs Replace Restroom Stalls $4,313 Unknown - ADA Adaptations $21,567 Unknown Facility Name Henderson IRC McDermott Quigley Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 27, 2005 BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED I Project Description I Cost I _ADA Adaptations _ $70,091._ ADA Adaptations _ $21 ,567 _ Restroom Renovation _ $21 ,567 Restroom Renovation _ $32,350 Restroom Upgrades $53,918 DressingRoom Renovation - $37,742 ADA Adaptations = $26,959 - Interior Renovation $16,175 Transportation - Laid~ ADA Adaptations - $32,351 - West Little Rock School New School - $11 ,782,638 - Facility Name Administration Administration Administration Administration Administration Annex Alternative Learning Ctr. Alternative Learning Ctr. Badgett Badgett Bale Bale Bale Bale Baseline !3ooker Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady __ Brady Carver Central Carver BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I Project Description I Cost I Asbestos abatement _ $380,495 ~ sh air system ___ $55,000 Flre alarm - $32,350 - HVA-C -_- ___ ~= $70,000 _ Energy monitoring system installation Energy monitoring system installation Energy efficient light~-Partial asbestos abatement Fire alarm -aassroom addition/renovatfon Energy monitoring system Partial roof replacement HVAC-- Renovation Gym Roof --A- DA Rest rooms Energy efficient lighting Energy monitoring s- y-s~te_m_i_n-st-allation -,-Asbestos abatement Fire alarm ------- Addition/renovation ~ergy efficient lighting-- - Asbestos abatement $15,160 $82,000 $237,237 $18,250 $2,244,524 $269,587 $664,587 $953,520 $48,525 $25,000 $170,295 $23,710 $10,900 $34,501 $973,621 $80,593 $345,072 Energy monitoring system installation ____ $14,480 Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Media Center Expansion Parking lot HVAC Renovation - Band Area $167,490 $111 ,742 $225,000 Carver Central Central Central Parking Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central -=--Reflecting Pond _ $57,561 $174,000 Central Central Central Central Chicot Chicot Cloverdale Elem. Student parking Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electncal repair Athletic Field Improvement -Irr~igati-on~ Sys~tem ------- - - -- Purchase land for school - ------------- Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations Ceiling and wall repair Fire Alarm System Design/Installation Front landing tile repair Drainage Sound Attenuation Energy efficient lighting $265,000 $38,000 $14,500 Unknown $2,000,000 $24,000 $80,876 $22,470 $64,700 $43,134 $132,678 Est. Completion Date Unknown Unknown -- Unknown Unknown -- Unknown U-nknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Est. Completion Date Mar-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Nov-04 ~y-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 ~g-01 Aug-04 Oct-04 --- - Aug-~ Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 - Mar-02 Nov-04 - - Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 - Sep-05 Oct-05 Aug-03 Dec-04 Sep-04 Aug-03 ~g-03 Aug-03 - Aug-03 !ID Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Jul-04 Jul-01 2 Facility Name Cloverdale MS Cloverdale MS Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dunbar Facilities Service Facility Services Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Franklin Geyer Springs Gibbs Gibbs Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mablevale Elem Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 27, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I Project Description I Cost Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1 ,393,822 Fire Alarm Upgrade $9,200 Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Renovation/addition $6,149,023 Interior renovation $84,672 Fire alarm $12,000 Remodel $799,000 Parking Lot $185,000 Roof $245,784 HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music room addition $3,155,640 Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Press box $10,784 Security cameras $12,500 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Irrigation System $14,000 Roof repairs $391 ,871 Restrooms $152,881 Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Diagonal parking $111 ,742 Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Energy monitoring system installation $11 ,950 Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Parking lot $140,,000 Roof repairs $200,000 Renovation $2,511 ,736 Roof Repair $161 ,752 Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Energy monitoring system installation $11 ,770 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Asbestos abatement $168,222 Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Intercom Security cameras $10,600 Lockers $43,854 Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1 ,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 Fire Alarm Upgrade $12,000 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units $300,000 I Est. Completion Date Jul-01 Nov-02 Oct-04 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Nov-04 Mar-01 Aug-03 Aug-05 Aug-05 May-05 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 - Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Aug-05 Nov-03 Aug-03 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Jun-04 Apr-01 Jul-01 Sep-03 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 Dec-04 Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Oct-04 Aug-01 Aua-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 27, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facili Name Proect Descri tion Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers Mabelvale MS Renovation Mann Partial Replacement Mann ~phalt walks Mann Walkway canopies Mann Boiler replacement Mann Fencing Mann Partial demolition/portable classrooms McClellan -Parking Lot Overlay McClellan Athletic Field Improvement McClellan Irrigation System -- McClellan Security cameras McClellan Energy efficient lighting McClellan Stadium stands repair McClellan Intercom McClellan Classroom Addition McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade McDermott Energy efficient lighting McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units Meadowcliff Fire alarm __ Meadowcliff Asbestos abatement Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting Meadowcliff Remodel Metropolitan Replace cooling tower Metropolitan Replace shop vent system Metropolitan Energy monitoring system installation Mitchell -- ~ilding Remediation Mitchell Energy efficient lighting __ Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation Mitchell Asbestos abatement - - Oakhurst (Adult Education) New Windows Oakhurst HVAC renovation Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Energy monitoring s stem installation Energy efficient lighting Asbestos abatement Parking lot 6 classroom addition Parking Improvements Addition -- Parkview HVAC controls Parkview Roof replacement __ __ Parkview Exterior lights __ _ Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls Parkview Locker replacement Parkview Energy efficient lighting __ Procurement Energy monitoring system installation Procurement 7=Tre alarm Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Cafeteria Ceiling Pulaski Hei hts Elem/Middle Replace Ent Doors Cost $107,000 $106,598 $134,793 $6,851 ,621 $11 ,500,000 The total $1 .8 million is what has been used so far on the projects listed completed for Mann. - -- $65,000 $38,000 $14,750 - $36,300 _ $303,614 $235,000 $46,000 $2,155,622 $7,700 $79,411 $476,000 $16,175 $253,412 $88,297 $365,600 $37,203 $20,000 $17,~ $165,000 $103,642 $16,695 $13,000 $215,000 $237,237 $10,695 $81,828 $10,000 $138,029 $888,778 $142,541 $2,121,226 $210,000 $273,877 $10,784 $301 ,938 $120,000 $315,000 $5,290 $25,000 $33,378 $13,990 Est. Completion Date Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Mar-04 Apr-04 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 ~r-05 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Jul-04 Sep-04 Feb-01 --- Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Oct-05 Dec-00 ~y-01 Aug-01 Jul-04 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-05 Aug-01 May-01 ~pr-01 Aug-02 Aug-0~ Oct-02 Aug-03 Dec-04 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Au -03 Aug-05 Au -05 4 :n .z... m\n,, Dz ~n ,i!=. .o. \u0026lt;c= =l 0\n,, Cl) CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 27, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost Pulaski Heights Elementary Clean Exterior Walls $98,660 --- Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1 ,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground $17,000 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting - $84,898 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Rockefeller . Parking addition $111 ,742 Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Scott Field Track Renovations $289,056 Security IT ransportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest New Corridor Ceiling $300,000 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest New roof $690,000 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Southwest Drainage I street widening $250,000 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $3,679,000 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Washington Fire Alarm Upgrade $11 1600 Washington Security cameras $7,900 Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $622,160 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade $8,400 Western Hills ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191,946 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Wilson HVAC for Cafeteria $56,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1 ,263,876 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Woodruff Parking addition $175,000 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 I Est. c..\nompIetIon Date Sep-05 Nov-04 Dec-02 Nov-04 Apr-01 - Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Apr-02 Mar-03 May-05 Jun-01 Aug-05 Nov-04 Aug-00 Oct-03 Jan-02 -- Aug-03 Aug-02 Aug-03 Dec-01 Jun-04 - Nov-02 Feb-01 A~g-02 Sep-02 Dec-04 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 -Oct--04 Jun-01 Apr-01 -- Jul-01 Aug-01 - Aug-01 - Aug-02 - Aug-0~ Aug-05 -- Oct-04 - ~ug-04 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 -- Mar-04 Dec-03 Jun-01 Mar-05 --- Feb-04 ---- _!\\ug-__ Aug-05 Auq-02 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: October 27, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Board Auditor Report BACKGROUND: Monthly report to School Board. RATIONALE: Summary report of activities. FUNDING: No changes. RECOMMENDATION: None. PREPARED BY: Sandy Becker !1:1 Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS October 27, 2005 Board of Directors Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Audit Report- October This is the seventy-second communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two high schools, two middle school and two elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity and related funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. b) The AAB has forwarded a Booster Club Guidelines Package to be included in official publications of the District after review. Board Policy and Regulation a) The routing of Professional Leave and Travel Requests is being worked on to make the process more efficient and to prepare for the process being automated to improve documentation and provide information for decision making. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Working with Procurement on the use ofbarcode scanners for checking and updating inventory records. This is being done to help more quickly update and check electronic equipment records at the various sites. a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. Provided training with the Arkansas PT A on financials controls and financial preventive maintenance. Audit Report - October 2005 Page 2 of2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) c) d) e) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Assisting schools to track and reconcile Teacher School Supply Funds. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2005. Eleven schools participated. Sharefest is scheduled for October 29, 2005. Assisting LRSD PT A's in financial process training. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 October 27, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Technology Report BACKGROUND: Since the last Board meeting the following technology activities took place:  Technology Plan Revision Committee has started the process of revising the district's technology plan. The plan will be coming to the board in February 2006.  Implementation of Edline, the program that allows parents to view grades, has begun on the middle school level. Teachers at Mabelvale Middle are being trained by district technology staff.  The computer refresh program has continued at designated district sites. RATIONALE: To implement the LRSD Technology Plan 2003 - 2006 FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services Lucy Neal, Coordinator, Technology and Media Services LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: October 27, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Policy Review: AD - Mission Statement BACKGROUND: The Board conducts periodic reviews of policies and regulations to ensure that these regulatory directives remain current and complete. Board member Tony Rose requested a review of Policy AD, which consists of the Mission Statement adopted in September 1998. The current mission statement was in effect at the time the LRSD 2003-2008 Strategic Plan was developed. RATIONALE: To ensure consistency between official Board policy and other documents used to administer the District's programs, projects, goals and objectives. FUNDING: No funding required. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Strategic Planning committee take into consideration the board authorized version of the mission statement and adopt it as the mission statement for strategic planning purposes. PREPARED BY: Roy G. Brooks ~ ::c \u0026gt;c: ~!\n,o\n,o ~m zzc~: m\n,o r-n m \"' .. si .n,:_,, nZ n\u0026gt; s:z nO em \"'\"\" I en - C: ~~ ..\n,o ii-\u0026lt; !II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: AD LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District 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. Adopted: September 24, 1998 DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 October 27, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Policy Review and Proposed Revisions BACKGROUND: The Board conducts periodic reviews of policies and regulations to ensure that these regulatory directives remain current and complete. Board member Tony Rose requested a review of specific policies and has suggested updates as follows: Policy AC - Nondiscrimination The current policy AC, Nondiscrimination, was adopted in September 1998. The proposed revision of this policy changes the term \"sex\" to \"gender and sexual orientation.\" The changes are indicated on the first reading proposal attached. Policy ACD - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Religion Policy ACD, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Religion, was adopted by the Board in September 1998. The proposed revision of this policy replaces the language of the entire policy, emphasizing the Board's commitment to nondiscrimination based on religious beliefs. Policy ACH - Anti-Harrassment The current policy ACH, Anti-harassment, consists of language that should be considered as regulatory administrative directives. The proposed revision separates the policy from the directives. RATIONALE: To ensure that the Board's policies and regulations remain up-to-date and accurate. FUNDING: No funding required. ~ :z: \u0026gt; C: -~ rilz\nID\nID ~m z~ z C: m\nc r- (\") m u, ..~ n:., nZ-n\u0026gt; i:z \"(\") ,:m .. go I u, - C: ~~ ..\nID 5 .... !I' c- RECOMMENDATION: The administration recommends approval on first reading of Policies AC, ACD, and ACH. PREPARED BY: Roy G. Brooks LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: AC NONDISCRIMINATION The commitment of the Little Rock School District to the most fundamental principles of academic freedom, equality of opportunity, and human dignity requires that decisions involving students and employees be based on individual merit and be free from discrimination in all its forms. It is the policy of the Board of Education that there will be no discrimination because of race, color, religion, ~. gender, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or handicap/disability in the placement, instruction, and guidance of pupils\nthe employment, assignment, training, or promotion of personnel\nthe provision and maintenance of physical supplies and equipment\nthe development and implementation of the curriculum, including the activities program\nand in all matters relating to the instruction, supervision, administration and Board policy development. Revised: Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: Title VI and Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title I and Title 11, Civil Rights Act of 1991 Equal Pay Act of 1963 Executive Order 11246 of 1995 Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972 and regulations, 34 C.F .R. part 104 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Sections 503 and 504 Section 504, 34 C.F.R. part 104 Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990 Vietnam-era Veterans Readjustment Act, 1974 Age Discrimination Act, 1975 Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 1967 Arkansas General Laws Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1997 Cross References: Board of Education Policies ACA, ACB, ACC, ACD, ACE, ACF ~ :c \u0026gt; C:  ~\nl::z\nio\n,o ism z is z C: ,m-\n,no m Cl) .. ~ .n,:_., nZ n\u0026gt; i::z nO ..:m -\u0026lt;l!o I Cl) - C: ~~ ..\nlll ii-\u0026lt; ~ Cl) m\ni::: m :!:\nC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACD NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION Tho First Amendment to tho United States of America's Constitution requires that public schools remain religiously neutral. All students, staff, and faculty have tho right to choose or not to choose their own religion and thoro will bo no discrimination of any kind based upon an individual's religion. It is the policy of the Board of Education that no student, faculty, or staff in the Little Rock School District will, on the basis of religious belief, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any District educational program, activity, or employment. Revised: Adopted: September 24, 1998 Legal References: See Code AC Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy AC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE : ACH ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY It is the policy of the District to maintain a learning environment that is free from harassment. The District prohibits any and all forms of harassment because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, national origin, religion, or disability or protected activity (i.e. opposing unlawful harassment or discrimination or participating in an investigation. Any such conduct will result in disciplinary action and notification to the proper authorities. It will be a violation of District policy for any student, teacher, administrator, or other school personnel of the District to harass a student through conduct of a sexual nature, or regarding race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, national origin, religion, disability, or protected activity as defined by this policy. It will also be a violation of District policy for any teacher, administrator or other school personnel of the District to tolerate sexual harassment or harassment because of a student's race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, national origin, religion, disability or protected activity as defined by this policy, by a student, teacher, administrator, other school personnel, or by any third parties who are participating in, observing, or otherwise engaged in activities, including sports events and other extracurricular activities, under the auspices of the District. For the purpose of this policy, the \"school personnel\" includes school Board of Education members, school employees, agents, volunteers, contractors, or persons subject to the supervision and control of the District. The District will act to promptly investigate all complaints, either formal or informal, verbal or written, of harassment because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, national origin, religion, disability or protected activity to promptly take appropriate action to protect individuals from further harassment\nand, if it determines that unlawful harassment occurred, to promptly and appropriately discipline any student, teacher, administrator or other school personnel who is found to have violated this policy, and/or to take other appropriate action reasonably calculated to end the harassment. fl ~ :r \u0026gt;. Cf\n:\nllz\n:o~ ~lS z C: m\n:o r-n m en .. ~ .n,:_., ~~ 1:z nO a:m -\u0026lt;IIO I en - C: ~~ .. ::0 ii-\u0026lt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH continued This policy will be broadly interpreted as evidence of the District's commitment to equality of opportunity, human dignity, diversity, and academic freedom. No person will retaliate or threaten retaliation against another person for reporting, testifying or otherwise participating in any investigation, or proceeding relating to a complaint of harassment. Revised: Adopted: July 23, 2001 Legal References: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 1965, 42 U.S.C.  2000d Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.  1681 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.  794 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.  12134 Cross References: Student Handbooks and Personnel Handbook 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH-R Anti-Harassment Regulation PROCEDURE FOR COMPLAINTS OF HARASSMENT These regulations are intended to protect the rights of students, employees, administrators, the Board of Education and visitors on District property and to outline procedures, which will be followed in the event harassment occurs on District property or at an event sponsored by the District. The following definitions will be used for the purpose of enforcing the AntiHarassment Policy, ACH. DEFINITIONS Racial or Color Harassment Racial or color harassment includes unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's race or color, such as nicknames emphasizing stereotypes, racial slurs, comments on manner of speaking and negative references to racial customs. Sexual Harassment Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical conduct or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. It also includes conduct that is not sexual in nature but that is engaged in because of the gender of the victim. It includes condact that is also criminal in nature such as rape, sexual assault, stalking, and similar offenses. Under federal law, sexual harassment is prohibited regardless of the sex of the harasser, i.e., sexual harassment may occur even if the harasser and the person being harassed are the same sex. Sexual Orientation Harassment Harassment on the basis of sexual orientation is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's sexual orientation, such as negative name-calling and imitating mannerisms. Marital Status Harassment Harassment on the basis of marital status is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's marital status, such as comments regarding pregnancy or being an unwed mother or father. ~ ::c \u0026gt; C: - ~ ~z\n,a\n,a lS m zlS z C: m\n,o r-n m \"' ~ \":., n-Z n\u0026gt; i::z nO ,:m \"'\"\" I UI - C: ~~ \na i6--\u0026lt; ?I ~ \"m' I: mz C' tL \u0026lt;- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH-R (continued) National Origin Harassment Harassment on the basis of national origin is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's national origin, such as negative comments regarding surnames, manner of speaking, customs, language, or ethnic slurs. Religious Harassment Harassment on the basis of religion or creed is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's religion or creed, such as derogatory comments regarding surnames, religious tradition, or religious clothing, or religious slurs, or graffiti. Disability Harassment Harassment based on a person's disabling mental or physical condition and includes any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person's disabling condition, such as imitating manner of speech or movement, or interference with necessary equipment. REPORTING PROCEDURES Any person who feels he/she is being harassed may wish to consider informing the offending person that the behavior is inappropriate and not appreciated. Oftentimes, this is all that is required to stop the harassing behavior. You are not, however, required to take this step prior to filing a complaint.  Any student, District personnel, or visitor who believes he/she has been the victim of harassment by a student, teacher, administrator or other school personnel of the District, or by any other person who is participating in, observing, or otherwise engaged in activities, including extracurricular activities, under the auspices of the District, is encouraged to immediately report the alleged acts to the building principal. If the principal is the perpetrator of the harassment, the report of the incident will be made to the appropriate Assistant Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for School Services or the Director of Human Resources. Any teacher, administrator or other school official who has knowledge of or receives notice that a student or visitor has or may have been the victim of harassment by a student, teacher, administrator, or other school district personnel is required to immediately report the alleged act(s) to the building principal unless the principal is the perpetrator. If the harassment involves the 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH-R (continued) principal, the incident will be reported to the appropriate Assistant Superintendent or Associate Superintendent for School Services. Upon receipt of the report, the principal, Assistant Superintendent or Associate Superintendent will notify Safety and Security personnel to conduct an investigation of the allegation. A third party may be involved in the investigation. The parent of the student (victim) will be notified immediately, unless after consultation with the student, it is determined not to be in the best interest of the student. If the alleged harassment is committed by a student, the student's parent/guardian will be notified that an investigation is being conducted. Complaints will be kept confidential to the extent possible. A prompt, thorough and impartial investigation will be conducted of all complaints of violation of this policy. Upon completion of the investigation, a written report will be submitted to the principal, Assistant Superintendent, or Associate Superintendent. The report will include a determination as to whether the allegations have been substantiated as factual and whether they appear to have violated District policy and/or law. Notification of the outcome of the investigation will be sent to all parties involved. If the allegation is substantiated, the District will take immediate and appropriate corrective action, including the following: 1. a student will receive a disciplinary sanctioned as outlined in the Student Handbook, and/or notification to the proper authorities. 2. a staff member will receive a disciplinary sanction as outlined in the Employee Handbook and/or the proper authorities will be notified. 3. a report of the incident regarding a visitor who committed an act while on District property or at an event sponsored by the District, will be referred to the proper legal authorities. 3 ..~ :,, ,.-z n\u0026gt; .i:,::nz z:m -lllo I Cl\u0026gt; ,\".'.C,,: \"i3 \na a .... C f, c\n' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACH-R (continued) Notwithstanding this policy, employees may file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. EEOC. Employers who wish to file a charge must do so within 180 days of the last act of alleged harassment. Revised: Adopted: July 23, 2001 Legal References: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 1965, 42 U.S.C.  2000d Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.  1681 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.  794 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.  12134 Cross References: Student Handbook and Personnel Handbook 4 DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 September 22, 2005 Board of Directors Larry Berkley President, Board of Directors SUBJECT: Policy Revision: GBK and Regulations: GBK-R BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors periodically reviews policies and regulations which provide the district's administration a clear line of authority for operating the district in an efficient and effective manner. A review of Policy GBK, Staff Concerns/Complaints/Grievances and the accompanying regulations, GBK-R, are modeled after Act 1357 as amended by the Arkansas Legislature in 2003. These documents describe the process an employee must use in resolving work-related grievances. A copy of Act 1357 is attached for your information. The policy and accompanying regulations in their present form do not clearly encourage employees to adhere to the board approved process. School Board members are also part of the grievance process and our obligations also must be more clearly defined. In addition, Policy GBK does not strongly communicate that the Board will not tolerate reprisal or retaliation directed at employees who follow the appropriate process and policy in resolving disputes with the district or its' administrators. RATIONALE: Policies should be clear and concise and offer specific directives to staff and administration. The revision of GBK and GBK-R prescribes a more thorough process for resolving employee grievances and protects employees from retaliation. FUNDING: This policy revision carries no financial implications. 8 z ?\n0 z u, ~ ::c \u0026gt; C: f: ~z\no ill ~~ zc: m\no r-n m u, RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board adopt on second reading the revisions to Policy GBK. Although not required by board policy, endorsement of regulations GBK-R is also recommended as identified in the attached documents as underlined text. PREPARED BY: Larry Berkley President, Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBK STAFF CONCERNS/COMPLAINTS/GRIEVANCES It is the policy of the Board of Education to have written grievance procedures which will result in encouraging employees to express themselves on subjects concerning condition of employment, in fostering a better understanding of policies, and in ensuring all employees that their questions and concerns are considered fairly(,) and rapidly(,). (and without reprisals .) It is the expressed intent of the Board of Education that there shall be no reprisals or retaliation of any kind made, nor will any be tolerated, against any employee who exercises his or her rights under this policy. \"Grievance\" will mean any concern related to personnel (policies)~ (or) salary .. federal or state laws and regulations, or terms or conditions of employment raised by an employee. \"Employee\" will mean a person employed by the District under a written contract. The specific processes and provisions applicable to grievance procedures are outlined in the Grievances/Concerns/Complaints regulation, GBK-R. The Board of Education encourages an employee to resolve a grievance or any other issue through the chain of command process prescribed by this policy and regulation or by a negotiated agreement. Revised: Adopted: November 18, 1999 References: Board of Education Regulation GBK-R Legal Reference: AC.A. 6-17-208 8 ~ iz5 \"' .. ~ ,n.:_,, .,,z n\u0026gt; 11:z nO z:m -\u0026lt;IIO I en '- C: :~ ..\na 5 .... C: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBK-R GRIEVANCE/CONCERNS/COMPLAINTS Purpose Some groups of employees are covered by grievance procedures defined in their respective negotiated agreement. For those employees not covered by a negotiated agreement the following process will apply. Communication and discussion can resolve the majority of questions and problems that cause difficulties between the employer and employee. When resolution is not reached rapidly, the employer and the staff member may proceed to effect resolution in writing as defined in this procedure. The purpose of the resolution procedures is to secure, at the lowest possible level, equitable solutions consistent with the legal standards of \"due process,\" to problems that may from time to time arise. The purpose is to (obtain better understanding of policies, to) encourage employees to express themselves more effectively on subjects concerning conditions of employment, and to ensure to all employees that their questions and problems are considered fairly, rapidly and without reprisals. Documents and Confidentiality All documents, communications and records dealing with the processing of a grievance will be filed separately from the personnel files of the participants and will be destroyed three years after the last official entry. All parties will hold the resolution proceedings in confidentiality at all levels.  Normally, the resolution process should be conducted at times that do not interfere with the assigned duties. Process \"Grievance\" means any concern related to personnel policy, salary, federal or state laws(,) and regulations, or terms or conditions of employment, raised by an employee. \"Employee\" means a person employed by a school district under a written contract. The first step in the procedure is to seek an informal resolution between the employee and the immediate supervisor. If the grievance is not resolved at the informal phase, the grievance is to be committed to writing and sent to the applicable supervisor within five calendar days of the incident resulting in the grievance. The employee will immediately thereafter schedule a meeting with the appropriate supervisor to discuss the complaint and resolutions sought. The parties should act in good faith to expedite the process. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBK-R Upon request, the applicable supervisor will schedule a meeting with the grievant within five workdays of receipt of the written grievance. If the problem is not resolved in the meeting held with the supervisor, and the employee indicates a desire to pursue further, a written request must be submitted within five workdays for an appeal to the Office of the Superintendent or designee. Appeals The appeal will be heard in the Office of the Superintendent/designee within ten workdays of the request for an appeal. An employee who has not been satisfied with the answer at the Superintendent's level may request that the grievance be submitted to the Board of Education. The request will include a written statement setting forth the issue(s) to be reviewed by the Board of Education and is to be addressed to the President of the Board c/o Superintendent's Office. Other Provisions An employee seeking to resolve a grievance as defined above is required to use the terms and conditions of their negotiated agreement for resolution of grievances. Employees not covered by a negotiated agreement are bound by the provisions of this policy. In either case, the responsibility for ensuring that the prescribed due process is adhered to and will not be circumvented is shared at all levels of the district, up to and including the Board of Education. Employees who have begun or who are considering initiating a grievance procedure either under the terms of this policy or under the terms of a negotiated agreement are prohibited from undertaking any action that seeks to circumvent the prescribed process. Specifically, employees are prohibited from conveying or causing the conveyance of information about their grievance to members of the Board of Education prior to completing the chain of command process prescribed by this policy or their negotiated agreement. Employees must be aware that receipt of such information by a member of the Board may be cause for that Board member to recuse him/herself from an employee grievance hearing. Likewise, members of the Board of Education, by definition of their role in the process, must refrain from any involvement in an employee grievance until the process formally reaches the Board as prescribed in this policy or a negotiated agreement. Members of the Board should always encourage an employee to resolve a grievance or any other issue through the chain of command process prescribed by this policy or by a negotiated agreement. Date: August 5, 2005 Legal Reference: Act 1357 of 2003 f\u0026gt; 8 z ?. 0z u, .. ~ n:,, ~-z n\u0026gt; i::z nO a:m ... go I u, '--C ~~ \n10 ii ... l 2 3 4 Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to the law as it existed prior to this session of the General Assembly. State of Arkansas 84th General Assembly Regular Session, 2003 Act 1357 of 2003 SENATE BILL 913 5 By: Senators Wilkins, Broadway 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For An Act To Be Entitled AN ACT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CODE 6-17-208 TO PROVIDE FOR PROCEDURES TO THE GRIEVANCE LAW\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Subtitle AN ACT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CODE 6-17-208 TO PROVIDE FOR PROCEDURES TO THE GRIEVANCE LAW. 19 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: 20 21 22 23 SECTION 1. Arkansas Code 6-17-208 is amended to read as follows: 6-17-208. Grievance procedure. (a)(l) It is the public policy of the State of Arkansas that~ 24 ill~ Each school district shall have a written 25 grievance procedure which provides for an orderly method of resolving 26 concerns raised by an employee at the lowest possible administrative level 27 and in a clear and timely manner for both partiesj 28 29 30 31 (B) All school employees shall have the right to file grievances and have those grievances heard. A group of employees who have the same grievance may file a group grievance. (2)(A) \"Grievance\" means any concern related to personnel 32 palieies er salary policy, salary, federal or state laws and regulations, or 33 terms or conditions of employment, raised by an employee\nand 34 (B) \"Employee\" means a person employed by a school 35 district under a written contract. 36 (b)(l) The grievance policy shall at least include the following 11111!1111111111111111111111111~ 03082003LDH0835.JMB291 1 2 As Engrossed: S3/27/03 provisions: S8913 (A) A procedure for resolving the matter informally with 3 the employee's immediate supervisor\n4 (B) A procedure to appeal in writing an unsatisfactorily 5 resolved grievance from the immediate supervisor to the superintendent of 6 schools or his or her designee\n7 (C)(i) A procedure to appeal in writing an 8 unsatisfactorily resolved grievance from the superintendent or his or her 9 designee to the school board at the next regularly scheduled school board 10 11 12 13 14 meeting unless both parties have agreed to a different date. (ii) The hearing shall be open or closed at the discretion of the employee. (iii) If the hearing is open, the parent or guardian of any student under the age of eighteen (18) years who gives testimony may 15 elect to have the student's testimony given in a closed session\nand 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (D) The right of all parties to be represented by a person of his or her own choosing, at least at the sehool aoaFa lm,rel but not by a member of a party's immediate family at any level of the procedure. (2)(A) The determination by the principal, superintendent, or their designees that the concern expressed by the employee is not a grievance may be appealed to the school board for a final decision. (B) At the hearing, the employee shall have an adequate 23 opportunity to present the grievanceT but no less than ninety (90) minutes, 24 and both parties shall have the opportunity to present and question 25 witnesses. 26 27 28 29 30 (c) The grievance policy shall be adopted in accordance with this subchapter and other applicable policies of the district. (d) There shall be no reprisals of any kind against any individual who exercises his or her rights under this act. (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring a school 31 district to enter into an agreement recognizing an organization for the 32 purpose of negotiating personnel policies, salaries, and educational matters 33 of mutual concern. 34 35 Is I Wilkins 36 APPROVED: 4/15/2003 2 03082003LDH0835.JMB291 r\u0026gt; g z ~ 0z U\u0026gt;\n!ii :c \u0026gt; C: - ~\ni,:z\no\no ig m zig zc: m\no r-n m U\u0026gt; ..~ .n. :-., .,,z n\u0026gt; i:::z nn z:m -IIIO I U\u0026gt; '-- C: .,-.:i n\n3 ..\no 5--1 !D ~ U\u0026gt; m ii: m :5 DATE: October 27, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Education FROM: Roy Brooks, Ed.D Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: DKC-R - Regulations for Implementing Policy DKC - Out of Area Travel Travel Expense Authorization / Reimbursement / Travel Limits BACKGROUND: The Board of Education periodically reviews policies and regulations which provide the district's administration a clear line of authority for operating the district in an efficient and effective manner. A review of Policy DKC-R Travel Expense Authorization / Reimbursement / Travel Limits describes the process an employee must use when traveling on school business. Key changes are the addition of travel limitations, credit card one day hotel charge directions, identification of travel coordinators, and due dates for professional leave forms. These changes are recommended to make the travel process more cost efficient and timely. RATIONALE: This revised policy will enhance operational efficiency and monitor professional leave during instructional time that impacts student achievement. FUNDING: This policy revision carries no financial obligations. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept the revisions to Policy DKC-R. New text is underlined. Eliminated text is marked through. PREPARED BY: Hugh Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Linda Austin, Grants Coordinator Valerie Hudson, Executive Assistant ~ :c  C: . f\n~z\n,,\n,, ism z is zc: m\n,, r-o m tn ~ n:., -z n  s:z nO z:m \"'\"\" .' . tCn: ~~ \n,J i5 ... !D C t.. ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DKC-R TRAVEL EXPENSE AUTHORIZATION/ REIMBURSEMENT/ TRAVEL LIMITS Travel will be for necessary school business purposes. Prior approval for all travel, including prepaid expenses, will be obtained before any expenses are incurred. Economical and reasonable modes of transportation, lodging, and other expenditures in accordance with the purpose of the travel must be used. A copy of the full agenda for the conference or training will be provided with the request for travel and request for professional leave. To insure that maximum impact can be achieved, the following regulations apply to all out-of-district travel. Out-of-district travel will be defined as being outside Pulaski County, AR. Travel Limits A maximum of two out of state trips per year apply to all District staff. Additional travel may be authorized if travel expenses are funded through a non-District related source and the travel is approved as being in the best interest of the District. When additional travel is required due to the job responsibilities, travel beyond the maximum may be approved by request of their supervisor and approval of the superintendent or their designee. Travel by the superintendent is addressed in Board Policy CBG. In state travel will be approved only for necessary and reasonable school business. Travel Day The travel day will begin at 6:00 a.m., include breakfast, lunch, dinner and one night's lodging, and will end the following morning at 6:00 a.m. Request for reimbursement of expenses incurred in less than full travel days must reflect a reasonable allocation based on the expense limits directed herein for a full travel day. Meal costs will be prorated by one half for that travel day if travel begins after 2:00 p.m. and for a return time prior to 2:00 p.m. Meals and Incidental Costs Meals costs will be determined by the last accepted federal per diem schedule. An electronic copy will be available in the Teachers Lounge section of the District webpaqe. Partial days meal cost will be determined by the departure and return time as indicated in the above section. Meals included in the cost of registration will be deducted from the per diem amount as follows: breakfast (20%), lunch (30%), and dinner (50%). No deductions will be made for continental breakfasts. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DKC-R (continued) Lodging Expenses The District will reimburse actual lodging expense incurred in travel for the District. Lodging will be reimbursed only for the days of the conference attended plus night(s) required based on the conference schedule. Economical and reasonable lodging in accordance with the purpose of the travel must be used. Reimbursement for lodging expenses will require lodging receipts that indicate the employee has paid for the lodging. Receipts from personal cred it cards will not be accepted unless accompanied by the receipt from the lodging establishment. If the rate for lodging exceeds the federal maximum for lodging, a justification must be provided (i.e. no local travel costs between hotel and conference hotel\nlegitimate safety concerns\nor room sharing to reduce cost). Travelers are encouraged to use cost saving initiatives such as appropriate sharing of rooms, car pooling and like arrangements. Using District Pro-Card for Travel After the travel form has been approved, go to your principal/ director and request to use the site's main Pro-Card (usually the principal 's / director's) to do the following: a. Secure a hotel reservation\nb. Purchase airline tickets on-line (use website of your choosing, or online service, etc). Do not use any on-line service that requires you to enter your card number to find a rate)\nc. Book airfare or obtain the estimated cost of airfare using a local travel agency\nhowever, employees are encouraged to book tickets using available on-line services. d. Pay for registration fees\ne. Purchase transportation tickets for multiple persons from same location traveling to same destination. If amount is expected to exceed $1,000 contact Procurement. f. Individual employees cannot use the Pro-Card to pay for the following~ 1. Hotel room\n2. Meals\n3. Auto rental\n4. Incidental expenses. You will receive an expense check to pay for these items that have been approved on your travel form. If an issue arises regarding a one day deposit on lodging, contact Procurement for assistance. 2 .!=.=,' z \u0026gt;z (\") ~ en ~ ::c \u0026gt; C: . ~\nllz\no~ ~ is z C: m\no r-n m en C E, t. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DKC-R (continued) Travel Coordinator Any individual identified as a travel coordinator by Procurement that regularly handles multiple employees travel may in coordination with Procurement propose cost saving options associated with group travel. Procurement identifies travel coordinators as individuals who regularly handle travel for multiple employees. Travel coordinators may propose cost saving options associated with group travel. Such options will require written approval of the Chief Financial Officer. Travel to Destination The District will reimburse travel expenses to the maximum limit for point-to-point costs for coach fare on common carriers. Receipts or ticket stubs are required for reimbursement of common carrier costs. If an employee chooses to use a personal automobile, reimbursement will not exceed the current per mile rate approved by the District or point-to-point coach fare, whichever is less. When more than one employee travels to the same location in a personal automobile, mileage will be reimbursed only to the employee whose personal automobile is used. When automobiles are used for transportation to a destination, car pooling for multiple attendees is recommended. Mileage requests may be denied when the best interest of the District is not met after taking into account the circumstances of the request. Local Travel at Destination Actual reasonable expenses of local travel by common carriers at the destination will be reimbursed. Mass transit or taxi fare does not require receipts if all local travel claimed for the trip is less than thirty dollars. Receipts are required if the claim is over thirty dollars. Automobile Rentals - At Destination Automobiles will not be rented at District expense without prior approval of the superintendent or his / her designee and in no case without documentation, in advance, that automobile rental will be less expensive to the District than the cost of public transportation to meeting, conferences, etc. Reimbursement is conditioned upon advance authority as well as receipts from the leasing agency. Automobile Rentals - Travel to Destination If an employee chooses to rent a vehicle to travel to an approved destination, the employee will only be reimbursed the lesser of common carrier coach rates or round trip map mileage to and from the destination. If a vehicle is rented for multiple attendees, 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DKC-R (continued) the limit for reimbursement will be the lesser of common carrier coach rates for two employees or round trip map mileage to and from the destination for two employees. The approval or disapproval level will be at least at the equivalency level of an associate superintendent for this type of arrangement. Reasonableness must be documented. Advance Request for Professional Leave and Travel The fif6t two forms listed below must be submitted at least thirty days prior to travel if an advance is requested. If there is no District expense for this trip or no advance required the deadline will be three weeks prior to the trip. The third form should be filled out only when multiple attendees from the same location or area are attending the same ew\u0026lt;ent. If an employee has not sent in documentation for the advanced funds within sixty days, payroll deduction will be made for the non-documented advance that has not been reimbursed.  Request for Absence for Professional Meetings - to be completed and submitted in accordance with the instructions on that form. This request must be submitted three weeks prior to the desired leave.  Travel Authorization - Advance I Actual Cost - to be submitted in accordance with the instructions on that form. Non-travel items will not be included on advances or reimbursed with travel. Registrations and common carrier expenses (to and from the destination) should be paid by separate check to the vendor unless you used your district Pro-Card.  Trav-e! 81:Jmmary for SGhoo! When multiple attendees from tho same area or school are going to tho same educational e.iont. A tra11ol summar,i will bo prepared by tho administrator of that school or area and sent with tho other documents. No employee will be reimbursed for out-of-district travel unless the required forms are submitted and approved in advance by the area supervisor, funding source manager (if required) and financial services. These forms must cover the entire cost of travel, the total days absence requested, be accompanied by the full agenda of the conference or event to be attended, and be delivered together for approval. Requests for travel will be completed in a timely manner to avoid registration penalties, and to obtain good rates for hotels, airlines, registration, etc. No travel will be paid from any source for which the required forms have not been completed and approved. Revised: March 24, 2005 Date: May 25, 2000 4 8 z !'\n0z \"' .!=.,' z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;,... \"' ~ :c \u0026gt;c: -~ ~z ::Ojill ~~ z C: m\na r-n m \"' ,, ~ :,, .,,-z ,,\u0026gt; i,,: :nz z:m \"\"\"\" I en '- C: :~ \na ii-\u0026lt; Request for Absence for Professional Meetings Name _____________________ _ Title ________________ _ School/ Department ______________________________________ _ Conference Name ------------------- Conference Date(s) ____________ _ Departure Date __________  AM  PM Return to Duty Date _________ 0 AM O PM SECTION I: ALL PERSONNEL  YES ONO  NIA I. This is the only state conference I will be attending this year.  YES  NO  NIA 2. This is the only national conference I will be attending this year.  YES  NO  NIA 3. My choice of airfare/ hotel was based on the moderate price range offered.  YES  NO  NIA 4. A plan has been developed to maximize coverage of sessions by all attendees for the benefit of my department and the District. (Auach conference agenda and plan)  YES ONO  NIA 5. Appropriate personal or vacation leave has been requested for pre or post conference stay.  YES ONO  NIA 6. This job-specific travel is based on my job performance responsibilities.  YES ONO  NIA 7. Request that expenses be paid by the District. If Yes, complete Travel Authorization form.  YES ONO  NIA 8. This travel will be covered by my site operating budget. If No, indicate the source of funds SEC'TIO:\\ II: l\\\"STRl 'C'TIO\\\"AL STAFF D YES D NO ON/A 9. A substitute will be requested for this absence. 0 YES ONO  N/A 10. Does extra duty pay apply? If Yes, list date(s): _______________ _ D YES ONO O N/A 11. Attendance at this conference/seminar is linked to a school-wide staff development goal that is related to the ASCIP, disparities or professional development plans. 12. Teachers requesting expenses and who will be chaperoning students should check: No. of students chaperoned___ 0 Will use personal vehicle O Will use transpgrtation other than personal vehicle 13. 1f you have answered No to any of the above questions, please provide an explanation: Please note the following:  Departments will rotate attendance of staff yearly with the expectation that returning attendees share information as a requirement of attendance.  Use of IDEA I Title funds, will be limited with a priority placed on school-based instructional staff funding for staff development. I understand that this travel is related to my professional responsibilities, must be approved by the principal, administrator or associate superintendent. In addition, I understand that this travel and expenses should be paid for by the association / organization and that temporary duty leave will be granted, with approval ofmy supervisor, for my attendance at this conference/ seminar. I certify to the best of my knowledge the above information is correct and understand that all information is subject to state and internal auditors.  Approved Signature of Teacher or Other Employee Date 0 Disapproved Signature of Principal or Immediate Supervisor - (In-State Travel) Date Associate Superintendent - (Out of State Travel only) Date I/you have any questions, contact Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor, at 447-1115. Travel Authorization - Advance/ Actual Cost Name/ Title ______________ _ School/ Dept. ________ _ Date __ _ Conference Name ________________ _ Conference Date(s) _________ _ Conference Location __________________________ (Attach copy of agenda) Departure Date ________ Time ____ _ Return Date ________ Time ___ _ Dates Covered: (Write dates in table below) ~ stJt, .': \\*\u0026lt;',M- ,-,. \"Ill C !' , w. TH F ' SA SU M :ru . w . ' TH i -,F -\"'1 ,SA\n!:'. Method of Travel: D Air D Personal Vehicle D Carpool with other D Other __________ _ Registration Amount $ __________ _ Cost of Airfare or other Transportation $ _______ _ Requisition# for Registration _________ _ Requisition# for Carrier ____________ _ Expenses Advance Actual Difference Mileage ___ _ Miles @ ___ Per Mile $ ___ _ $ ____ _ $ ___ _ Meals/ Per Diem: # of Days _______ _ $ ___ _ $ ___ _ $ ___ _ Lodging: (Attach original itemized receipt) # of Nights__ Room Rate __ Tax% __ _ $ ____ _ $ ____ _ $ ___ _ Other Expenses: (Taxi, etc.) ________ _ $ ___ _ $ ____ _ $ ___ _ Total Expenses $ __ _ $ __ _ $ __ _ Total Due: $ ______ _ D To Traveler D From Traveler SF FUNCT , OPUNIT OBJ I Requestee Supervisor Overall Supervisor Funding Source Mgr. Financial Services Approval of Travel and/ or Advance Date __ _ Date __ _ Date __ _ Date __ _ Date __ _ Approval of Actual Costs Date __ _ Date __ _ Date __ _ Date. __ _ Date. __ _ 8 z ~ iz5 \"' ~ ::c ,.. C: ~! m :a~ ~lS zc: ,m.. .:.a, m \"' \"'5!! n:., ~z n\u0026gt; 11:z n\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; z:m ... go I c,, '- C: ~~  :0 ij .... DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 October 27, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A. C.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2005 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 8, 2005 for EYE are considered intern teachers. bf~ PREPARED BY: David E. Hartz, Senior Director of Human Resources 8\n0z fJ\u0026gt; .~,, z  z n ~ fJ\u0026gt; ?\u0026lt; n 5 fJ\u0026gt; z Cl\na m I fJ\u0026gt; .. ,, ~ :., ~z n  ,s,: nz z:m ... go I fJ\u0026gt; .. C: :~ ..\na :6 ... Personnel Changes Page2 September 22, 2005 NAME START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Resignations/Terminations Certified Em~lo)lees Adams, Bernard Alternative Learning/ 9-18-95 Reason: Personal RIGHTS ELL 8-10-05 Bryant, Michael Science/ 7-17-02 Reason: Accepted another J. A FAIR 8-2-05 position Gall, Janet Elementary II/ 8-22-88 Reason: Leaving the city ROMINE 9-16-05 Gangluff, Tracey Speech Pathology/ 8-9-04 Reason: Leaving the city CHICOT 9-16-05 Goodman, Tamara Elementary V/ 2-24-03 Reason: Accepted another KING 8-1-05 position Kinslow, Nancy 4Yr Old/ 8-12-99 Reason: Health Reasons CHICOT 10-14-05 Mccorkle, Frances Elementary V/ 8-15-94 Reason: Retired ROCKEFELLER 9-8-05 McMurray, Victor Social Studies/ 8-27-8ii Reason: None given CENTRAL 8-2-05 Miller, Bruce Algebra 1/ 10-1-86 Reason: None given CENTRAL 8-1-05 Paige, Jr. Willie Assistant Principal (.57)/ 8-28-68 Reason: None Given MCCLELLAN 8-29-05 Peyton, Chanda English/ 2-2-00 Reason: Accepted another HENDERSON 8-4-05 position Tarpley, Glynda Special Education/ 8-14-95 Reason: Personal TERRY 9-20-05 Walther, Tammy English/ 8-13-98 Reason: Returning to school J. A FAIR 8-2-05 SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 1-17 48196.00 TCH925 4-09 42662.00 TCH10 2-17 49217.00 TCH925 62-12 50928.00 SPE925 1-17 47715.00 TCH925 6-14 51845.00 4YR925 6-18 56209.00 TCH925 4-19 54561 .00 TCH925 4-19 54561.00 TCH925 66-20 72864.00 ADC10 5-06 40756.00 TCH925 6-18 56209.00 SPE925 4-07 40351 .00 TCH925 Personnel Changes Page 3 September 22, 2005 fl 8 z \u0026gt;..... START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL 0z NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY u, New Certified Employees Bisbee, Donanne Art/ 8-16-05 1-05 33673.00 J. A. FAIR TCH925 annual 33146.86 prorated Boyd, Debbye General Science/ 8-11-05 2-17 49705.00 ALC TCH925 .!=.,' z Brakefield, Vance Band/ 8-11-05 4-04 37069.00 \u0026gt;z n PARKVIEW TCH925 \u0026gt;,... u, Bruhl, Rita Elementary I/ 8-22-05 2-04 34021 .00 ROMINE TCH925 annual 32780.00 prorated Burns, Josiah Elementary Ill/ 8-17-05 3-08 39976.00 ?\u0026lt; n KING TCH925 annual ,... 0 u, 39338.02 z C) prorated\n,\n, m Coleman, Donna Special Education/ 8-17-05 6-06 42556.00 i u, SOUTHWEST SPE925 annual 41669.42 prorated Daneshvar, Tamara Spanish/ 8-11-05 1-01 30190.00 CENTRAL TCH925 ~ Tl :.,, - Davis, Judith Special Education/ 8-11-05 5-05 39798.00 ~~ s:z Tl 0 FOREST HEIGHTS SPE925 a:m \"I \"'u\"\", '-C Dongmo, Annick Math II/ 8-11-05 4-01 34747.00 :~ \n,\nJ MCCLELLAN TCH925 5 ..... Germany, Pamela Music/ 8-24-05 6-20 58812.00 RIGHTSELU TCH925 annual WASHINGTON 56055.19 prorated Green, Raefani English/ 8-11-05 1-01 30190.00 !J:I ~ CENTRAL TCH925 u, m !I: m :5 t.. Personnel Changes Page4 September 22, 2005 NAME Grubb, Kelly Hays, Mark Hill, Natasha Hunter, Broderick Jeffus, Brandon Johnson, Harvey Madden, Sammye Mayberry, Kimberly McDonald, Thomas McMillan, Tashenia McNeil!, Janie START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Kindergarten/ 8-18-05 DODD Science/ 8-11-05 MABELVALE MIDDLE English/ 8-11-05 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE Elementary V/ 10-12-05 OTTER CREEK Physics/ 8-11-05 MCCLELLAN Electronics/ 8-3-05 METRO Mathematics/ 8-11-05 FELDER Typing/ 8-22-05 MABELVALE MIDDLE Social Studies/ 8-15-05 FELDER Business Education/ 8-5-05 MCCLELLAN Algebra I/ 8-11-05 CENTRAL SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 1-01 30040.00 K925 annual 29403.80 prorated 1-02 30770.00 TCH925 1-03 31351.00 TCH925 1-09 38318.00 TCH925 annual 29736.36 prorated 4-01 34747.00 TCH925 1-12 43107.28 VOC10 annual 41801.00 prorated 2-12 43311 .00 TCH925 1-01 30190.00 TCH925 annual 29246.56 prorated 4-01 34747.00 TCH925 annual 34385.05 prorated 1-04 33359.00 TCH950 4-18 46446.00 TCH925 Personnel Changes Page 5 September 22, 2005 f\u0026gt; 8 z .\u0026gt;... START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL 0 z NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY \"' Mitchell, Mary Kindergarten/ 10-11-05 4-18 53326.00 GEYER SPRINGS K925 annual 41660.94 prorated Moye, Randall American History/ 8-17-05 1-16 46446.00 MCCLELLAN TCH925 annual 45478.37 prorated !.=.,' Perkins, Michael Physical Education/ 8-2-05 4-06 42469.50 z \u0026gt;z PULASKI HEIGHTS TCH925 C')  MIDDLE ,... \"' Priebe, Kurtis Algebra 1/ 8-11-05 3-01 33209.00 MCCLELLAN TCH925 Robinson, Renee Physics/ 8-17-05 4-07 40553.00 CENTRAL TCH925 annual ?\u0026lt; 39708.15 C,..'.) 0 prorated \"z' C)\na Scruggs, Clare Arkansas History/ 8-11-05 4-01 34747.00 m J. A. FAIR TCH925 I \"' Sharlow, Alan Band/ 8-11-05 1-5 33673.00 MCCLELLAN TCH925 Sherlin, Phillip Science/ 9-12-05 1-01 30190.00 MABELVALE MIDDLE TCH925 annual .. ~ 26887.97 ,, :., - prorated :.n, \u0026gt;z a::z ., C') z: m Staley, Jerry Art/ 8-11-05 4-18 53326.00 -\u0026lt;Do I (I) '- C: PULASKI HEIGHTS TCH925 :~ MIDDLE/DUNBAR \na ii .... Stewart, Sherrie World History/ 8-11-05 1-01 30190.00 CENTRAL TCH925 Weaver, Nellieann English/ 8-11-05 1-01 30190.00 SOUTHWEST TCH925 !I\" Wingfield, Elizabeth English/ 8-22-05 1-04 32512.00 ~ PULASKI HEIGHTS annual \"m' :I: MIDDLE 31326.67 m !\nprorated C Personnel Changes Page6 September 22, 2005 NAME POSITION / SCHOOL START DATE/ SALARY END DATE CLASS Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees Anderson, Almarie Instructional Aide/ 3-13-03 33-16 Reason: Accepted another CHICOT 9-27-05 INA925 position Armstead, Victoria Secretary/ 4-11-88 39-20 Reason: Deceased ACC-METRO 10-14-05 CLK10 Bonds, Dorothy Child Nutrition/ 8-12-03 7-06 Reason: None given ROCKEFELLER 8-29-05 FSH650 Carter, John CARE/ 2-28-05 3-17 Reason: None given CARE 9-30-05 CARE Clark, Phyllis Child Nutrition/ 3-10-04 3-01 Reason: None given MANN 9-12-05 FSH550 Davis, Doris Bus Monitor/ 10-15-85 1-10 Reason: Resigned without TRANSPORTATION 9-19-05 BUSMON notice Dobbins, Malinda Instructional Aide/ 8-16-04 33-16 Reason: Accepted another FOREST HEIGHTS 8-8-05 INA925 position Ghant, Natlyn CARE/ 8-19-05 3-05 Reason: Resigned without CARE 10-04-05 CARE notice Green, James Custodian/ 9-27-04 36-07 Reason: Terminated CENTRAL 10-28-05 CUS12 (misconduct)-No appeal pending Hardman, Melissa Instructional Aide/ 2-7-05 33-16 Reason: None given FOREST HEIGHTS 8-10-05 INA925 Hart, Andrew Custodian/ 1-20-99 31-10 Reason: Deceased MABEL VALE 8-22-05 CUS925 ELEMENTARY Haynes, Danielle Instructional Aide/ 10-23-00 33-13 Reason: Accepted another WOODRUFF 10-26-05 INA925 position ANNUAL SALARY 16109.00 32544.00 11111 .00 10.36 per hour 9350.00 14107.00 16109.00 8.38 per hour 20184.00 16109.00 14897.00 14735.00 Personnel Changes Page7 September 22, 2005 r, 8 z ?\nSTART DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL i5 z NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY \"' Lewis, Johnetta CARE/ 8-29-05 2-03 7.85 Reason: None given CARE 10-2-05 CARE per hour Mays, Barbara Custodian/ 8-21-94 31-14 16781 .00 Reason: Job Abandonment KING 8-15-05 CUS928 Millen, Shirley Child Nutrition/ 2-11-91 3-14 9933.00 Reason: None given WAKEFIELD 10-20-05 FSH550 !.=.,' Murphy, Demetria Custodian/ 8-13-04 31-01 11379.00 z \u0026gt;z Reason: None given MCCLELLAN 4-19-05 CUS928 0 ,\u0026gt;- \"' Ricks, Anjanette Instructional Aide/ 2-13-05 33-16 16109.00 Reason: Personal ALC 8-17-05 INA925 Roberts, Caroline Child Nutrition/ 9-20-02 7-02 11111 .00 Reason: Job Abandonment FRANKLIN 8-8-05 FSH650 ?\u0026lt; Schultz, Barbara Instructional Aide/ 9-1-01 33-17 16595.00 ,0- Reason: Deceased MABELVALE MIDDLE 8-9-05 INA925 0 !!? z C) Scott, Frank Custodian 3-22-04 31-03 12085.00 \"m' ~ Reason: Personal BALE 10-6-05 CUS925 :\",'\n\"' Seawood, Ruth CARE/ 3-18-02 1-06 7.74 Reason: Returning to school CARE 9-15-05 CARE per hour Skinner, Melva Instructional Aide/ 8-13-01 33-13 14735.00 Reason: Personal FOREST HEIGHTS 8-1-05 INA925 ~ .., Smith, Beverly CARE/ 9-2-05 2-05 8.18 z \u0026gt;z Reason: None given CARE 9-26-05 CARE per hour 0 m \"\"\"' Swanigan, Shirley CARE/ 1-13-97 1-08 8.05 C.,,: Reason: None given CARE 9-30-05 CARE per hour ~ ~ Thomas, Anthony Custodian/ 8-27-02 31-05 16380.00 Reason: Failure to report MCCLELLAN 7-1-05 MAINT after hired Vick, Jo Ella Instructional Aide/ 10-13-89 33-10 13459.00 Reason: None given FOREST PARK 9-30-05 INA925 !JI ~ Walter, Minnie Instructional Aide/ 4-3-00 33-11 13875.00 \"m' ~ Reason: None given RIGHTSELL 8-10-05 INA925 m 3 c-\nIC \u0026lt; Personnel Changes Pages September 22, 2005 NAME Whaley, Billy Reason: Leaving the city Allen, Tracy Annamraju, Sivakamini Backus, Rebecca Bailey, Ada Bailey, Pamela Balfour, Belinda Barber, Jimmy Bealer, Carol Blackmon, Lonzell Brandon, Rita POSITION / SCHOOL Maintenance/ FACILITY SERVICES START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL END DATE CLASS SALARY 9-7-82 10-15-05 52-20 47976.00 MAINT New Non-Certified Employees Security Officer/ 9-2-05 36-10 15463.00 ALC SOFR9 annual 14358.50 prorated Instructional Aide/ 8-11-05 33-16 16109.00 FOREST HEIGHTS INA925 MIDDLE Nurse/ 8-11-05 52-09 34548.00 FOREST HEIGHTS NURSES CARE/ 9-12-05 2-05 8.18 CARE CARE per hour Instructional Aide/ 8-11-05 33-16 16109.00 J. A. FAIR INA925 Child Nutrition/ 8-31-05 3-01 9350.00 HALL FSH550 annual 8847.31 prorated Security Officer/ 9-2-05 36-16 18491.00 HALL SOFR9 annual 17170.21 prorated Instructional Aide/ 9-26-05 33-16 11759.57 TERRY INA925 annual 9789.05 prorated CARE/ 9-12-05 2-04 8.01 CARE CARE per hour Instructional Aide/ 8-28-05 33-03 13889.00 ROCKEFELLER INA12 annual 11643.12 prorated Personnel Changes Page9 September 22, 2005 !\"' 8 z ~ START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL i5 z NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Ul Brown, Cynthia Instructional Aide/ 8-19-05 33-18 17094.00 FELDER INA925 annual 16539.60 prorated Brown, Dewayne Custodian (.5)/ 9-6-05 31-01 5689.50 MABEL VALE CUS925 annual ELEMENTARY 4947.39 !=' prorated .., z \u0026gt;z (\") Brown, Edmonda Media Clerk/ 9-16-05 31-06 16872.00 \u0026gt;,... FELDER CLK925 annual Ul 14628.38 prorated Butler, Carolyn Instructional Aide/ 8-19-05 33-16 16109.00 FOREST HEIGHTS INA925 annual 15586.55 ?\u0026lt; prorated (,.\".). 0 Ul z Butler, Kamarious Instructional Aide/ 10-6-05 33-16 16109.00 C) :,0 m CHICOT INA925 annual i 12953.80 Ul prorated Butler, Tiffani Instructional Aide/ 9-28-05 33-16 16109.00 TERRY INA925 annual 13409.65 prorated ,, ~ :., - Cogshell, Joy Instructional Aide/ 8-19-05 33-09 13070.00 ~~ II: z FELDER INA925 annual ,, (\") z:m ... go 12646.11 I Ul '- C: prorated :~  :,O :5 .... Coleman, Sharon Child Nutrition/ 8-22-05 3-01 9350.00 WASHINGTON FSH550 annual 9249.46 prorated Criswell, Chasina Instructional Aide/ 9-1-05 33-07 12307.00 ROCKEFELLER INA12 annual ?I 11309.14 ~ Ul prorated m ii:: m ~ Personnel Changes Page 10 September 22, 2005 NAME Davis, Jennifer Davis, Sandra Duty, Rochelle Garrison, Dontornice Glasper, Nancy Glenn, James Gooden, Shamekia Gonzalez, Luis Grafals, Vera Harvell, Lola START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Instructional Aide/ 9-1-05 ROCKEFELLER Security Officer/ 9-2-05 J. A. FAIR Instructional Aide/ 8-19-05 FELDER Instructional Aide/ 8-17-05 FOREST HEIGHTS CARE/ 9-12-05 CARE Security Officer/ 9-2-0q WILSON Security Officer/ 9-2-05 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE Security Officer/ 9-2-05 HALL Instructional Aide/ 9-19-05 OTTER CREEK CARE/ 9-12-05 CARE SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 33-09 16603.00 INA12 annual 13707.31 prorated 36-10 15463.00 SOFR9 annual 14358.50 prorated 33-16 16109.00 INA925 annual 15586.55 prorated 33-04 11253.00 INA925 annual 11009.69 prorated 1-02 7.13 CARE per hour 36-10 15463.00 SOFR9 annual 14358.50 prorated 36-10 15463.00 SOFR9 annual 14358.50 prorated 36-11 15929.00 SOFR9 annual 14791.00 prorated 33-04 7539.51 INA925 annual 6479.90 prorated 2-08 8.64 CARE per hour Personnel Changes Page 11 September 22, 2005 p g .\u0026gt;z.. . START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL i5 z CLASS SALARY U\u0026gt; NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Hawkins, Tony Security Officer/ 9-2-05 36-10 15463.00 CENTRAL SOFR9 annual 14358.50 prorated Higgins, Judy Assistant Registrar/ 8-2-05 39-12 25632.00 HALL CLK10 p Hines, Terry Security Officer/ 9-2-05 36-10 15463.00 .., z \u0026gt; FULBRIGHT SOFR9 annual z n 14358.50 \u0026gt;,... U\u0026gt; prorated Hunter, Roshuanda Custodian/ 8-17-05 31-01 11379.00 MCCLELLAN CUS928 annual 11255.32 prorated ?\u0026lt; n lstifan, Najat Instructional Aide/ 8-28-05 33-09 16603.00 ,... 0 !!? ROCKEFELLER INA12 annual z c:, 13918.26\no m prorated I\n,,: U\u0026gt; Jackson, Jeffery Custodian/ 8-3-0~ 31-04 12453.00 CENTRAL CUS928 Jackson, Mary Instructional Aide/ 8-19-05 33-04 11253.00 FELDER INA925 annual 10888.04 .. ~ prorated ,, :.., ~,, z\u0026gt; 1,, :nz Joiner, Lawrence Custodian/ 8-13-05 31-01 13616.00 zm -\u0026lt;!lo DUNBAR CUS925 annual I U\u0026gt; :... C: 6808.00 :~ ..\no prorated :6 .... Jones, Angela Child Nutrition/ 9-9-05 3-01 9350.00 ROCKEFELLER FSH550 annual 8495.43 prorated Lopez, Miguel Security Officer/ 9-2-05 36-10 15463.00 !JI CLOVERDALE SOFR9 annual ~ U\u0026gt; m MIDDLE 14358.50\na: m prorated !!'\nr Personnel Changes Page 12 September 22, 2005 NAME Leech, Cynthia Lewis, Alice Luster, Porchia McClendon, Marcus Mosby, Lashaun Murphy, Marc Murray, Danette Norfleet, Floyd Nuoffer, Mary START DATE/ POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Child Nutrition/ 8-25-05 BRADY Child Nutrition/ 9-19-05 OTTER CREEK Instructional Aide/ 8-19-05 J. A. FAIR CARE/ 9-26-05 CARE Security Officer/ 9-2-05 PARKVIEW Custodian/ 8-18-0? METRO Guidance Secretary/ 8-15-05 PARKVIEW Security Officer/ 9-2-05 J. A. FAIR Secretary/ 9-12-05 FELDER SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 3-01 9350.00 FSH550 annual 9098.66 prorated 3-01 9350.00 FSH550 annual 8193.82 prorated 33-06 16109.00 INA925 annual 15586.55 prorated 2-02 7.70 CARE per hour 36-16 18491.00 SOFR9 annual 17170.21 prorated 31-01 14532.00 CUS12 annual 12491 .34 prorated 38-12 24876.00 CLK10 annual 23773.12 prorated 36-16 18491 .00 SOFR9 annual 17170.21 prorated 39-12 25632.00 CLK10 annual 22096.55 prorated Personnel Changes Page 13 September 22, 2005 ~ 8 z ?\nSTART DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL 0 z CLASS SALARY \"' NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Palos, Matilde Child Nutrition/ 9-28-05 3-01 9350.00 BASELINE FSH550 annual 7942.47 prorated Parker, James Security Officer/ 9-2-05 36-10 15463.00 WAKEFIELD SOFR9 annual 14358.50 !=' prorated .., z \u0026gt;z C\") Piggee, LaQuinton Custodian/ 9-19-05 31-01 11379.00 \u0026gt;,... PULASKI HEIGHTS CUS928 annual \"' ELEMENTARY 9894.78 prorated Riley, Janice Child Nutrition/ 9-28-05 3-01 9350.00 FRANKLIN FSH550 annual 7942.47 ?\u0026lt; C\") prorated ,... 0 !!! z C) Romes, Robert Custodian/ 8-15-05 31-01 11379.00\na m METRO CUS928 ~\n,,: \"' Shirrill, Annette Nurse(.5)/ 9-16-0? 52-08 13411.20 WILSON NURSES annual 11664.95 prorated Simmons, Gregory Instructional Aide/ 8-11-05 33-16 16109.00 .. si! ALC INA925 ,, :., rn -z ,, \u0026gt; a::z ,, C\") Stewart, Eddie Security Officer/ 9-2-05 36-16 18491.00 zm ... go HENDERSON SOFR9 annual I rn .... C: 17170.21 ~~ prorated \na\n6 .... Turner, Edward Custodian/ 9-15-05 31-01 14532.00 STEPHENS CUS12 annual 11440.09 prorated Ward, Angela Instructional Aide/ 8-19-05 33-16 16109.00 !I' TERRY INA925 annual \"~' m 15586.55 ii: m prorated :: C Personnel Changes Page 14 September 22, 2005 NAME Wells, Barbara White, Renetta White, Tremmel Wilborn, Cynthia Young, Monica START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Custodian/ 9-6-05 CENTRAL Child Nutrition/ 8-31-05 HALL Instructional Aide/ 9-16-05 KING Nurse/ 9-26-05 GEYER SPRINGS/ WOODRUFF Instructional Aide/ 10-5-05 FRANKLIN SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 31-01 11379.00 CUS928 annual 10575.05 prorated 3-01 9350.00 FSH550 annual 8847.31 prorated 33-04 11253.00 INA925 annual 9732.32 prorated 52-08 33528.00 NURSES annual 28114.62 prorated 33-16 16109.00 INA925 annual 13432.55 prorated DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 October 27, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Property Easement: J. A. Fair BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District is undertaking a project to relocate the sanitary system at J. A. Fair High School from its present connection-point on Dodd Road to one that is closer and within the confines of the city streets immediately south of the school. In order for this connection to be allowed, an easement must be attained from Kenwood Estates, Inc. RATIONALE: The Little Rock School District presently operates a pumping station at J. A. Fair High School that pumps sewage approximately one-half mile to the city main. Recently another main has been relocated south of the school in the Kenwood Estates area. It is possible for us to connect to this main, eventually abandon the pumping station and the one-half mile of line that we now have, and provide much better service to the Little Rock School District. FUNDING: This project will be funded out of the bond funds for J. A. Fair High School. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the attached easement and allow the administration to proceed. PREPARED BY: Douglas Eaton, Director of School Construction 8 z ?\n0z \"' ,,\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;.. .\u0026gt; \u0026lt; c:z: 5~ c::o ~z I: C) m.z.. . \"' !II ~ \"m' I: m ~ C' RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT (CORPORATION) KNOW ALL ME BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT Kenwood Estates , Inc . , GRANTOR, a corporation organized under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Arkansas , by its _________________ , and ______________ duly authorized by proper resolution of its Board of Directors, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars($~, and other valuable consideration paid by the Linle Rock Sanitary Sewer Committee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged , do hereby, subject to prior recorded mortgages and easements, if any, grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the use and benefit of the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer Committee, GRANTEE, and unto its successors and assigns forever, the following described easements: 1. A PERMANENT RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND EASEMENT for the purpose of permitting the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer Committee and the Little Rock Wastewater Utility to clear and keep clear the surface of the right-of-way and to (a) lay, construct, operate , maintain , repair, replace, reconstruct, test, inspect and add sewer mains and sewer lines whether on or more, and without the payment of additional compensation therefore\n(b) keeping the easement clear of all buildings and other improvements of any kind\nand (c) having the right to free ingress and egress across adjacent land of the GRANTOR(S) to the lands hereinafter described. Subject to prior easement of record and except as hereinafter stated, the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer Committee shall have the exclusive use of this right-of-way and easement\nand the GRANTOR may hereinafter use the surface of the easement for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights hereby conveyed, but may not place a building, footing, wall, structure, or other improvement upon the right-of-way except that, after the initial sewer construction is completed , the GRANTOR may pave the easement surface and may use it for driveways, walks, or parking areas. The GRANTOR may permit other utility service to cross this easement at approximately right angles, but only if such utilities first comply with whatever specifications the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer Comminee and the Little Rock Wastewater Utility may designate at the time for the protection of its own facilities. This permanent easement shall be upon the following described lands situated in Pulaski County, Arkansas, to-wit: SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT Part of Lots 17 and 18, Kenwood Estates Subdivision - Phase 2, in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows\nThe East 7.5 feet of Lot 17 and the West 7.5 feet of Lot 18 of the said Kenwood Estates Subdivision - Phase 2, in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, said easement being a total width of 15 feet and containing 1,834 square feet more or less. 2. A TEMPORARY RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND EASEMENT for the purpose of permitting the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer Committee and the Little Rock Wastewater Utility to remove all timber and obsrruciions therefrom and to make excavations, store excavated material s, tool s. supplies and equipment and provide working space. This temporary easement shall begin when the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer Committee and the Little Rock Wastewater Utility commence the initial work on the permanent easement and shall terminate one year after that date or when that work is completed, whichever is earlier. This temporary easement shall be upon the following described lands situated in Pulaski County, Arkansas, to-wit: None (Intentionally left blank). Upon completion of the initial or any subsequent work by the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer Committee, the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer Committee shall backfill and thoroughly compact all excavations to minimize settling and shall level the surface over its excavations and pipelines, remove all excess ex...:avated m:nerials and debris and leave the premises in a clean sanitary condition. If the initial or any subsequent work by the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer Committee damages any fence, curb or paved surface upon the rights-of-way, the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer Committee, an its expense, shall repair or replace the damaged portion with materials of like quality and as nearly possible to its prior condition. The execution of this easement does not give the GRANTOR the right to connect to or receive service from any sewer or wastewater facility\nthe right to make connections and receive service shall be subject to the rules, regulations, policies or ordinances in effect at the time of application. To have and to hold said easements, rights and privileges unto the GRANTEE, and unto its successors and assigns forever, for the purposes aforesaid. And GRANTOR(S) covenants with GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, that subject to prior recorded mortgages and easements, if any, it will forever warrant and defend the title to said easements and rights against the claims of all persons whomsoever and that GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, shall have at al! times the quiet use and enjoyment of said easements and rights. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the name of the GRANTOR is hereunto affixed by its and its seal affixed by it's ________________ , this _______ day of -------- 2005. By: ATTEST: (Corporate Sea!) ?\u0026lt; n 5 en z C)\no I en C\" STATE OF ARKANSAS ) COUNTY OF PULASKJ ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this day personally appeared before the undersigned, a Notary Public within and for the County and State aforesaid, duly qualified, commissioned and acting, -----------------, and --------------- to me well known, who stated that they were the ______________ and _________________ ,of _______________ _ , a corporation, and were duly authorized in their respective capacities to execute the foregoing easement for and in the name and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they had so signed, executed and delivered said easement for the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth. WITNESS my hand and official seal on this ____ day of _______ _ 2005 Notary Public My Commission Expires: (SEAL) . , I I I I . n~ sc r \nc-.~: ~ 1.\nt~~ I 105 / '\n '::: ..... I 1:21 cs \"' 'J I\u0026gt; 0 \" 107 to (1ml L1-r n ... -s:- f\u0026lt;.o\u0026lt;'.....,:. :Sc::1-1,ool, Q 1:S1K1C..T ?_-___ :X A. FA1R.. H1(QH Sc..1'4.oc.L... -z _ _ 0 C ~ 108 g C \" 109 g 0 \" 110 1 1 1 0 C i?. 2C 112 c=- \"~L N-T=-\n: 1/: \" !PON PltlS  3 JTS YnH f'OU:r ~1E .!.$UR~G iO\nC Vt L07 u~.::s ..:.NC CL.R.\n~ \"' DISTAN:5 Sn'ji\\'N :t'~iiO OSTA~:~.:~s 5 F?OR CF C~OSt.JR C NJ \\.'::n1.:u_,\n? .\\C 7 T:--!ER:: IS :. lC TT ALJ.:.\n:::r-sr TC S7'?.~ t,C, P:,r'.7,,J,~ ct T~IS 0 ~0=::~:Y ,s ~:.),:.:.-:, wlTMn, ~r--:~ '.CC ::::.~ =-_ =~vfJ:,~y .:..s Si\n0','TM O!\"i Tr\n fLV~J-.,~~. ?LOGU C'Jur.:4~ r ~~c. F:..C INSUR.:..r-,.:E WCNr' t.1:...c r\n:,r. LiTTL:'.: ~-::CK,\n.\n:,:.:1:.:.:: t F\":r':M C0~1~.1Ur\nJi)' c.\nh_ # C:OC 131 CJ:3\n:_ CC- 1 ], ~:,: l '-------------------------- =i\n.RT (\\~ Tr S\\{l / t, SWl IJ Qt\" s:::-:Dtl ~'. T--.-\n, r-:3-'1\\, C01J , T''. ,:.~r:ArlSft3 MC'\u0026lt;[ P.1KiiCU~P.~ r C':S,:ii:E: .\\:: 3E:~liHtlf1G ,\n- i,-::: ttCRTMw::5- :c:2, .. ~\n(\nt _u\nl. !\\~,.,. .. ,cue :: ~~3:.1\\~ s1cr-i. 0 :-1..:..s~ i.:. A.t1 :..oc111ct. o Tt-1 c:r( (F u-_: P..., .A~Y.:./'JS.:.S\nfH :1\"4:E tJC8'-T''50\"W. 15 G\\J ~ iC .\nPGl!li Ut1 7r: R,Vt-C -Cr\"-'t,'\nY UH or o.:.-~1c, 0.CC:CG R~i.:..C. 3~HiV JG o\n:: r':  C~r,C[?:..1t1 ~H::F:OF. T-t~ i:::: r~: :.-cJ .i.:~ E .\n_JtiG :,11[ :::_:.~ ~ ~. '(,). t L,M[. 215.J) r\nT'\"'EN:E N:.:='='J.!''[ ::J1'fT1tJt,\n1 ..... (. A .. on:. :!Si RiVHT- OF\" - WA.Y Ufl[ , 7:?9.17 r.. TO~ ?Crtr Or.. Tr-[ f l\\-,~ T ... C:: S1 / 2 til/2 SWi/ 5t/i/.\n, s..:.,c s~:::T1()M 2i , Tr,E~l:::~ s.\n:-.:. L.Jt.C :..:.10 NJrHH Lit,. 73\n33 fi , Tt4U .. c:: sa:-0~ '. :,\",,_ I:! ~ -: !r-~\n~~ ~a~~o45#E. 500 FT Tt-K ,r.~ \".0'\":'\"'')(\n' I~ ...... : rrr, 8 z !:\n0z \"' ,\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;. \u0026gt;\u0026lt;  - c :c 5~ c\n,:, ~z :I: C'l m\"' z .... !lD DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 October 27, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Property Easement: Gibbs Elementary School BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District is undertaking an expansion program at Gibbs Elementary School. In order to complete this project, an easement must be granted to Entergy Arkansas, Inc., to locate a transformer on our property to meet the needs of the facility. RATIONALE: In order to provide an updated service to meet the existing and future needs of Gibbs Elementary School, a new transformer must be located on site. Entergy has requested that we grant them an easement to locate this transformer that will give them access for repairs when necessary. The easement will be as shown on the attached drawing. FUNDING: The funding for this project will be covered by the LRSD bond funds allocated to Gibbs Elementary School. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the attached easement to Entergy Arkansas, Inc., for this project. PREPARED BY: Douglas Eaton, Director of School Construction :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\" c:c 5~ c\n,:, ~z\nI: C'l mu, z -\u0026lt; ST A TE OF ARKA SAS COUNTY or, PULASKI Line/ProJect lden11fica11on: WR  22366 RIGHT-OF-WAY INSTRUME T ENTERGY ARKANSAS, I C. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT: ________________ , Grantor(s), acting ind1v1dually, and for, and on behalf of, my/our heir , successors, assigns and any other person claiming the ownership to the property hereinafter described, collectively \"Grantor\", for and in consideration of one dollar, in hand paid, and other good and valuable considerauon, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, assign, convey unto and warrant and defend Entergy Arkansas, Inc., and its uccessor and assigns, collectively \"Grantee\", a right-of-way, servitude and easement JO feet in width, for the location. construcuon, reconstruction, improvements, repairs, operation, inspection, patrol, replacement and maintenance of electric power and communication facilities, or the removal thereof, now or in the future, including, but not necessarily limited to, poles, cross arm , insulators, wires, cables, conduits, hardware, transformers, switches, guy wires. anchors and other equipment, structures, material and appurtenances, now or hereafter used, useful or desired in connection therewith by Grantee over, across, under or on that land of Grantor in the County of Pulaski, State of Arkansas described as follows, to-wit: See attached description Together with the right of ingre sand egress to and from said right-of-way across the adjoining land of the Grantor and the nght to attach wires and cables of any other party to Grantee's facilities. Unless otherwise herein specifically provided, the center line of the electric power and communication lines initially constructed on this right-of-way shall be the center line of said right-of-way. Grantee shall have the full and continuing right to clear and keep clear vegetation within or growing into said rightof- way and the further right to remove or modify from time to time trees, limbs, and/or vegetation outside the said right of way which Grantee considers a hazard to any of its electric power or communications facilities or a hazard to the rendering of adequate and dependable service to Grantor or any of Grantee's customers, by use of a variety of methods used in the vegetation management industry. Grantor shall not construct or permit the construction of any structure, obstruction or other hazard within the said right-of-way, including but not limited to, house, barn, garage, shed, pond, pool or well, excepting only Grantor's fence(s) and Grantee's facilities. Grantor shall not construct or permit the construction of any buildings or other structures on land adjoining said right-of-way in violation of the minimum clearances from the lines and facilities of Grantee, as provided in the National Electrical Safety Code. Grantor, if husband and wife, do hereby release and relinquish all of our rights of curtesy, dower, and homestead to the said right-of-way. 1Rc, U-1/16/%-EAIJ E00193 04/96 I ' WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Right-of-Way Instrument on this _ da1 of GRA TOR: ACKNOWLEDGME T ST ATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF ______________ _ BE IT REMEMBERED that on th1 day come before me the undersigned, a otary Public, within and for the county and state aforesaid, duly commissioned, and acting _________ to me well known as the Grantor 111 the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that had executed the same for the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth. The above-signed person(s) acknowledged that _________ freely and voluntarily released and relinquished all rights of dower homestead and/or curtesy in the above described easement. W11ness my hand and seal as such otary Public this __ day of ___________ , 2004. Commission Expires ____ _ otary Public !SEAL] 1Re1 . 0-1/1\u0026lt;,/%-EAI) E00193 04/96 8 ! lz5 u, !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z n\n!! u, ?\u0026lt; n 5 u, z C) ::a i u, EASEME T DESCRIPTIO Part of Block 280 of the Original City of Little Rock, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the orthwest comer of said Block 280\nthence along the Easterly rightof- way line of Cross Street, South 0932'27\" West 57.30 feet to the POI T OF BEGI 11 G\nthence South 8027'33\" East 13.00 feet\nthence South 0932'27\" West 15.00 feet\nthence North 8027'33\" West 13.00 feet to a point on the Easterly right-ofway line of Cross Street\nthence along said right-of-way line orth 0932'27\" East 15.00 feet to the POI T OF BEGI I G, containing 195.0 square feet, more or less. I vz REBAR/ FOUND / \\ w l\u0026gt; 0 1 STORY BRICK BUILDING FF 345.98 APASvtHPGH ALT\\ r----_ I I ---r-::::-r N ~ BASKETBALL GOAL I 04~ ASPHALT CLos'D\\ .// PAVING _/ ------ ------ ' I FF f/1 347.30 I \"\"'' FF 350.00 1 STORY BRICK BUILDING ----11: W, PLAYGROUN !.:.I, z z\u0026gt; C') ~ Cl) ?\u0026lt; n 5 Cl\u0026gt; z C) i Cl\u0026gt; DATE: TO: October 27, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District receives donations from businesses and individuals on a regular basis. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District that donations are not formally accepted until they are approved by the Board of Directors. RATIONALE: District policy states that, in order to maintain the centralized fixed asset property accounting system, all property donation requests are forwarded to the Director of Procurement. The Procurement Department forwards the requests, along with the appropriate recommendations, to the Board of Directors for acceptance and approval. In order for proper recognition and appreciation to be conveyed to the donor, donor's name and current mailing address should be included in the donation memo. FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached donation requests be approved and accepted in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. PREPARED BY: .if'oarral Paradis, Director of Procurement ~ ~Gwen Caraway, Fixed Asset Property Manager !=' -n z \u0026gt;z C') ~ tJ\u0026gt; ?\u0026lt; C') 5 tJ\u0026gt; z C)\nJO m i tJ\u0026gt; i!!! )(   o::c 5~ C:\nJO ~z 31::C) m\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; .z. . DONATIONS School/Department Item Donor Bale Elementary School $1,000.00 check UALR Children International to be used for student incentives Central High School $100.00 cash to the Rita Cunningham Troubadours/Debate Club Central High School $3,000.00 cash Cheryl Miller on behalf of towards the purchase RCF Corporation of a laminator for the Ninth Grade Academy Lab Central High School $400.00 cash to the Dr. Randal Hundley Troubadours/Debate Club Central High School $100.00 cash to the John Parke Troubadours/Debate Club Chicot Elementary School supplies valued The 39er's Class of St. School at approximately James United Methodist $250.00 Church J. A. Fair High School $288.77 check for paint Otter Creek Assembly of and labor for painting God Church the baseball dug-outs Forest Heights Middle Chairs, valued at $825.00, Arkansas Capitol Corporation School for the conference room Forest Heights Middle Musical instruments Mr. Douglas Braswell of School valued at $1 ,200.00 Easy Cash Pawn Shop Forest Park Elementary Funds totaling $48,926.88 Forest Park PT A School to be distributed for the programs outlined in the attached letter from the PTA School/Department Item Donor Fulbright Elementary $966.43 cash to be Fulbright PTA School used to purchase a Dell computer Fulbright Elementary $200.00 cash for Sam Storthz Ill School volunteer expenses for the Reading Buddies Fulbright Elementary Printer, valued at $157.00, Bob Derryberry School for the Health room Fulbright Elementary Safety signs and rubber Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Thomas H. Rains School safety mats valued at of the Federal Highway $1,661.58 Administration and Valerie .~., and Jay McDaniel z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;,.... UI BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: D\" lal Paradis, Procurement Director From.~ . arbara Anderson, Principal Datet eptember 23, 2005 Re: Donation Bale Elementary received a check in the amount of $1000.00 from UALR Children International as an incentive for completing student projects during the last school year. The money has been deposited in our school activity account to be used for student's incentives. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with LRSD policies. We are grateful to this organization for their support of our students and their families. RECEIVED SEP 2 6 2005 6501 West 32llll Street  Phone 501-447-3600  Fax 501-447-3601  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 .Cittfe 'Rock Centra{ J{ifJfi Scfioo{ 1500 Soutli Park Street .ittfe 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 'Phone 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 9/28/2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCURl\nMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL1f-vUt\nf fAvC~t '-- SUBJECT: DONATION  Rita Cunningham of 5424 Southwood Road, Little Rock, AR 72205 graciously donated $100 to the Troubadours/Debate Club. It is my recommendation that this donation be. accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2005 pR O CURE f,\nEfJ T ?\u0026lt; (') 0 u, z C) XI I u, :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;. o::i: 5~ C XI ~z :I: C) mu, ~ Litt{e 'Rock Centra{ J-figfi Scfioo{ 1500 Soutfi Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .. 'Arkansas 72202 'Phone 501-447-1400 ]'ax 501-447-1401 DATE: 9/1/2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCU~ME~\n:,. . _ . FROM: NA CYROUSSEAU,PRINCIPAL~~ SUBJECT: DO ATIO , V O Cheryl Miller on behalf of RCF Corporation at 5 Shackleford Plaza, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72211, generously donated $3,000 towards the purchase of a laminator to be utilized in the lab of our Ninth Grade Academy. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted m accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. RECEiVED SEP 6 2o05 w PROCUREMENT Littfe 'Rock Centra{ J-fi/Jfi Scfioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .Jlrkansas 72202 Pfione 501-447-1400 ]\"ax 501-447-1401 DATE: 9/28/2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~.,,, SUBJECT: DONATION Dr. Randal Hundley of 5515 Country Club Boulevard, Little Rock, AR 72207, very graciously donated $400 to the Troubadours/Debate Club. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2005 PROCUREf.J1EtJT Littfe 'Rock Centra[ Jfigfi Scfioo[ 1500 Soutli 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .Jlrkansas 72202 Plione 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 9/28/2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~ SUBJECT: DONATION John Parke of 60 Sherrill Road, Little Rock, AR 72202 graciously donated $100 to the Troubadours/Debate Club. It is my recommendation that this ~onation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2005 PROCUR~c ~.../.\\ .,I. '.f... Jr CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Procurement Director From: Jane Harkey, Princip~ Date: Sept. 23, 2005 Re: Donation \\ The 39er's Class of St. James United Methodist Church has donated approximately $250 worth of school supplies to the students of Chicot. We are extremely appreciative of their generosity. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with LRSD policies. The 39er's Class St. James United Methodist Church 321 Pleasant Valley Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 111 00 Chicot Road Phone (501) 447-7000 Fax (501) 447-7001 Mabelvale . Arkansas 72103 ~ \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\" C :C t ! C::,, ~z 31:C'l mu, .z.. . J. A. Fair Magnet High School Science and Technology Systems 13420 David 0. Dodd Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Phone 501-447-1700 . Fax 5-1-448-/701 To: Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Randy Rutherford, Princip~ Re: Donation Date: September 21 , 2005 I would like to recommend that the following donation to J. A. Fair High School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. A check in the amount of $288. 77 for paint and labor in painting the baseball dug-outs. Otter Creek Assembly of God Church P. 0 . Box 30190 Little Rock, AR 72260 RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2005 PROCU~\n,J .'  '.\nu!,..-.\nii.. .. FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL To: From: Date: RE: Darrell Paradis p Dr. Debbie Price D October 4, 2005 Donation Forest Heights is pleased to accept the generous donation of chairs for our conference room from Arkansas Capitol Corporation. The chairs are valued at $825.00. Please accept this donation in accordance with Board policy. Mr. Jay Wisener Executive Vice President of Arkansas Capitol 200 East Commerce Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 5 2005 PRO C: : :~ ~. !\nEfJ T 5901 Evergreen Street  Phone (501) 447-2700  Fax (501} 447-2701  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 ?\u0026lt; n,.. 0 U\u0026gt; z C) i U\u0026gt; FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL To: Darryl Paradis From: Dr. Debbie Price Date: October 4, 2005 Re: Donations oP Forest Heights is pleased to accept the generous donation of musical instruments from Mr. Douglas Braswell from Easy Cash Pawn. The instruments are valued at $1,200. Please accept this donation in accordance with Board policy. Mr. Douglas Braswell Easy Cash 8601 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 RECEIVED OCT 5 2005 5901 Evergreen Street  Phone (501) 447-2700  Fax (501) 447-2701  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement Department From: Theresa J. Courtney-Ketcher, Principal Date: September 22, 2005 Subject: Forest Park PTA Donations Darral, The Forest Park PTA has donated items totaling $48,926.88 to the school. Attached you will see an itemized statement in the form of a letter from the PTA. I recommend that these donated items be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Attachment TCK/pac ------  1\\ECE\\\\JEO\n)tr i 2 2ons 1600 North Tyler Street  (501) Phone 447-4500  Fax (501) 447-4501  Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 !!? z C)\no I U\u0026gt; FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY PTA September 6, 2005 Theresa Courtney-Ketcher Principal Forest Park Elementary School 1600 N. Tyler Street Little Rock, AR 72207 RE: Donations Dear Mrs. Courtney-Ketcher, The Forest Park Elementary PTA has donated $48,926.88 to the school for the following: Staff Appreciation Principal's Discretionary Fund Classroom Supplies, Instruction and Maintenance Art Instruction \u0026amp; Materials Computer Maintenance Grounds Expense Space Camp Spanish Instruction \u0026amp; Materials Student Recognition Accelerated Reader Program Parental Involvement Field Day Fifth Grade Graduation Student Recruitment Please contact me if you have any questions. ~~9J'Mb1tl[~ Janis P. Thibault PTA Treasurer cc: Melanie Fox, Martha Hill, Christy Clark $2,236.79 $1,000.00 $12,168.35 $2,255.39 $9,445.35 $2,000.00 $13,371.05 $2631.75 $1,437.63 $719.26 $1,661.31 RECEIVED \\)tr 2 2 2005 Fulbright Elementary Memo To: From: Darral Paradis, Director Of Procurement Deborah Mitchell, Principal CC: Date: September 28, 2005 Re: Donations to Fulbright Elementary The Fulbright PTA, 300 Pleasant Valley Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72212, has generously donated $966.43 for a Dell computer for our website. Sam Storthz Ill, 810 N University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72205 has donated $200 for volunteer expenses for Reading Buddies, our canine-assisted literacy intervention program. Bob Derryberry, 6800 Waterview Pl., Sherwood, AR 72120, has donated a Printer valued at $157 to our health room. It is recommended that these donations be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District board of Directors. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, -t~J-cuA J1u7fiJdL Deborah Mitchell Principal DM:lam RECE\\VED \\)tr 2 9 2005 -.... - Fulbright Elementary Memo ( To: Darral Paradis, Director Of Procurement- From: Deborah Mitchell, Principal CC: Date: September 1 , 2005 Re: Donations to Fulbright Elementary Mr. and Mrs. Thomas H. Rains, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Office Bldg Room 3128, 700 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72201, and Valerie and Jay McDaniel, 1800 Sawgrass Drive, Little Rock, AR 72212, have generously donated Safety Signs and rubber safety mats valued at $1,661.58. It is recommended that these donations be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~~w~ Deborah Mitchell Principal DM:lam LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: October 27, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Financial Reports BACKGROUND: Financial reporting is designed to keep the Board of Directors up-to-date regarding the District's current financial condition. Financial reports are submitted monthly to the Board for review and approval. RATIONALE: September 2005 financial reports are submitted for the Board's review and approval. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the September 2005 financial reports as submitted. PREPARED BY: Jean A. Ring, Director Finance and Accounting LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES ANO CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 ANO 2005 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2004/05 09/30/04 COLLECTED 2005/06 09/30/05 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 61,436,691 12,467,263 20.29% 67,268,610 13,829,345 20.56% DELINQUENT TAXES 12,135,000 986,045 8.13% 9,200,000 989,051 10.75% 40% PULLBACK 31,250,000 0.00% 33,000,000 0.00% EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 205,000 0.00% 210,000 0.00% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 155,000 0.00% 145,000 0.00% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 185,000 0.00% 204,000 0.00% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 485,000 13,590 2.80% 365,000 45,766 12.54% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 245,000 82,243 33.57% 750,000 265,233 35.36% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 215,000 48,071 22.36% 195,000 56,182 28.81% TOTAL 106,311 ,691 13,597,212 12.79% 111,337,610 15,185,577 13.64% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 22,000 5,644 25.65% 21,500 5,021 23.35% TOTAL 22,000 5,644 25.65% 21,500 5,021 23.35% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 65,082,694 11 ,852,204 18.21% 66,095,1 55 11 ,749,284 17.78% ALTERNATIVE LEARNING 1,927,250 481 ,812 25.00% 1,100,000 0.00% ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 193,739 0.00% 200,000 0.00% NATL SCHL LUNCH STUDENT FUNDING 6,498,240 1,181,498 18.18% 6,877,920 1,250,530 18.18% PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1,141 ,165 1,141,165 100.00% 953,144 953,144 100.00% SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS{STRS/HEAL TH) 8,275,000 1,387,526 16.77% 8,200,000 1,333,980 16.27% VOCATIONAL 1,350,000 195,052 14.45% 1,785,000 214,600 12.02% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 2,100,000 0.00% 2,425,000 132,581 5.47% EARLY CHILDHOOD 5,542,510 1,430,540 25.81% 4,000,000 1,341,500 33.54% TRANSPORTATION 4,125,000 1,325,044 32.12% 4,252,900 0.00% M TO M TRANSFERS 4,575,000 414,913 9.07% 4,100,000 0.00% ADULT EDUCATION 934,380 109,000 11.67% 926,543 111,615 12.05% AT RISK FUNDING 395,000 9,400 2.38% 10,000 0.00% TAP PROGRAM 382,903 7,645 2.00% 288,623 142,623 49.41% TOTAL 102,522,882 19,535,799 19.06% 101 ,214,285 17,229,857 17.02% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 770,000 0.00% 770,000 0.00% TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,295,000 8,416 0.65% 1,370,524 0.00% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,849,008 0.00% 2,194,000 0.00% TOTAL 3,914,008 8,416 0.22% 4,334,524 0 0.00% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 212,770,581 33,147,071 15.58% 216,907,919 32,420,456 14.95% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 22,887,794 1,972,536 8.62% 20,152,896 897,433 4.45% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,500,000 57,924 1.29% 4,784,200 43,067 0.90% MAGNET SCHOOLS 27,964,934 2,191,329 7.84% 28,849,578 1,274,413 4.42% CHARTER SCHOOL 1,340,000 350,000 26.12% TOTAL 55,352,728 4,221 ,789 7.63% 55,126,674 2,564,913 4.65% TOTAL REVENUE 268,123,309 37,368,860 13.94% 272,034,593 34,985,370 12.86% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 AND 2005 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2004/05 09/30/04 EXPENDED 2005/06 09/30/05 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 117,324,912 14,828,817 12.64% 122,589,665 20,206,775 16.48% BENEFITS 36,185,811 4,383,568 12.11% 35,925,642 5,784,395 16.10% PURCHASED SERVICES 20,959,918 2,682,273 12.80% 22,438,191 2,985,497 13.31% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,725,914 1,850,893 21 .21% 10,128,394 2,653,710 26.20% CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,760,600 283,330 10.26% 2,473,965 272,044 11.00% OTHER OBJ\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_830","title":"\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005-08/2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","School boards","School employees","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/830"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n RECEIVED AUG1 6 2005 OFACEOF - DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING ,, BOARD OF EDUCATION ,. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Thursday, August 18, 2005 5:00P. M. MEETING AGENDA NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT I. II. III. IV. V. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Thursday, August 18, 2005 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER, Teresa Burl, President INVOCATION, Will Brazear, NLRHS East Campus 9th grader, son of Kim Wilmot FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Teresa Burl, President Marty Moore, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary Mable Mitchell, Parliamentarian Trent Cox, Member John Riley, Member Scott Teague, Member RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Special Recognition I. Kim Douglass, 2005 NLRSD Teacher of the Year - J. Scholl 2. Rellia Dillinger, 2005 Beverly Benham Award for Outstanding Leadership in Special Education in Arkansas - S. Brazear 3. Kelsey Winchester, 2005 Girl's Nation - S. Brazear  B. New Partner in Education 1. U.S. Bank (Levy Branch) \u0026amp; North Heights Elementary - S. Brazear - VI. Page 2 - Board Agenda August 18, 2005 DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, July 21, 2005 5 P.M. - Regular Meeting- Page A- l VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. B. C. D. E. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - R. Kron Consider New Board Policy 5.16A Smart Core Curriculum and Graduation Requirements (Second Reading) - K. Kirspel - Page C - 1 Consider Primary Banking Services Proposal - G. Daniels - Page D - 1 Consider Revision to Verizon Cell Tower Locations - J. Massey- Page E - 1 Consider New Board Policy Energy Management Conservation Policy EGH (First Reading)- J. Massey- Page F - 1 F. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel l. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 2. Consider bid items - Page R - 1 3. Consider building use request - Page S - 1 4. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Student's First Day, Friday, August 19, 2005 B. Regular Board Meeting - Thursday, September 15, 2005 at 5:00 P.M. X. PERSONNEL HEARING XI. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES July 21, 2005 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, July 21, 2005 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. President Teresa Burl called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. MOTION John Riley moved to amend the agenda to add two new items under New Business. One for revision of Board Policy COE Insurance Coverages and one for revision to the original lawn care bid. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Teresa Burl, President Marty Moore, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary Trent Cox, Member John Riley, Member Scott Teague, Member Absent Mable Mitchell, Parliamentarian Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nDanny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel and Special Services\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) and NLRHS-TV (video) taped the meeting. Miss Burl recognized Mrs. Nellie Kirspel, Mr. Kirspel's wife and Horace Smith from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as guests in the audience. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRJOR MEETING MOTION Marty Moore moved to accept the minutes of the June 16, 2005 Regular meeting\nJune 21, 2005 Special meeting\nJune 30, 2005 Special meeting and the July 7, 2005 Special meeting as printed. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. A-1 YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) NEW BUSINESS Arkansas School Boards Association Membership Mr. Kirspel explained this membership affords us many benefits in updating statewide information, and legal assistance when needed. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the Administratio~'s recommendation to continue our Arkansas School Boards Association membership for the 200D. - 2006 school year. Marty Moore seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) New Board Policy 5 .16.A Smart Core Curriculum and Graduation Requirements (First Reading) Mr. Dana Chadwick explained this policy needed to be included to meet Arkansas Department of Education guidelines. He also stated that the word \"a\" should be added on the last page under Science with one (1) unit of \"a\" physical science. MOTION John Riley moved to accept 5.16A Policy as a first reading with the insertion of the word \"a\" - on the last page of the policy. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) Revision of Board Policy CDE Insurance Coverages Greg Daniels explained changes in the funding process of monies allocated for insurance purposes. The first paragraph of policy CDE needs to be revised to reflect the changes. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the revisions to Board Policy CDE as recommended. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) This proposed policy revision is now forwarded to the Personnel Policy Committee. Lawn Care Bid Revision Recommendation Jerry Massey explained that our current lawn care company had resigned. The company had most of its equipment stolen earlier in the month and had not recovered from the loss. A-2 MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to accept the McClure Landscaping contract for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year. Marty Moore seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) CONSENT AGENDA ,. Mr. Kirspel requested the approval of the consent agenda with a correction of omitting Janet Rodgers from the Personnel section on Page P-26. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the consent agenda with the correction to omit Janet Rodgers from Page P - 26. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) ADJOURNMENT MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to adjourn the meeting. Marty Moore seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) President Burl declared the meeting adjourned at 5:43 p.m. Teresa Burl, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-3 PROPOSED POLICY - 5.16A SECOND READING AUGUST 18, 2005 5.16A SMART CORE CURRICULUM AND GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS Effective with the graduating class of 2010, all students are required to participate in the Smart Core curriculum unless their parents or guardians, or the students if they are 18 years of age or older, sign an Informed Consent Form to not participate. Those students not participating in the Smart Core curriculum will be required to fulfill the Common Core curriculum or the requirements of their IEP (when applicable) to be eligible for graduation. The signed Informed Consent Form. shall be attached to the student's permanent transcript. Informed Consent Forms are required to be signed upon entry into the seventh grade or upon enrolling in the district. Counseling by trained personnel shall be available to students and their parents or legal guardians prior to the time they are required to sign the Informed Consent Form. While there are similarities between the two curriculums, following the Common Core curriculum may not qualify students for some scholarships and admission to certain colleges could be jeopardized. Students initially choosing the Common Core curriculum may change to the Smart Core curriculum providing they would be able to complete the required course of study by the end of their senior year. Students wishing to change their choice of curriculum must consult with their counselor to determine the feasibility of completing the requirements of the Smart Core curriculum. This policy, the Smart Core curriculum, and the courses necessary for graduation shall be reviewed by staff, students, and parents at least every other year to determine if changes need to be made to better serve the needs of the district's students. The superintendent, or his/her designee, shall select the composition of the review panel. Sufficient information relating to Smart Core and the district's graduation requirements shall be communicated to parents and students to ensure their informed understanding of each. This may be accomplished through any or all of the following means.  Inclusion in the student handbook of the Smart Core curriculum and graduation requirements\n Inclusion in the Course Description handbook of the Smart Core curriculum and graduation requirements\n Discussion of the Smart Core curriculum and graduation requirements at the school's annual public meeting, PTA meetings, or a meeting held specifically for the purpose of informing the public on this matter\n Discussions held by the school's counselors with students and their parents\nand/or  Distribution ofa newsletter(s) to parents or guardians of the district's students. GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS C-1 PROPOSED POLICY - 5.16A SECOND READING AUGUST 18, 2005 A minimum of 26 units are required for graduation for a student participating in either the Smart Core or Common Core curriculum. There are some distinctions made between Smart Core units and Graduation units. Not all units earned toward graduation necessarily apply to Smart Core requirements. SMART CORE REQUIREMENTS: Sixteen (16) units English Oral Communications 4 units (years) unit( year) Mathematics 4 units (years)  Algebra I  Geometry or Geometry Investigations .. A two-year algebra equivalent may be counted as two units of the four-unit requirement for the purpose of meeting the graduation requirement, but only serve as one unit toward meeting the Smart Core requirement.  Algebra II  One additional unit selected from Functional Math, Advanced Math/Trig, AP or 1B math selections Comparable concurrent credit college courses may be substituted where applicable. All students must take a mathematics course in Grade 11 or Grade 12. Science 3 units (years) with lab experience chosen from  Physical Science  Biology  Chemistry  Physics Social Studies 3 units (years)  Civics and/or American government  World History  American History Physical Education  unit ( year) While one-half () unit is required for graduation, no more than one (1) unit may be applied toward fulfilling the necessary units to graduate. Health Education Fine Arts Career Focus  unit ( year)  unit ( year) 6 units C-2 PROPOSED POLICY - 5.16A SECOND READING AUGUST 18, 2005 All career focus unit requirements shall be established through guidance and counseling based on the student's contemplated work aspirations. Career focus courses may include both required and elective courses. COMMON CORE REQUIREMENTS: Sixteen (16) units English 4 units (years) Oral Communications  unit ( year) ,. Mathematics 4 units (years)  Algebra or its equivalent * - 1 unit  Geometry or its equivalent * - 1 unit  Additional math units must build on the base of algebra and geometry knowledge and skills. Comparable concurrent credit college courses may be substituted where applicable. * A two-year algebra or geometry equivalent may each be counted as two units of the four unit requirement for graduation under the Common Core. Science 3 units (years)  one ( 1) unit of biology  one ( 1) unit of a physical science Social Studies 3 units (years)  Civics and/or American government  World History  American History Physical Education  unit ( year) While one-half () unit is required for graduation, no more than one (1) unit may be applied toward fulfilling the necessary units to graduate. Health Education Fine Arts  unit ( year)  unit ( year) Career Focus 6 units All career focus unit requirements shall be established through guidance and counseling based on the student's contemplated work aspirations. Career focus courses may include both required and elective courses. Date Adopted: C-3 Memo To: Mr. Ken Kirspel, Interim Superintendent of Schools From: Date: Re: Greg Daniels, CFO/CIO @) July 28, 2005 General Operating \u0026amp; Checking Account ,. Proposals were received from six local financial institutions:  Bank of America  Bank of the Ozarks  One Banc  Regions Bank  Twin City Bank  US Bank NLRSD-Business Office Each of these six banks submitted proposals that addressed the items in the Request for Proposal. Each of the banks clearly submitted a slightly different approach to meeting our banking needs. Each of the six financial institutions are qualified and each have the financial strength and technology to provide the type of services that would meet our banking needs. Two of the banks clearly stood out in their proposals of offering a \"No Service Fee\" plus interest on our daily balance. Bank of the Ozarks will offer 3.50% and Twin City Bank will offer 3.5172%. Each of these two financial institutions were called back for questions and a time of demonstration of the on-line web-based banking systems. Both Bank of the Ozarks and Twin City Bank offer a secure web-based banking system. In the unanimous opinion of the committee, the product offered by the Bank of the Ozarks would meet the needs of the North Little Rock School District business department as well as meet the needs of the employees of the District. Even though the interest rate of Twin City was 0.0172% higher than Bank of the Ozarks. the committee felt that the user-friendly, dynamic, secure web-based system would save the staff enough time to warrant this recommendation. -. Committee: Mr. Donald Watkins Mr. Barry Kincl Mrs. Mikki Eubank Mr. Greg Daniels D - 1 NCOIB) T IBI ILI lTTIL~ IB( O)CilCl: JFllJifIfLi I TC C CCIB [C OCO)I )L  ADMJNISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET MEMO TO: Ken Kirspel, Superintendent FROM: Jeny Masse~ector of Plant Services sUBJECT: Cell Towers DATE: August 11, 2005 The North Little Rock Planning Commission ~ recommended different sites at Indian Hills Elementary and Ridgeroad Middle Charter School than the ones the School Board approved at the June Board meeting. The attached maps show the new proposed locations. In these new locations there would be no need for attached lights and the tower at Ridgeroad would be taller to make up for the lower elevation below the football field. I would certainly recommend these changes. These changes have the support of the aldermen for each site. A third proposal for a cell tower at Boone Park Elementary will likely be presented to the Board for consideration in the near future. Thanks. AN EQuAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. 130X 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 E - 1 North Uttle Rock N w PROPOSED BOARD POLICY EGH (FIRST READING) ENERGY MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION POLICY EGH As the School Board of the North Little Rock School District, we believe it to be our responsibility to ensure that every effort is made to conserve energy and natural resources while exercising sound financial management. The implementation of this policy is the joint responsibility of the board members, administrators, teachers, students and support personnel and its success is based on cooperation at all levels. The district will maintain accurate records of energy consumption and cost of energy and will provide information to the local media on the goals and progress of the energy conservation program. The principal, working with the energy manager will be accountable for energy management on his/her campus with energy audits being conducted and conservation program outlines being updated Judicious use of the various energy systems of each campus will be the joint responsibility of the energy manager, plant services, principal and head custodian to ensure that an efficient energy posture is maintained on a daily basis. To ensure the overall success of the energy management program, the following specific areas of emphasis will be adopted: l. 2. 3. 4. All district personnel will be expected to contribute to energy efficiency in our district. Every person will be expected to be an \"energy saver\" as well as an \"energy consumer\". Energy management on his/her campus will be made a part of the principal's annual evaluation. Within sixty (60) days, administrative Energy Guidelines will be adopted that will be the \"rules of the game\" in implementing our energy program. Further, to maintain a safer and healthier learning environment and to complement the energy management program, the district shall follow the Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation preventive maintenance and monitoring plan for its facilities and systems, including HV AC, building envelope, and moisture management. F-1 5. PROPOSED BOARD POLICY EGH (FIRST READING) The School Board of North Little Rock School District directs the development of short and long range plans in the areas of facilities management and preventive maintenance as prescribed by Arkansas Public School Academic, and Transportation Division. Date Adopted: ,. F-2 Pam Ferguson Raymond Cooper Robin Gray Marlo James Jennifer Lee Karen Long Kathy Mascuilli Megan Mattox Sara Rectwenwald Jonathan Shulan Patricia Smith Carol Soulsby NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PERSONNEL OFFICE Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSFERS AND CHANGES From NLRHS West Campus- Special Education To NLRHS East Campus- Assistant Principal ,. CERTIFIED PESONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS Poplar Street Middle School- PE/ Study Skills Ridgeroad Middle Charter School- Athletics Effective 8-2-05 East Campus- Special Education Effective 7-26-05 NLRHS West Campus- Spanish Effective 8-8-05 Seventh Street Elementary- Reading Recovery Effective 7-18-05 Poplar Street Middle School- Special Education Effective 8-05-05 Amboy Elementary, Literacy Coach Effective 8-8-05 North Heights/Park Hill- Elementary Art Effective 8-05-05 Indian Hills Elementary- Kindergarten Effective 7-22-05 Rose City Middle School/Lynch Drive Elementary- Music Effective 8-01-05 Pike View Elementary- Second Grade Effective 8-8-05 Tri-District Early Childhood- Psychological Examiner Effective 8-02-05 p - 1 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 CERTIFIED PESONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS CONTINUED Julie Stewart Martha Carol Teague Catherine Watson Rebecca Allen Raquel! Barton Brenda Bazil Anita Bell Jimmie Dotson Shannon Duke Susan Faith Terri Felton Sean Fleming Rebecca Gardner Vivian Harris Ridgeroad Middle Charter School- Special Education Effective 7-07-05 Poplar Street Middle School- Math and Science Effective 7-29-05 Poplar Street Middle School- Math and Science Effective 7-20-05 ,. CERTIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES From Boone Park Elementary- Math Coach To North Heights Elementary- Media Specialist From North Heights Elementary- Media Specialist To Rose City Middle School- Media Specialist From Indian Hills Elementary- Special Education To Ridgeroad Middle Charter School- Special Education From NLRHS West Campus- Counselor To NLRHS East Campus- Instructional Counselor From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School- Special Education To Poplar Street Middle School- Special Education From NLRHS East Campus- Speech and Drama To Redwood Early Childhood Center- Pre-Kindergarten From Indian Hills Elementary- Media Specialist To Indian Hills Elementary- Second Grade From Belwood Elementary- Kindergarten To Boone Park Elementary- Pre-Kindergarten From NLRHS East Campus- Social Studies To NLRHS West Campus- Social Studies From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School- Social Studies To Rose City Middle School- English From Rose City Middle School- Special Education To Tri-District Early Childhood- Special Education P-2 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES CONTINUED Jeff Huddleston Ron Ingram Leslie Joshua Robin Lee Susan McSpadden Margaret Vickers Melissa Mellon Wells Mary Alice Wiles Chrystal Ball Camille Beeks Sara Berryman Emily Carlson Jennifer Conner Erin Dees From NLRHS East Campus- English To Boone Park/ Meadow Park-Elementary Art NLRHS West Campus- Social Studies/ Athletics To NLRHS West Campus- Social Studies From North Heights Elementary-First Grade Ridgeroad Middle Charter School-Athletics/ Career Education ,. From Belwood Elementary- Fifth Grade To Pike View Elementary-Pre-Kindergarten From NLRHS East Campus- Special Education To NLRHS West Campus- Special Education From Lakewood Elementary-Fifth Grade To Poplar Street Middle School- Sixth Grade From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Science To Rose City Middle School, Special Education From Meadow Park Elementary- Special Education To Meadow Park/Belwood-Special Education NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL Seventh Street Elementary- Second Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Meadow Park Elementary- Alternative Leaming Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Seventh Street Elementary, Reading Recovery Effective 8/15/05, Category IV, Step 5, 190 days Indian Hills Elementary, Special Education Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Rose City Middle School- Science/ Math Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Seventh Street Elementary- Third Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 0, 190 days P-3 Julie Derden Sasha Dicus Emily Dumas Darla Earles Caleb Everley Anita Gray Debra Greenfield Gwendolyn Hammonds Mary Amanda Hankins Tracy Ann Harris Alaina Jorgenson Tim Koller Anna Lowrance Wanda McCrannie April Dion McKinley North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED NLRHS West Campus- Medical Professions Effective 8-11-05, Category I, Step 1, 195 days North Heights Elementary- Kindergarten Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Ridgeroad Middle Charter School- Social Studies Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Tri-District Early Childhood Program- School Psychology Specialist Effective 8-15-05, Category IV, Step 6, 200 days North Heights/ Park Hill- Elementary Art Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Indian Hills Elementary- Kindergarten Effective 8-15-05, Category II, Step 1, 190 days Lynch Drive/Amboy Elementary- Elementary Art Effective 8/15/05, Category III, Step 0, 190 days Ridgeroad Middle Charter School- Social Studies Effective 8-15-05, Category IV, Step 1, 190 days Seventh Street Elementary- First Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 5, 190 days North Heights Elementary- First Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 11, 190 days Redwood Early Childhood Center- Pre-Kindergarten Effective 8-15-05, Category 1, Step 1, 190 days NLRHS West Campus- Chemistry Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 1, 190 days Redwood Early Childhood Center- Pre-Kindergarten Effective 8/15/05, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Crestwood Elementary- Third Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category III, Step 17, 190 days Meadow Park Elementary- Fifth Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 5, 190 days P-4 Katy Monnot Megan Monroe Michelle Needler Cheryl Pennington Joshua Powell Anita Pride Carol Roper Amberly Runsick Amber Seratt Nelda Strickland Amity Tyler Katherine Vandiver Melissa West Jessica Weimer Emily Young North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED Ridgeroad Middle Charter School- Special Education Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 3, 190 days Indian Hills Elementary- Fourth/Fifth Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 3, 190 days Redwood Early Childhood Center- Pre-Kindergarten Effective 8-15-05,, .C ategory I, Step 8, 190 days Boone Park Elementary- Fifth Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 17, 190 days NLRHS West Campus- Speech/Drama Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 1, 190 days Belwood Elementary- Kindergarten Effective 8-15-05, Category II, Step 18, 190 days Pike View Elementary- Fourth Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 14, 190 days Belwood Elementary, Media Specialist (half-time) Effective 8/15/05, Category III, Step 7, 192 days Boone Park Elementary-Fourth Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category IV, Step 1, 190 days Rose City Middle School- Alternative Education Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Lynch Drive Elementary- Fourth Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 1, 190 days NLRHS East Campus-English Effective 8-15-05, Category IV, Step 0, 190 days Belwood Elementary- Fifth Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 5, 190 days Poplar Street Middle School- Band Director Effective 8-1-05, Category I, Step 0, 195 days Lakewood Elementary, Fourth Grade Effective 8/15/05, Category IX, Step 0, 190 days P-5 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: Chrystal Ball Seventh Street Elementary, Second Grade BSE- Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, AR 12/03 Early Childhood P-4, Initial 3 Year Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR Southwest Christian Academy, Little Rock, AR Pam Wilcox, Principal 9/03 to 12/03 8/04 to 10/04 Kaye Lowe, Admrnistrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Camille Beeks Meadow Park Elementary, Alternative Learning Class BS - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 12/01 Early Childhood P-4, Provisional Non-Traditional Licensure Program Rosie Coleman, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Sara Berryman Seventh Street Elementary, Reading Recovery - BSE - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/99 M.Ed. - UALR, Little Rock, AR 5/03 MS Social Studies, Elementary 1-6, Reading Specialist P-8, Reading Specialist 7-12, Standard 5 year Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR 8/00 - 6/05 Pam Wilcox, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Emily Carlson Indian Hills Elementary, Special Education University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/05 Initial Licensure Pending, ALP Special Education Julia Lee Moore, Conway, AR Sallie Cone Elementary, Conway, AR  Sheryll Smith, Principal 1/05 -5/05 8/04 - 12/04 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services P-6 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: Jennifer Conner Rose City Middle School, Science/Math BSE- University of Arkansas at Little Rock, AR 05/05 Middle Level Science, Licensure Pending PCSSD, Little Rock, AR Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR Aimee Wright, Principal 01/04 to 05/04 08/03 to 12/03 Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services ,. Erin Dees Seventh Street Elementary, Third Grade BA- University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 05/02 Early Childhood P-4 Non-traditional Licensure Program Pam Wilcox, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/ Special Services Julie Derden NLRHS West Campus, Medical Professions BSE- University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 05/03 Life and Earth Science Non-traditional Licensure Program Gregg Thompson, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/ Special Services Sasha Dicus North Heights Elementary, Kindergarten BSE- University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/05 Early Childhood Education P-4, Initial 3 year Vilonia Elementary, Vilonia, AR 1/05 - 5/05 Dana Snowden, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Emily Dumas Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Social Studies BA- University of Arkansas at Little Rock, AR 08/00 History 7-12\nCommunications and Journalism\nTennessee Licensure Northeast High School, Clarksville, TN, 01/05 - 03/05 Dana Chadwick, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services P-7 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: Darla Earles Tri-District Early Childhood, School Psychology Specialist BS - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/96 MS- University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/98 Licensed Psychological Examiner, State of Arkansas Bridge Way Hospital, North Little Rock, AR 2000 - 2005 Centers for Youth \u0026amp; Family, Little Rock, AR l 999 Thelma Jasper, Coordinator Tri-District Early Childhood Program Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Caleb Everley North Heights and Park Hill, Elementary Art BFA- Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, AR 05/03 Elementary Art Non-traditional Licensure Program Barbara Hartwick, Principal Dana Snowden, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Service Anita Gray Indian Hills Elementary, Kindergarten BSE - Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, AR 5/04 Early Childhood Education P-4, Standard 5 year Nashville Primary, Nashville, AR 8/04 -6/05 Sheryll Smith, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Debra Greenfield Lynch Drive and Amboy Elementary, Elementary Music BA- UALR, Little Rock, AR 12/03 MA- UALR, Little Rock, AR 07/05 Vocal Music P-8 and 7-12, Initial Provisional License Northside Elementary, Cabot, AR 1/05 - 2/05 Sylvan Hills High School, Sherwood, AR 2/05 - 4/05 Loretta Hassell, Principal Jann Pharo, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education  Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Servi P-8 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: Gwendolyn Hammonds Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Social Studies BSE - Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 5/02 MSE - Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 5/04 Social Studies 7-12, Reciprocity from Missouri Springfield Public Schools, Springfield, MO 8/04 - 5/05 Dana Chadwick, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services ,. Mary Amanda Hankins Seventh Street Elementary, First Grade BS - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 12/00 Early Childhood Education P-4, Elementary K-6, Standard 6 year Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR 1/04 - 5/05 Pleasant Grove Elementary, Texarkana, TX 8/02- 5/03 Texarkana School District, Texarkana, AR 8/01 - 8/02 Immaculate Conception, North Little Rock, AR 8/00 - 8/01 Pam Wilcox, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Tracy Ann Harris North Heights Elementary, First Grade BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/93 Elementary 1-6, Standard 6 year Southwest Christian, Little Rock, AR Cloverdale Christian, Little Rock, AR Dana Snowden, Principal 8/95 -6/05 8/94-6/95 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Alaina Jorgensen Redwood Early Childhood Center, Pre-Kindergarten BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/04 Early Childhood Education P-4, Initial 3 year Mayflower Elementary, Mayflower, AR 4/04 - 8/04 Sallie Cone Elementary, Conway, AR 1/04 - 3/04 Jody Edrington, Coordinator of Pre-School Programs Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services P-9 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Tim Koller NLRHS West Campus, Chemistry BSE- Ouachita Baptist College, Arkadelphia, AR 05/01 Secondary Biology, Standard 5 Year Lake Hamilton School District, Hot Springs, AR 08/01-12/01 Gregg Thompson, Principal Danny Reed, Adplinistrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Anna Lowrance Redwood Early Childhood Center, Pre-Kindergarten BSE - University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 5/05 Early Childhood Education P-4, Initial licensure pending Lakewood Elementary, North Little Rock, AR 8/04 - 3/05 Jody Edrington, Coordinator of Pre-School Programs Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Wanda McCrannie Crestwood Elementary, Third Grade BA - Evangel University, Springfield, MO BA - Central Bible College, Springfield, MO Elementary 1-6, Standard 5 year Omaha Public Schools, Omaha, AR Cloverdale Christian Schools, Little Rock, AR Cloverdale Christian Schools, Little Rock, AR Linda Wilson, Principal 5/90 5/86 8/92- 6/05 8/86 -6/88 8/90-6/92 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services April McKinley Meadow Park Elementary, Fifth Grade BA- Philander Smith College, Little Rock, AR 01/00 California License Reciprocity P-4 and Elementary 1-6 King Magnet Interdistrict, Little Rock, AR 08/99 - 12/99 EC Reem Academy, Oakland, CA 10/02 -08/05 Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR 01/00- 06/02 Rosie Coleman, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services P-10 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Katy Monnot Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Special Education BS- Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 12/01 Secondary English, Louisiana License, Reciprocity Pending ALP Special Education Wichita Falls ISO, Wichita Falls, TX Wichita Falls ISO, Wichita Falls, TX St. Arnant High School, St. Amant, LA Dana Chadwick, Ptincipal 12/02-05/05 09/02-12/02 03/02-05/02 Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/ Special Services Megan Monroe Indian Hills Elementary, Fourth/Fifth Grade BSE - Olivet Nazarene University, Bourbonnais, IL 5/02 Early Childhood Education P-4\nMiddle Childhood Science/Math\nMiddle Childhood Language Arts/Social Studies, Reciprocity Family Church Academy, Bryant, AR 8/03 - 6/05 Heritage Christian School, Indianapolis, IN 8/02 - 6/03 Sheryll Smith, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Michelle Needler Redwood Early Childhood Center, Pre-Kindergarten BSE- Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR 05/05 Elementary K-6, Standard 6 Year Christ Lutheran, Little Rock, AR 08/97-06/05 Jody Edrington, Coordinator of Pre-School Programs Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/ Special Services Cheryl Pennington Boone Park Elementary, Fifth Grade BSE-Delta State University, Cleveland, MS 05/74 P-8, Elementary P-4/ Middle level 4-8, One Year Non-Renewable Reciprocity Pending Pecan Park Elementary School, Jackson, MS Mendenhall Jr. High School, Mendenhall, MS Delta Elementary School, Rohwer, AR Rolling Fork Elementary, Rolling Fork, MS Rolling Fork Elementary, Rolling Fork, MS Anguilla High School, Anguilla, MS Dillingham Elementary School, Dillingham, AK Lake Elementary, Jackson, MS Mavis Cherry, Principal 08/00-05/04 08/98-05/00 08/93-05/97 08/89-05/90 09/92-05/93 08/91-05/92 08/90-06/91 08/88-06/89 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services P - 11 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Joshua Powell NLRHS West Campus, Speech and Drama BA- Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, LA 05/01 Speech and Drama Non-traditional ,Licensure Program Gregg Thompson, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services ,. Anita Pride Belwood Elementary, Kindergarten BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/74 Early Childhood Education P-4, Elementary K-6, Standard 5 year Little Rock Christian Academy, Little Rock, AR 8/93 - 6/05 Victory Baptist School, Sherwood, AR 8/90 - 6/93 Crestwood Elementary, North Little rock, AR 8/74-6/83 Cynthia Melton, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Carol Roper Pike View Elementary, Fourth Grade BSE- Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, AR 08/73-05/77 MSE- Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, AR 08/77-05/79 Early Childhood P-4 Non-traditional Licensure Program Pam Wilcox, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/ Special Services Amber Runsick Belwood Elementary, Guidance Counselor (half-time) BSE- UALR, Little Rock, AR 12/97 MS Social Studies 5-8\nElementary K-6\nLibrary Media Specialist K-12\nStandard 6 year Pike View Elementary, North Little Rock, AR Memphis City Schools, Memphis, TN Lee County School District, Marianna, AR Cynthia Melton, Principal 8/00-6/04 8/98-6/00 1/98 - 6/98 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Servi- P-12 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION Amber Seratt Boone Park Elementary, Fourth Grade BSE - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/03 MAT - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/04 Early Childhood Education P-4, Initial 3 year St Edward School, Little Rock, AR 8/04 - 5/05 Mavis Cherry, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Nelda Strickland Rose City Middle School, Alternative Education BSE- John Brown University, Siloam Springs, AR 12/03 Family and Consumer Science/ Career Orientation Non-traditional Licensure Program Aimee Wright, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Amity Tyler Lynch Drive Elementary, Fourth Grade BSE- Lambuth University, Jackson, TN 05/04 K-8\nTennessee License\nAR Pending Reciprocity Crockett County Middle School, Alamo, TN 08/04-06/05 Loretta Hassell, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Katherine Vandiver NLRHS- East Campus, East BA- Western State College of Colorado, Gunnison, CO ME- Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN Tennessee License Pending, AR Pending Reciprocity 05/01 05/05 Woodland Middle School, Brentwood, TN 01/05-03/05 McGavock High School, Nashville, TN 03/05-05/05 Lee Tackett, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services P-13 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION Melissa West Belwood Elementary, Fifth Grade BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/97 Early Childhood Education P-4\nMS Social Studies\nElementary K~6\nStandard 5 year Teachers Pet Preschool, North Little Rock, AR Sylvan Learning Center, North Little Rock, AR Victory Baptist School, Sherwood, AR Cynthia Melton, Principal 8/04- 6/05 3/03 - 7/04 8/98-6/01 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Jessica Weimer Poplar Street Middle School, Band Director BME- Harding University, Searcy, AR 05/05 Instrumental Music P-12, Initial 3 Year Cabot Public School District, Cabot, AR 02/05-05/05 Bill Bowers, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/ Special Services - Emily Young Lakewood Elementary, Fourth Grade BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/00 JD- UALR, Little Rock, AR 5/03 MS Social Studies, Elementary Education 1-6, Standard 6 year Marguerite Vann Elementary, Conway, AR 1/00- 5/00 Beverly Kelso, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS \u0026amp; RETIREMENTS Kenneth Alexander Ernestine Bauman Richelle Crittenden Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Custodian Effective 7-25-05 Amboy Elementary, Lead Custodian Effective 8-12-05 Indian Hill Elementary, Teacher's Aide/ Computer Lab/ Early Effective 7-13-05 P-14 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS \u0026amp; RETIREMENTS Michael H. Garrett Henry Jackson Tommy Keener Cassandra Noid Belinda Ortner Denise Wright Cathy Barron Debora Burden Brenda Clay Sheila Cross Rosemary Eskridge Catrina Hickman Betty Moreland Malinda Palmer Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Teacher's Aide/SAC Effective 7-26-05 Transportation, Bus Driver Effective 8-0 l-05 Transportation, Bus Driver Effective 7-19-05 ,. NLRHS East Campus, Custodian Effective 7-26-05 Administration Building, Private School Teacher's Aide Effective 8-02-05 Transportation, Bus Driver Effective 7-19-05 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL CHANGES AND TRANSFERS From Boone Park Elementary, Child Nutrition Assistant To Park Hill Elementary, Child Nutrition Assistant From Lynch Drive Elementary, Child Nutrition Assistant To North Heights, Child Nutrition Assistant From Park Hill Elementary, Child Nutrition Manager To Redwood Early Childhood Center, Child Nutrition Manager From Meadow Park Elementary, Child Nutrition Assistant To Glenview Elementary, Child Nutrition Manager From Belwood Elementary, Teacher's Aide/ Pre-School To Boone Park Elementary, Campus Supervisor From Amboy Elementary, Teacher's Aide/ Pre-School To Redwood Early Childhood Center, Teacher's Aide/ Pre-School From Lynch Drive Elementary, Child Nutrition Manager To Argenta Academy, Child Nutrition Manager From Argenta Academy, Elementary Child Nutrition Manager To Park Hill, Child Nutrition Manager P- 15 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES CONTfNUED Stacy Reed Carolyn Richard Rose Robinson Joyce Rodgers Tamara Rogers James Sabbs Ida Smith Lynn Underwood Willie Jean Williams Terry Adams Karen Davis Bertha Jones Danette Lawson Angela McGhee From Poplar Street Middle School, Lead Custodian To Amboy Elementary, Lead Custodian From Rose City Middle School, Teacher's Aide/Special Education To Argenta Academy, Teacher's Aide/Special Education ' From Pike View Elementary, Child Nutrition Manager To Belwood Elementary, Child Nutrition Manager ,. From Poplar Street Middle School, Secretary To Poplar Street Middle School, Principal's Secretary From Redwood Early Childhood Center, Child Nutrition Manager To Boone Park Elementary, Child Nutrition Manager From Boone Park Elementary, Lead Custodian To Crestwood Elementary, Lead Custodian From Belwood Elementary, Child Nutrition Assistant To Pike View Elementary, Child Nutrition Assistant From Redwood Early Childhood Center, Teacher's Aide/ Pre-Schee To Pike View Elementary, Teacher's Aide/ Pre-School From Amboy Elementary, Child Nutrition Assistant To Lynch Drive Elementary, Child Nutrition Manager Non-Certified NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL Plant Services, Custodian Effective 07-11-05, Category 600, Step 22,252 days Transportation, Bus Driver Effective 08-15-05, Category 507, Step 46, 190 days Plant Services, Custodian Effective 07-11-05, Category 600, Step 22,252 days Redwood Early Childhood Center, Coordinator After School Program Effective 08-15-05, Category 242, Step N/ A, 185 days Boone Park Elementary, Teacher's Aide/ Pre-Kindergarten Effective 08-11-05, Category 242, Step 54, 185 days P-16 Jill Mills Stacy Reed Carla Riller Jeremy Rollins Contonia Russell North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 18, 2005 NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED Tri-District Early Childhood, Teacher's Aide/ Special Education Effective 08-01-05, Category 240, Step 49, 200 days Plant Services, Custodian Effective 07-11-05, Category 600, Step 24,252 days Redwood Early Childhood Center, Teacher's Aide/ Pre-Kindergarten Effective 08-15-05, Category 242, Step $10.00, 185 days ,. Plant Services, Custodian Effective 07-/11-05, Category 600, Step 20, 252 days Pike View Elementary, Teacher's Aide/ Pre-Kindergarten Effective 08-15-05, Category 242, Step 53, 242 days P-17 NORTLHIT TLRE OCSKC HOODLIS TRICT * DIDN OTM EESTP ECIFICATIONS ** PAROT FA LLO RN ONBEI D *** NOTR ECOMMEDNUDETE ODQ UALITY **** LIMITECDO VERAGE ***** RECOMMENDED ****** RECOMMEUNPDOERNDE CEIPOTF S AMPLE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BIDN UMBE0R6:- 07-144 HYDROHNEICA TINBGO ILER SOURCOEFF UNDCS:A PITAOLU TLAY LOCATIORNID: GEROCAHDA RTMERID DLE BOONAEN DB OONSEA LES MILLS-WILSON-GEORGE.INC. NO.L ITTLRE OCWK INNELSCOON. fil 6,750.00 6,534.00 6,018.84 ***** February 8, 2005 Mr. Barry Kincl, Director of Purchasing The North Little Rock Public Schools Atfunnistrative Offices 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, AR 72115-0687 Dear Mr. Kind: I, Park Bill Baptist Church would like to reserve the North Little Rock High School East Campus Auditorium for our 2006 Greater Little Rock Easter Pageant presentations. I realize to secure rmaI approval our request will be forwarded to the North Little Rock Board of Education for their authorization. We would like to utilize the East Campus Auditorium for three performances and four rehearsals April 10-13, 2006 and April 15-16, 2006. We would also like to submit a request for the foil owing dates if the aforementioned dates are not available: April 3-6, 2006 and April 8-9, 2006. We understand you will need to discuss our request with Mr. Kirspel and the drama department at the East Campus High School. Thank you for your kind consideration. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide further inf onnation. May God bless you and yours! Warmest Regards, ~~~ ~trick Minister of Music - flNANCHPLJRCHASING/AUD\\l S1 .!IM *- xu::asse 1: w .cws.4a :e,1 ~\n,, June 1, 2005 NLR School District Attn. Barry Kind-Administration 2700 N. Poplar North Little Rock, Ar. 72114 Dear Barry: ,. In appreciation for the use of the NLRHS West Campus Arena this past spring, the NLR Upward Leadership would like to make a formal request for the 2006 spring semester, for the use of the Upward Awards Event. Since the evaluation response's from our families indicated there were numerous 'conflicts' on a school night for the Upward Awards Program back in March of this spring, we would like to request the use of the NLR Arena for Sunday, March 12th from 2:30-4:30 for the actual event. This will give families an opportunity to have fewer conflicts for the afternoon in comparison with a week night. The suggested date is also a week later than the weekend the arena could be used for the state SA basketball tournament, in case it returns to central Arkansas. We would need to work out times with Dan Russell \u0026amp; Donna Anderson for 'set up' with the custodial staff. The clean up and tear down from the event would follow the 4:30 dismissal time. As we agreed, additional hours and staff would be noted for the rental agreement with NLR Upward. All precautions would also be taken for the safety of the participants and gym floor surface. We look forward hearing back from the NLR School Board when this 'request' is discussed and determined. Victory! Mark Overman NLR Upward Partnership f\nMARK OVERMAN  MINISTE/ OF ACTIVITIES S2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JULY, 2005 ACCOUNT AAEA AAEA ABEA ACI PLASTICS AEA AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AETNA LIFE \u0026amp; CASUALTY AETNA LIFE \u0026amp; CASUALTY AIMEE WRIGHT ALARMTEC SYSTEMS ALICIA HARRISON ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLTEL MOBILE AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL ANGIE COLCLASURE ANGIE HUTSON ANN KINCL ARKANSAS ACTE 2004 CONFERENCE ARKANSAS ASSOCIATION OF ARKANSAS AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS, ARKANSAS CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS ARKANSAS DEPT. OF EDUCATION ARKANSAS LAMINATION PRODUCTS ARKANSAS STATE POLICE ARTIS LOFTON ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASSOCIATION FOR CAREER AND AVES AUDIO VISUAL EDUCATIONAL ,. T- 1 AMOUNT 212.96 160.00 240.00 229 .13 25.00 62.50 62.50 1,414.56 1,432.75 102.95 4,288.89 100.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 4,310.54 598.42 2,375.00 375.00 2,325.00 375.00 78.88 86.80 46.22 175.00 180.00 240.00 1,770.12 200.00 143.12 100.00 780.95 283.02 139. 92 260.00 927.80 CHK. NO. 104581 104685 104618 104779 104681 104361 104566 104586 104686 104623 104797 104704 104320 104354 104363 104559 104568 104579 104585 104631 104641 104662 104667 104677 104684 104743 104756 104770 104730 104691 104360 104370 104565 104638 104 803 104594 104816 104625 104775 104740 104787 104622 104729 104592 104476 104587 104687 104620 104754 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JULY, 2005 ACCOUNT B \u0026amp; D RADIATOR SERVICE BANK OF AMERICA-FED INCOME TAX BANK OF AMERICA-FED INCOME TAX BANK OF AMERICA-FED INCOME TAX BANK OF AMERICA-FED INCOME TAX BANK OF AMERICA-FED INCOME TAX BANK OF AMERICA-PAYROLL ACCT. BANK OF AMERICA-PAYROLL ACCT. BANK OF AMERICA-PAYROLL ACCT. BANK OF AMERICA-PAYROLL ACCT. BANK OF AMERICA-PAYROLL ACCT. BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S OFFICE FURNITURE BRANNON CHASTAIN BRENDA BUTLER BRENT WALKER BROUKE REYNOLDS BURGER KING C \u0026amp; W TOOL REPAIR C.T.A. CABOT FLORISTS CABOT FLORISTS CAMPUS TEAM WEAR INC CARY BRADBURN CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES LLC CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES LLC CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CHARLOTTE BULL CHRISTINE HICKMAN CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. CLEAR MOUNTAIN COMCAST CABLEVISION CORKYS CYNTHIA WOODS DANA CHADWICK DANA CHADWICK DANETTE LAWSON DARRELL MCCOY DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID GRIMM DAYS INN INNER HARBOR ,. T- 2 AMOUNT 145.75 45,957.18 22,521.37 49,176.34 22,003.41 24,840.47 107,547.71 74,075.45 137,289.11 69,456.86 80,508.38 14.80 669.60 100.00 629.34 300.00 81.60 168.00 39.30 41.08 70.79 143.49 364.14 750.00 353.35 55.86 7,401.16 34.04 200.00 130.36 130. 36 42.68 130. 36 54.00 54.00 12.35 46.25 152.54 154.62 86.40 80.84 200.00 421.80 234.47 324.47 150.00 115. 39 324.41 1,645.00 CHK. NO. 104734 104356 104365 104561 104633 104664 104355 104364 104560 104632 104 663 104709 104771 104705 104624 104814 104745 104791 104732 104678 104595 104692 104750 104789 104571 104670 104689 104693 104647 104324 104573 104583 104672 104606 104718 104616 104690 104785 104744 104695 104784 104643 104783 104321 104569 104580 104 668 104800 104598 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JULY, 2005 ACCOUNT DEBBIE ROZZELL DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS EDS SUPPLY CO. EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY LABS ELECTRIC MOTOR SERVICE ENERGY EDUCATION INC ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, IN F \u0026amp; E CHECK PROTECTOR COMPANY FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FERRELLGAS FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF GOLDEN CORRAL GOLDEN CORRAL GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY GTM SPORTSWEAR HAROLD D STARK HAROLD NASH HASLER INC HCAP STRATEGIES HCAP STRATEGIES HCAP STRATEGIES HCAP STRATEGIES HERAL ENTERPRISES, INC. HOUCK MUSIC COMPANY HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NLR ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS INSTRUCTIVISION INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE J B KNOX \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES JEFF WINGFIELD JERRY MASSEY JODY EDRINGTON JOSTENS JOSTENS JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN KATHY GRAY KATHY HOLLAND ,. T- 3 AMOUNT 200.00 28,853.74 118. 00 85.19 12.19 6,485.00 578.74 10,100.00 150.00 1,058.40 44.55 12. 96 243. 96 84.49 84.49 90.02 744.36 302.50 890.73 1,109.68 629.34 150.00 235.04 755.30 70.83 755.30 70.83 144.03 237.60 2,400.00 425.00 425.00 405.00 275.00 405.00 275.00 1,041.70 8,590.00 4,685.00 500.00 82.81 200.00 747.04 7.33 390.68 390.68 300.46 1,086.28 214.20 CHK. NO. 104645 104757 104825 104721 104 696 104591 104599 104772 104817 104799 104700 104726 104699 104326 104576 104675 104614 104808 104786 104698 104629 104813 104621 104362 104371 104567 104640 104707 104708 104780 104333 104584 104359 104369 104564 104637 104776 104746 104792 104773 104609 104646 104619 104742 104325 104575 104674 104810 104741 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JULY, 2005 ACCOUNT KAYE LOWE KAYE LOWE KEITH JOHNSON KELLEYS UPHOLSTERY KENNETH A. KIRSPEL KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KONE INC LAKEWOOD MIDDLE ACTIVITY FUND LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. LOWE'S LYNN CHADWICK MARY CAROLYN EAST MAURI DOUGLAS MELISSA DOUGLAS MELISSA DOUGLAS MICHELLE BONES MICHELLE BONES MITCHELL BLACKSTOCK LAW FIRM MITCHS TIRE SERVICE N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY NAPA AUTO PARTS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL HOME CENTER NEW HAVEN HOTEL NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD-BACKGROUND CHECK NO. LITTLE ROCK EDUCATORS CRED NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTERS OF OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE ,. T- 4 AMOUNT 200.00 17.50 300.00 9,428.40 500.00 108.01 2,427.67 450.90 166.84 627. 28 3,215.44 543.00 438.13 106.31 261.47 70.17 55.44 75.60 185.42 373.22 80.00 29.00 18,876.59 114.00 2,480.40 20.09 131.96 3,634.64 210.00 206.80 2,150.40 120.58 63.72 782.54 17.52 19,821.30 350.00 196. 01 37.00 91.56 224.43 750.84 57,806.11 36.00 1,547.27 778.05 1,635.27 723.88 1,635.27 CHK. NO. 104642 104782 104777 104806 104628 104626 104731 104809 104357 104366 104562 104634 104665 104 712 104755 104804 104753 104710 104604 104605 104597 104706 104758 104748 104601 104711 104793 104701 104 715 104713 104644 104714 104794 104752 104682 104679 104602 104795 104 7 96 104328 104578 104596 104697 104738 104322 104332 104570 104582 104669 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JULY, 2005 ACCOUNT OPEN SPACE COMMUNICATIONS ORTHOARKANSAS PA ORTHOARKANSAS PA ORTHOARKANSAS PA PEARLIR TUCKER POSTMASTER, SHERWOOD PRISCILLA BENSON PRUFROCK PRESS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY PUBLIC SCHOOL PROPERTY RAUL DALLAS RED APPLE INN RHONDA BROWN RIVERSIDE BOX SUPPLY CO. ROEPER REVIEW ROSE CITY MIDDLE ACTIVITY FUND SAMS WHOLESALE CLUB SANDRA HENSON SBC SBG-VAA SCHLOTZSKYS SEAN J FLEMING SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION SHARON ELDRED SKEETER KELL SPORTING GOODS SKILLS USA/VICA SOUTHERN ICE EQUIPMENT STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STAR BOLT \u0026amp; SCREW CO., INC. STERLING PAINT STEVE MILLS STEVE NAIL SUPERIOR SPRING CLUTCH \u0026amp; GEAR T-SHIRT SHOP TELETOUCH THE GRACE GROUP TIMPANOGOS TECHNOLOGIES TRI-STATES VIDEO AND TRI-STATES VIDEO AND TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TURNER DAIRY TYLER L HOHNBAUM U S FUEL US POSTAL SERVICE(AMS-TMS) US POSTAL SERVICE(AMS-TMS) UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY ,. T- 5 AMOUNT 49.00 128.18 128.18 24.08 50.00 74.00 241.62 35.00 1,298.86 1,253.40 1,239.44 235,714.00 300.00 190.19 173.00 516.00 50.00 387.93 60.00 91. 80 72 .15 25.00 193.60 161.76 385.06 174.38 18.22 262.42 55.00 2,321.54 76. 62 184.12 33.84 585.80 200.00 617.91 1,060.61 105.37 2,177.60 7,170.00 483.76 123.36 1,938.82 341. 53 200.00 350.02 15,000.00 4,000.00 297.66 CHK. NO. 104733 104323 104572 104 671 104702 104608 104717 104735 104367 104635 104666 104781 104811 104815 104774 104720 104719 104617 104615 104610 104593 104639 104788 104747 104574 104673 104627 104737 104749 104751 104 723 104724 104725 103873 104812 104 722 104612 104589 104648 104590 104607 104798 104805 104630 104703 104739 104600 104790 104680 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JULY, 2005 ACCOUNT UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS USCB INCORPORATED USCB INCORPORATED USCB INCORPORATED UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VARSITY SPIRIT FASHIONS VIVIAN HARRIS VIVIAN HARRIS WARD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WARD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WEISSMAN'S DESIGN FOR DANCE WILBUR D MILLS COOPERATIVE XEROX CORPORATION YANA'S LAWN CARE YANA'S LAWN CARE 501 TIRE AND WHEEL CHECK TOTALS FOR JULY, 2005 T- 6 AMOUNT 3,975.00 108.25 121.17 127.19 210.48 226.52 3,921.00 605.00 3,971.00 605.00 5,777.91 91. 80 136.00 1,467.57 484.69 43.95 70.00 2,743.44 1,553.50 2,090.00 17.28 CHK. NO. 104778 104327 104577 104676 104603 104716 104358 104368 104563 104636 104727 104613 104807 104728 104801 104736 104 611 104802 104588 104688 104694 1,193,743.97 RECEIVED SEP1 2 2005 OFFOICFE DESEGREMGAOTNI~OTNO RING BOARD OF EDUCATION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:00P. M. MEETING AGENDA NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT I. II. III. IV. V. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER, Teresa Burl, President INVOCATION, Toni Morgan McIntire, Boone Park Elementary Fifth Grader, daughter of Tony and Margaret McIntire FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Teresa Burl, President Marty Moore, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary Mable Mitchell, Parliamentarian Trent Cox, Member John Riley, Member Scott Teague, Member RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Superintendent's Honor Roll 1. Ann Cowart - NLRHS West Campus History Teacher 2. Sandy Tempel - Secretary to Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation B. New Partners in Education 1. Bank of the Ozarks (Indian Hills Branch) and Crestwood Elementary 2. Beverly Healthcare \u0026amp; Rehabilitation Center and Pike View Elementary VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, August 11, 2005 5:30 P.M. -Special Meeting-Page A-1 Page 2 - Board Agenda September 15, 2005 B. C. Thursday, August 18, 2005 5 P .M. - Regular Meeting - Page A - 3 Tuesday, August 30, 2005 5:30 P.M. - Special Meeting - Page A- 8 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIIl. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - R. Kron B. Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report-G. Tucker C. Consider 2005 -2006 Extracurricular Duty Compensation - K. Kirspel D. Consider Verizon Cell Tower Additional Location- J. Massey- Page B -1 E. Consider New Board Policy Energy Management Conservation Policy EGH (Second Reading) - J. Massey- Page C - 1 F. Consider Report to the Public to include District Goals - K. Kirspel 1. Achievement - L. Martin 2. Accountability- D. Reed 3. Acceptance - S. Brazear 4. Assets - G. Daniels (Opportunity for Comments from the Public concerning the Report to the Public) G. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda- K. Kirspel 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 2. Consider bid items - Page R - 1 3. Consider building use request -Page S - 1 4. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Regular Board Meeting-Thursday, October 20, 2005 at 5:00 P.M. X. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES August 11, 2005 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a special session on Thursday, August 11, 2005 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. President Teresa Burl called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Teresa Burl, President Marty Moore, Vice President Mable Mitchell, Parliamentarian Trent Cox, Member John Riley, Member Scott Teague, Member Absent Rochelle Redus, Secretary Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nDanny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel and Special Services\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall taped (audio) the meeting. Resolution to Pulaski County Election Commission Mr. Kirspel explained that Act 1174 of 2005 allowed the Board to close the polls and only have early voting and absentee voting for the school election on September 20, 2005 since Board members Scott Teague and Trent Cox have no opponents and our millage is not changing. This action would save the District approximately $10,000 - $15,000. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the following resolution: A-1 In compliance with Act 1174 of 2005, the Board of Directors of the North Little Rock School District # 1 of Pulaski County hereby requests the Pulaski County Board of Election Commissioners to open no polling places on election day so that the election can be A conducted by absentee ballot and early voting only in any election year, if no more than one ., (1) candidate for school district director presents a petition or notice in writing to the Pulaski County Board of Election Commissioners as required by A. C.A. 6-14-111, and if there are no other ballot issues to be submitted to district electors for consideration. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moor'e, Riley and Teague None (Redus - absent) Employment of Personnel MOTION Scott Teague moved to go into closed session for the purpose to discuss the employment of personnel. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Redus- absent) The Board entered into closed session at 5:45 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 6:00 p.m. MOTION Mable Mitchell moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to hire June Haynie as the new Administrative Director of Secondary Education. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: ADJOURNMENT MOTION Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Redus - absent) Trent Cox moved to adjourn the meeting. Marty Moore seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Redus - absent) President Burl declared the meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Teresa Burl, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES August 18, 2005 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, August 18, 2005 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. President Teresa Burl called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. MOTION John Riley moved to amend the agenda to add one new item under New Business and two additions to the personnel section of the consent agenda. Marty Moore seconded the motion. Will Brazear, a NLRHS 9th grader, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Teresa Burl, President Marty Moore, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary Mable Mitchell, Parliamentarian Trent Cox, Member John Riley, Member Scott Teague, Member Absent None Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nDanny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel and Special Services\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) and NLRHS-TV (video) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Jan Scholl, former Arkansas and NLRSD Teacher of the Year, introduced Kirn Douglass, a Seventh Street Elementary Kindergarten Teacher, as the 2005 NLRSD Teacher of the Year. Ms. Scholl presented Mrs. Douglass with a plaque and roses. A-3 Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, introduced Rellia Dillinger as the 2005 Beverly Benham A ward for Outstanding Leadership in Special Education in Arkansas recipient this year. Mrs. Dillinger was presented a small gift of appreciation from Mrs. Moore. Kelsey Winchester, NLRHS West Campus Senior, was introduced as one of two Arkansas Girls State's Representative to Girls Nation. She presented some of the highlights and experiences of attending Girls Nation. Mr. Teague presented a small gift of appreciation to Miss Winchester. Mrs. Brazear also introduced new partners in educ~tion: US Bank (Levy Branch) and North Heights Elementary. Trent Cox presented plaques to US Bank representatives and to Dana Snowden, North Heights Elementary principal. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the minutes of the July 21, 2005 Regular meeting as printed. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None NEW BUSINESS Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report Rick Kron, Certified Personnel Policies Committee Chairman, explained their committee had A met in a special meeting and agreed to accept the changes to Board Policy CDE Insurance W Coverages as presented in the July 21, 2005 Board Meeting. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the CDE Insurance Proposal and refer to the teachers to vote so that this will be in effect immediately. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None Classifed Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker, Classified Personnel Policies Committee Chairman, explained their committee had met in a special meeting and had a proposal for a new policy that would clear the way for the new insurance coverages to take effect for the classified staff. The new Board Policy CDE - CL Insurance Coverages is the same except for the changes in paragraph five that changes the words \"classroom instruction\" to direct performance of their job and the word \"teacher\" to employee. MOTION John Riley moved to accept new Board Policy CDE - CL Insurance Coverages as presented. Marty Moore seconded the motion. A-4 YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None New Board Policy 5.16.A Smart Core Curriculum and Graduation Requirements (Second Reading) Mr. Kirspel explained this policy needed to be included to meet Arkansas Department of Education guidelines. He recommended adoption of this policy. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept 5.16A Smart Core Curriculum and Graduation Requirement Board Policy as a second and final reading. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None Primary Banking Services Proposal Mr. Daniels explained as instructed by the Board, our Business office sent out Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to banks in the central Arkansas area. While several were returned, two were obviously the best of all of the proposals. The committee requested both banks (Bank of the Ozarks and Twin City Bank) come in and make a confirming presentation. Both of the banks did and after much deliberation the committee recommended the district use Bank of the Ozarks for our General Operating and Checking Accounts. Board members questioned Mr. Daniels extensively about the RFP and decision process. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to accept Bank of Ozarks as the districts bank for General Operating and Checking accounts. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Riley and Teague Redus Revision to Verizon Cell Tower Locations Jerry Massey, Plant Services Director, presented two proposals to change the location of the cell towers at Indian Hills Elementary and Ridgeroad Middle Charter. These changes have now been approved by the NLR Planning Commission and NLR City Council. MOTION Scott Teague moved to accept the recommendations to move the Verizon cell towers as presented. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None A-5 MOTION Marty Moore moved to accept the following resolution: RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO APPROVE LEASES WITH REVISED LEASE LOCATIONS WHEREAS, Arkansas Code Annotated Section 6-13-630 authorizes the Board of Directors for each school district to lease property as Lessor\nand WHEREAS, Arkansas Code Annotated Section 6-21-108(c) requires that the execution of all contracts and conveyances and lease contracts shall be performed by the President and confirmed by the Secretary of the school board when authorized by a resolution in writing and approved by a majority of the school board\nand WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, has requested the school district to lease to Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, real property at the Indian Hills Elementary School and Ridgeroad Middle Charter School locations for the purpose of locating towers and certain equipment that will facilitate wireless communications and other related transmissions\nand WHEREAS, the North Little Rock School District has previously approved leases for tower sites at Indian Hills Elementary School and Ridgeroad Middle Charter School at its June 16, 2005 meeting\nand WHEREAS, The North Little Rock Planning Commission has recommended the school sites be approved under North Little Rock Zoning law so long as the proposed sites are moved to revised locations on the same school sites. The revised locations are reflected in the drawings attached hereto as Collective Exhibit A. WHEREAS, the North Little Rock School District will receive rent from Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, for such leases. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the School Board District of North Little Rock Arkansas that: The leases previously approved by the Board are hereby re-approved in the revised locations as reflected in the drawings attached hereto in Collective Exhibit A. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None New Board Policy Energy Management Conservation Policy EGH (First Reading) Mr. Massey introduced the new policy to the Board for their consideration. A-6 MOTION John Riley moved to accept Energy Management Conservation Policy EGH for a first - reading. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Kirspel requested the approval of the consent agenda with the two additions under the employment section. These two transfers are Raymond Smith from East Campus Supervisor to Plant Services, Energy Educator/Manager and Richard Alexander from Assistant Boy's Basketball Coach to Head Boy's Basketball Coach at the NLRHS West Campus. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the consent agenda with the additions to the employment of personnel section. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None At this time, Coach Richard Alexander, who was in the audience, was introduced and congratulated on his new position with our school district. ADJOURNMENT MOTION John Riley moved to adjourn the meeting. Marty Moore seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None President Burl declared the meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m. Teresa Burl, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-7 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES August 30, 2005 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a special session on Tuesday, August 11, 2005 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. President Teresa Burl called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Teresa Burl, President Marty Moore, Vice President Mable Mitchell, Parliamentarian Trent Cox, Member John Riley, Member Scott Teague, Member Absent Rochelle Redus, Secretary Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nDanny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel and Special Services\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall taped (audio) the meeting. 2005 - 2006 School Year Budget Greg Daniels presented the budget information. Mr. Daniels explained all of the information was the same as presented in the budget workshop on August 11, 2005. The Board inquired about the technology costs proposed and the funds available to update our technology. MOTION John Riley moved to change the monies received from the Ridgeroad Middle Charter School adjacent property of $436,000 out of the building fund to capital outlay for the purpose of using the money for technology in the district. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Redus- absent) A-8 MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the 2005 - 2006 School Year Budget as presented by Administration. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Redus- absent) ADJOURNMENT MOTION Trent Cox moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Redus- absent) President Burl declared the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Teresa Burl, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-9 N (0)J ET IHI ILIITTILJE JE(Q)C1KC J P1IJiffiJILIC C CClB I( Q()Q )I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET MEMO TO: Ken Kirspel, Superintendent FROM: Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services SUBJECT: Boone Park Cell Tower DATE: September 7, 2005 Attached is Verizon's proposed Land Lease Agreement and resolution for Boone Park Elementary. A formal survey and site drawing will be attached when completed. I recommend Board approval of this at the September Board meeting contingent upon Planning Commission and City Council approval. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 B - 1 RESOLUTION NUMBER _2_ A RESOLUTION OF THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO GRANT LEASING AUTHORITY TO THE PRESIDENT FOR THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Arkansas Code Annotated Section 6-13-630 authorizes the board of directors for each school district to lease property as lessor\nand WHEREAS, Arkansas Code Annotated Section 6-21-IOS(c) requires that the execution of all contracts and conveyances and lease contracts shall be performed by the president and confirmed by the secretary of the school board when authorized by a resolution in writing and approved by a majority of the school board\nand WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, has requested the school district to lease to Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, real property at Boone Park Elementary School for the purpose of locating towers and certain equipment that will facilitate wireless communications and other related transmissions\nand WHEREAS, the North Little Rock School District will receive rent from Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, for such leases. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the School Board of North Little Rock Arkansas that: The President is hereby authorized to enter into the lease, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, with Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, related to the Boone Park Elementary School, and the Secretary is hereby authorized to confirm such agreements by also signing such agreements. APPROVED: Printed Name: -------- Title: ----------- ATTEST: Date: -------- B-2 Verizon Wireless Site: Vestal_Park_AR/166697 LAND LEASE AGREEMENT This Agreement, made this __ day of _____ __, 2005 between North Little Rock School District with its mailing address located at P.O. Box 687, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115, Tax ID #71-6014124 hereinafter designated LESSOR and Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, with its principal office located at 180 Washington Valley Road, Bedminster, New Jersey 07921, hereinafter designated LESSEE. The LESSOR and LESSEE are at times collectively referred to hereinafter as the \"Parties\" or individually as the \"Party\". 1. PREMISES. LESSOR hereby leases to LESSEE a portion of that certain parcel of property (the entirety of LESSOR's property is referred to hereinafter as the Property), located in North Little Rock, Pulaski County, State of Arkansas, and being described as a _' by _' parcel containing ___ square feet, as shown on the Tax Map of the Assessor's Office of Pulaski County, Arkansas as parcel number ______ and being further described in Deed Book 460 at Page 427 and Deed Book 460, Page 431, as recorded in the Office of Circuit Clerk of Pulaski County, together with the non-exclusive right for ingress and egress, seven (7) days a week twenty-four (24) hours a day, on foot or motor vehicle, including trucks, and for the installation and maintenance of utility wires, poles, cables, conduits, and pipes over, under, or along a thirty (30') foot wide right-of-way extending from the nearest public right-of-way to the demised premises, said demised premises and right-of-way (hereinafter collectively referred to as the \"Premises\") for access being substantially as described herein in Exhibit \"A\" attached hereto and made a part hereof. In the event any public utility is unable to use the aforementioned right-of-way, the LESSOR hereby agrees to grant an additional right-of-way either to the LESSEE or to the public utility at no cost to the LESSEE. 2. SURVEY. LESSOR also hereby grants to LESSEE the right to survey the Property and the Premises, and said survey shall then become Exhibit \"B\" which shall be attached hereto and made a part hereof, and shall control in the event of boundary and access discrepancies between it and Exhibit \"A\". Cost for such work shall be borne by the LESSEE. 3. TERM. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of execution by both parties, provided, however, the initial term shall be for five (5) years and shall commence on the Commencement Date (as hereinafter defined) at which time rental payments will be due at an annual rental of Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.00) to be paid in equal monthly installments on the first day of the month, in advance, to LESSOR, or to such other person, firm or place as the LESSOR may, from time to time, designate in writing at least thirty (30) days in advance of any rental payment date. The Commencement Date is defined as the first (1st) day of the month following the date this Agreement is executed by the parties or the first (1st) day of the month following the date LESSEE is granted a building permit by the governmental agency charged with issuing such permits, whichever event occurs last. 4. EXTENSIONS. This Agreement shall automatically be extended for four (4) additional five (5) year terms unless the LESSEE terminates it at the end of the then current term by giving the LESSOR written notice of the intent to terminate at least six (6) months prior to the end of the then current term. B-3 5. EXTENSION RENTALS. The annual rental for the first (1st) five (5) year extension term shall be increased to Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($13,800.00)\nthe second (2nd) five (5) year extension term shall be increased to Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Dollars ($15,870.00)\nthe third (3rd) five (5) year extension term shall be increased to Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and 50/100 ($18,250.50)\nth and the fourth (4 ) five (5) year extension shall be increased to Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Eight Dollars and 08/100 ($20,988.08). 6. ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS. If at the end of~ fourth (4th) five (5) year extension term this Agreement has not been terminated by either Party by giving to the other written notice of an intention to terminate it at least six (6) months prior to the end of such term, this Agreement shall continue in force upon the same covenants, terms and conditions for a further term of five (5) years and for five (5) year terms thereafter until terminated by either Party by giving to the other written notice of its intention to so terminate at least six (6) months prior to the end of such term. Annual rental for each such additional five (5) year term shall be equal to 115% of the annual rental payable with respect to the immediately preceding five (5) year term. 7. USE: GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS. LESSEE shall use the Premises for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and operating a communications facility and uses incidental and all necessary appurtenances. A security fence consisting of chain link construction or similar but comparable construction may be placed around the perimeter of the Premises at the discretion of LESSEE (not including the access easement). All improvements shall be at LESSEE's expense and the installation of all improvements shall be at the discretion and option of the LESSEE. LESSEE shall have the right to replace, repair, add or otherwise modify its equipment or any portion thereof, whether the equipment is specified or not on any exhibit attached hereto, during the term of this Agreement. LESSEE will maintain the Premises in a good condition reasonable wear and tear excepted. LESSOR will maintain the Property, excluding the Premises, in good condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted. It is understood and agreed that LESSEE's ability to use the Premises is contingent upon its obtaining after the execution date of this Agreement all of the certificates, permits and other approvals ( collectively the \"Governmental Approvals\") that may be required by any Federal, State or Local authorities as well as satisfactory soil boring tests which will permit LESSEE use of the Premises as set forth above. LESSOR shall cooperate with LESSEE in its effort to obtain such approvals and shall take no action which would adversely affect the status of the Property with respect to the proposed use by LESSEE. In the event that any of such applications for such Governmental Approvals should be finally rejected or any Governmental Approval issued to LESSEE is canceled, expires, lapses, or is otherwise withdrawn or terminated by governmental authority or soil boring tests are found to be unsatisfactory so that LESSEE in its sole discretion will be unable to use the Premises for its intended purposes or the LESSEE determines that the Premises is no longer technically compatible for its intended use, LESSEE shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. Notice of the LESSEE's exercise of its right to terminate shall be given to LESSOR in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, and shall be effective upon the mailing of such notice by the LESSEE. All rentals paid to said termination date shall be retained by the LESSOR. Upon such termination, this Agreement shall become null and void and all the Parties shall have no further obligations including the payment of money, to each other. B-4 8. INDEMNIFICATION. Each Party shall indemnify and hold the other harmless against any claim of liability or loss from personal injury or property damage resulting from or arising out of the use and occupancy of the Premises or the Property by the Party, its servants or agents, excepting, however, such claims or damages as may be due to or caused by the acts or omissions of the other Party, or its servants or agents. 9. INSURANCE. The Parties hereby waive any and all rights of action for negligence against the other which may hereafter arise on account of damage to the premises or to property, resulting from any fire, or other casualty of the kind covered by standard fire insurance policies with extended coverage, regardless of whether or not, or in what amounts, such insurance is now or hereafter carried by the Parties, or either of them. LESSOR and LESSEE each agree that at its own-cost and expense, each will maintain comprehensive general liability and property liability insurance with liability limits of not less than $1,000,000 for injury to or death of one or more persons in any one occurrence and $500,000 for damage or destruction to property in any one occurrence. LESSOR agrees that LESSEE may self-insure against any loss or damage which could be covered by a comprehensive general public liability insurance policy. 10. ANNUAL TERMINATION. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, and provided LESSEE is not in default hereunder and shall have paid all rents and sums due and payable to the LESSOR by LESSEE, LESSEE shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon the annual anniversary of this Agreement provided that three (3) months prior notice is given the LESSOR. 11. INTERFERENCE. LESSOR agrees that LESSOR and/or any other tenants of the Property who currently have or in the future take possession of the Property will be permitted to install only such radio equipment that is of the type and frequency which will not cause measurable interference the existing equipment of the LESSEE. The Parties acknowledge that there will not be an adequate remedy at law for non-compliance with the provisions of this paragraph and therefore, LESSEE shall have the right to specifically enforce the provisions of this paragraph in a court of competent jurisdiction. 12. REMOVAL UPON TERMINATION. LESSEE, upon termination of the Agreement, shall, within ninety (90) days, remove its building(s), antenna structure(s) (except footings), fixtures and all personal property and otherwise restore the Premises to its original condition, reasonable wear and tear and casualty excepted. LESSOR agrees and acknowledges that all of the equipment, fixtures and personal property of the LESSEE shall remain the personal property of the LESSEE and the LESSEE shall have the right to remove the same, whether or not said items are considered fixtures and attachments to real property under applicable law. If such time for removal causes LESSEE to remain on the Premises after tennination of this Agreement, LESSEE shall pay rent at the then existing monthly rate or on the existing monthly pro-rata basis if based upon a longer payment term, until such time as the removal of the building, antenna structure, fixtures and all personal property are completed. 13. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL. If the LESSOR during the lease term or any extension of the lease term elects to sell all or any portion of the Property, whether separately or as part of the larger parcel of which the Property are a part, the LESSEE shall have the right B-5 of first refusal to meet any bona fide offer of sale on the same terms and conditions of such offer. If LESSEE fails to meet such bona fide offer within thirty (30) days after the notice thereof from LESSOR, LESSOR may sell the Property or portion-thereof to such third person in accordance with the terms and conditions of his offer. For purposes ofthis Paragraph, any transfer, bequest or devise of the LESSO R's interest in the Property as a result of the death of the LESSOR, whether by will or intestate succession, shall not be considered a sale of the Property for which the LESSEE has any right of first refusal. 14. RIGHTS UPON SALE. Should the LESSOR, at any time during the term of this Agreement, decide to sell all or any part of the Property to a purchaser other than LESSEE, such sale shall be under and subject to this Agreement and LESSEE's rights hereunder, and any sale by the LESSOR of the portion of this Property underlying the right-of-way herein granted shall be under and subject to the right of the LESSEE in and to such right-of-way. 15. QUIET ENJOYMENT. LESSOR covenants that LESSEE, on paying the rent and performing the covenants shall peaceably and quietly have, hold and enjoy the Premises. 16. TITLE. LESSOR covenants that LESSOR is seized of good and sufficient title and interest to the Property and has full authority to enter into and execute this Agreement. LESSOR further covenants that there are no liens, judgments or impediments of title on the Property or affecting LESSOR's title to the same and that there are no covenants, easements or restrictions which prevent the use of the Premises by the LESSEE as set forth above. 17. INTEGRATION. It is agreed and understood that this Agreement contains all agreements, promises and understandings between the LESSOR and LESSEE and that no verbal or oral agreements, promises or understandings shall be binding upon either the LESSOR or LESSEE in any dispute, controversy or proceeding at law, and any addition, variation or modification to this Agreement shall be void and ineffective unless made in writing and signed by the Parties. In the event any provision of the Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, such finding shall not effect the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement. The failure of either Party to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement or to exercise any of its rights under the Agreement shall not waive such rights and such Party shall have the right to enforce such rights at any time and take such action as may be lawful and authorized under this Agreement, either in law or in equity. 18. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement and the performance thereof shall be governed, interpreted, construed, and regulated by the laws of the State in which the Property is located. 19. ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement may be sold, assigned or transferred by the LESSEE without any approval or consent of the LESSOR to the LESSEE's principal, affiliates, subsidiaries of its principal\nto any entity which acquires all or substantially all ofLESSEE's assets in the market defined by the Federal Communications Commission in which the Property is located by reason of a merger,. acquisition or other business reorganization\nor to any entity which acquires or receives an interest in the majority of communication towers of the LESSEE in the market defined by the Federal Communications Commission in which the Property is located. B-6 As to other parties, this Agreement may not be sold, assigned or transferred without the written consent of the LESSOR, which such consent will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. LESSEE may sublet the Premises within its sole discretion, upon notice to LESSOR. Any sublease that is entered into by LESSEE shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement and shall be binding upon the successors: assigns, heirs and legal representatives of the respective parties hereto. 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder must be in writing and shall be deemed validly given if sent by certified mail, return receipt requested or by commercial courier, provided the courier's regular business is delivery service. and provided further that it guarantees delivery to the addressee by the end of the next business day following the courier's receipt from the sender, addressed as follows ( or any other address that the Party to be notified may have designated to the sender by like notice): LESSOR: North Little Rock School District P.O. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 LESSEE: Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless 180 Washington Valley Road Bedminster, New Jersey 07921 Attention: Network Real Estate Notice shall be effective upon mailing or delivering the same to a commercial courier, as permitted above. 21. SUCCESSORS. This Agreement shall extend to and bind the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the Parties hereto. 22. SUBORDINATION AND NON-DISTURBANCE. At LESSOR's option, this Agreement shall be subordinate to any mortgage or other security interest by LESSOR which from time to time may encumber all or part of the Property or right-of-way\nprovided, however, every such mortgage or other security interest shall recognize the validity of this Agreement in the event of a foreclosure of LESSOR's interest and also LESSEE's right to remain in occupancy of and have access to the Premises as long as LESSEE is not in default of this Agreement. LESSEE shall execute whatever instruments may reasonably be required to evidence this subordination clause. In the event the Property is encumbered by a mortgage or other security interest, the LESSOR immediately after this Agreement is executed, will obtain and furnish to LESSEE, a nondisturbance agreement for each such mortgage or other security interest in recordable form. In the event the LESSOR defaults in the payment and/or other performance of any mortgage or other security interest encumbering the Property, LESSEE, may, at its sole option and without obligation, cure or correct LESSOR's default and upon doing so, LESSEE shall be subrogated to any and all rights, titles, liens and equities of the holders of such mortgage or security interest and the LESSEE shall be entitled to deduct and setoff against all rents that may otherwise become due under this Agreement the sums paid by LESSEE to cure or correct such defaults. 23. RECORDING. LESSOR agrees to execute a Memorandum of this Lease Agreement which LESSEE may record with the appropriate Recording Officer. The date set forth in B-7 the Memorandum of Lease is for recording purposes only and bears no reference to commencement of either term or rent payments. 24. DEFAULT. In the event there is a default by the LESSEE with respect to any of the provisions of this Agreement or its obligations under it, including the payment of rent, the LESSOR shall give LESSEE written notice of such default. After receipt of such written notice, the LESSEE shall have fifteen (15) days in which to cure any monetary default and thirty (30) days in which to cure any non-monetary default, provided the LESSEE shall have such extended period as may be required beyond the thirty (30) days if the nature of the cure is such that it reasonably requires more than thirty (30) days and the LESSEE commences the cure within the thirty (30) day period and thereafter continuously and diligently pursues the cure to. completion. The LESSOR may not maintain any action or effect any remedies for default against the LESSEE unless and until the LESSEE has failed to cure the same within the time periods provided in this Paragraph. 25. ENVIRONMENTAL. a. LESSOR will be responsible for all obligations of compliance with any and all environmental and industrial hygiene laws, including any regulations, guidelines, standards, or policies of any governmental authorities regulating or imposing standards of liability or standards of conduct with regard to any environmental or industrial hygiene conditions or concerns as may now or at any time hereafter be in effect, that are or were in any way related to activity now conducted in, on, or in any way related to the Property, unless such conditions or concerns are caused by the activities of the LESSEE. b. LESSOR shall hold LESSEE harmless and indemnify the LESSEE from and assume all duties, responsibility and liability at LESSOR's sole cost and expense, for all duties, responsibilities, and liability (for payment of penalties, sanctions, forfeitures, losses, - costs, or damages) and for responding to any action, notice, claim, order, summons, citation, directive, litigation, investigation or proceeding which is in any way related to: a) failure to comply with any environmental or industrial hygiene law, including without limitation any regulations, guidelines, standards, or policies of any governmental authorities regulating or imposing standards of liability or standards of conduct with regard to any environmental or industrial hygiene concerns or conditions as may now or at any time hereafter be in effect, unless such compliance results from conditions caused by the LESSEE\nand b) any environmental or industrial hygiene conditions arising out of or in any way related to the condition of the Property or activities conducted thereon, unless such environmental conditions are caused by the LESSEE. 26. CASUALTY. In the event of damage by fire or other casualty to the Premises that cannot reasonably be expected to be repaired within forth-five (45) days following same or, if the Property is damaged by fire or other casualty so that such damage may reasonably be expected to disrupt LESSEE's operations at the Premises for more than forty-five (45) days, then LESSEE may at any time following such fire or other casualty, provided LESSOR has not completed the restoration required to permit LESSEE to resume its operation at the Premises, terminate this Lease upon fifteen (15) days written notice to LESSOR. Any such notice of termination shall cause this Lease to expire with the same force and effect as though the date set forth in such notice were the date B-8 originally set as the expiration date of this Lease and the parties shall make an appropriate adjustment, as of such termination date, with respect to payments due to the other under this Lease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all rental shall abate during the period of such fire or other casualty. 27. CONDEMNATION. In the event of any condemnation of the Property, LESSEE may terminate this Lease upon fifteen (15) days written notice to LESSOR if such condemnation may reasonably be expected to disrupt LESSEE's operations at the Premises for more than forty-five (45) days. LESSEE may on its own behalf make a claim in any condemnation proceeding involving the Premises for losses related to the antennas, equipment, its relocation costs and its damages and losses (but not for the loss of its leasehold interest). Any such notice of termination shall cause this Lease to expire with the same force and effect as though the date set forth in such notice were the date originally set as the expiration date of this Lease and the parties shall make an appropriate adjustment as of such termination date with respect to payments due to the other under this Lease. 28. SUBMISSION OF LEASE. The submission of this Lease for examination does not constitute an offer to lease the Premises and this Lease becomes effective only upon the full execution of this Lease by the Parties. If any provision herein is invalid, it shall be considered deleted from this Lease and shall not invalidate the remaining provisions of this Lease. Each of the Parties hereto warrants to the other that the person or persons executing this Lease on behalf of such Party has the full right, power and authority to enter into and execute this Lease on such Party's behalf and that no consent from any other person or entity is necessary as a condition precedent to the legal effect of this Lease. 29. APPLICABLE LAWS. LESSEE shall use the Premises as may be required or as permitted by applicable laws, rules and regulations. LESSOR agrees to keep the Property in conformance with all applicable, laws, rules and regulations and agrees to reasonably cooperate with the LESSEE regarding any compliance required by the LESSEE in respect to its use of the Premises. 30. SURVIVAL. The provisions of the Agreement relating to indemnification from one Party to the other Party shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement. Additionally, any provisions of this Agreement which require performance subsequent to the termination or expiration of this Agreement shall also survive such termination or expiration. 31. CAPTIONS. The captions contained in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and are not intended to be part of the Agreement. They shall not affect or be utilized in the construction or interpretation of the Agreement. B-9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their respective seals the day and year first above written. LESSOR: North Little Rock School District ___________ By: _____________ _ WITNESS Printed Name: ------~--- Title: President Date: ___________ _ Attest: ____________ _ Printed Name: ---------- Title: Secretary Date: -------------- LESSEE: ___________ By: ____________ _ WITNESS Hans F. Leutenegger Area Vice President - Network, South Area Date: ------------- B-10 tp ........ If) . l/) l') l\\ LR f\\R -12.,111 L L-f\\t1 60-0Z.- o 5l.l 5,C ALt: \\11 \" lli q' DJ:--..-.\\ I.=:: lo / 5. 0 jg~ It.: f'- C Rt .. ~ ~,-c~1 9 r Lt\u0026gt;~e. 1 l - 0 @)~\n~,,, CJ :.:J ~~1__-~ t7J II St~\\,th ,rh ~ ()JI \".bfv' ) e, l-\n5.h\" t' A~ph,AL1 ~ -p l!\\ .t' 0 ,_, V-1\" 1 ~ ~ ~ \\J', ~- \\/ ~ 0' -\\ f!Je..:::/ / Vei\nzmWirdessSte: Veta_Rl'k_AR/166697 Extibit s- 9JvE 8 B - 12 PROPOSED BOARD POLICY EGH (SECOND AND FINAL READING) ENERGY MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION POLICY EGH As the School Board of the North Little Rock School District, we believe it to be our responsibility to ensure that every effort is made to conserve energy and natural resources while exercising sound financial management. The implementation of this policy is the joint responsibility of the board members, administrators, teachers, students and support personnel and its success is based on cooperation at all levels. The district will maintain accurate records of energy consumption and cost of energy and will provide information to the local media on the goals and progress of the energy conservation program. The building administrator, working with the energy manager will be accountable for energy management on his/her campus with energy audits being conducted and conservation program outlines being updated Judicious use of the various energy systems of each campus will be the joint responsibility of the energy manager, plant services, principal and head custodian to ensure that an efficient energy posture is maintained on a daily basis. To ensure the overall success of the energy management program, the following - specific areas of emphasis will be adopted: 1. 2. 3. 4. All district personnel will be expected to contribute to energy efficiency in our district. Every person will be expected to be an \"energy saver\" as well as an \"energy consumer\". Energy management on his/her campus will be made a part of the principal's annual evaluation. Within sixty ( 60) days, administrative Energy Guidelines will be adopted that will be the \"rules of the game\" in implementing our energy program. Further, to maintain a safer and healthier learning environment and to complement the energy management program, the district shall follow the Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation preventive maintenance and monitoring plan for its facilities and systems, including HV AC, building envelope, and moisture management. C-1 5. PROPOSED BOARD POLICY EGH (SECOND AND FINAL READING) The School Board of North Little Rock School District directs the development of short and long range plans in the areas of facilities management and preventive maintenance as prescribed by Arkansas Public School Academic, and Transportation Division. Date Adopted: C-2 ~ North Little Rock School Distr.ic:t f' - ~-~!lr~ 11 d ~ I'\u0026lt;  LOCAL REVENUE Current Taxes J J. Pullback i ,,. ,. Delinquent Taxes Excess Commissions Land Redemption Penalties \u0026amp; Interest on Taxes Tuition-Summer School Interest on Investments Soft Drink Sales Misc Rev From Local TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE REVENUE FROM INTERMEDIATE SOURCE !Severance Tax I REVENUE FROM STATE SOURCES Unrestricted AUGUST2005 ~:::,, Current Month Budget ' Actual 13,735,000.00 488,270.30 6,530,000.00 0.00 1,410,000.00 28,189.98 150,000.00 0.00 181,000.00 55,002.11 42,000.00 674.71 102,500.00 1,585.00 360,000,00 44,822.80 90,000.00 454.12 819,990.00 4,277.02 23,420,490.00 623,276.04 13,000.001 0.001 State Equalization Aid I 33,414,099.00 3,037,645.00 Student Growth Funding Other Unrestricted Grants-in- Aid Restricted Regular Education Special Education Workforce Ed Early Childhood M-to-M Non-Instr Pgms Other Restricted Aid Misc State TOTAL REVE TOTAL REVE NUE STATE NUE OPERATIONS . 0.00 0.00 ...... ~~ 9,000.00 0.00 ' 499,745.00 0.00 4,866,499.00 234,676.00 0.00 0.00 2,155,150.00 5,000.00 '4,825,000.00 0.00 1,805,435.00 3,300.00 0.00 0.00 136,000.00 2,677.19 47,710,928.00 3,283,298.19 71,144,418.00 3,906,574.23 -1 ~ 2005-2006 ~ Budget ,  1:c~ /,oo ftudiet Y-T-D Actual ~ Balance .,,,Balance,. 2,481,298.08 1,\n11,253,701.92 ci.1::t- f\u0026gt;-1-8.:07% o.oa1 '16:-,530~000.00 \u0026lt;'f\n'_0.00% 82,480.03 I\u0026lt;\\:1 ,327'.\nSl9l .97 ,.. ::'-~ , ,::5'.85% - 0.00 150,000.00 ,,, \" '0.00% 67,738.06 ., 113,261.94 37.42% 3,256.33 38,743.67 ., ., 7.75% 2,110.00 100,390.00 2.06% 90,117.82 269,882.18 25.03% 1,526.07 . 88,47.3.93 :1.70% 7,344.49 812\n645.51 ,, 0.90% 2,735,870.88 1'20,684,619.12 : 11.68% 1,892.37! '\"11,107.63! 14.56%! 3,037,645.00 30,376,454.00 ..,.. -.... 9.09% 0.00 ., 0.00 r~- .. ,.,.,__ .. .,_ 0.00' 9,000.00 j:: 0.00% 0.00 499,745.00 I  --~ 0.00% 234,676.00 , . \"4,631,823.00 ,. ... .,. 4.82% 0.00 ,, --~-: : ,0, .00 , ~,\n- , , 626,400.00 , 1,528\n750.00 29.07% 0.00 4,825,000.00 .,,  't0.00% 206,955.00 I  1,598,480.0Q ..- ,, 11:46% 0.00 ::::: 0.00 . . 2,677.19 133\n322.81 ,,-,: 1.97% 4,108,353.19 1'43,602,574.81 , . I-\n8.61% 6,846,116.44 64,298,301.56 ,,., !9.62% BUILDING FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND FOOD SERVICES FEDERAL REVENUE Unrestricted-PL 87 4 Title I-B-4 ROTC Satellite Ed Research Commission Title I Title V-A Innovative Pgm Homeless Assistance Cari Perkins - Vocational Title 11-D Formula Grant Title VI B Head Start . Special Ed Preschool . -. Medicaid 1,\n11 Eisenhower Math/Science Title Ill - Eng Lang Acq Title IV-A Safe \u0026amp; Dn..ii:i,Free Accountability TOTAL FEDE RAL REVENUE TOTAL REV ENUE 1,s23,2s3.oo 1 3,213,000.001 2,500.00 65,549.00 120,000.00 180,000.00 3,175, 702,00 276,426.00 180,000.00 202,587.00 58,407.00 1,871,018.00 :,)~7057491.00 361,000.00 610,000.00 .. 16,976.00 - ..  73,706.00 ' 65,000.00 7,964,362.00 -I 83\n891,033.00 chool District 33,786.021 37,929.541 1,485,323.461 2.49%! 62,281.101 66,892.321 3,146,107.681 2.08%! 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 :.., 65,549.00 0.00% 2,692.24 2,692.24 ., 117.,3 07.76 2.24% 0.00 0.00 180,000.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 .:.3, 175', 702.00 ., 0.00% 0.00 0.00  A-276,426.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00. 180,000.00 0.00% 40.~p.00 40,646.00 1 61,941.00 \"'~2 0.06% \"\"fQ.00 0.00 . , 58,407.00 ,\n.\n~? 0.00% 0.00 0.00 .:::\n1~1:nos..:o1 oIt : ,l .. :..t~ 0:00% . . .. , . 0.00\no.oo:\n+\nit-705,491.00\n.\n_ci\n..... 0100% 5,432.94 5,432.94: 355,667.06 :~-:'t .. \n:, 1.50% . 0.00 0.00 :,:til610,000.-00 Ii? ,\n,.- ~ 0:00% . 0.00 0.00\n:Z.16,9Z6:00 ~-,::-...:\n.:' : .\n0.00% . 0.00 0.00 1. :2\n.'\n.73\n706.00 tt1.:..:.ii'.. :0f0.0 0% 12.,334.83 12,334.83. ,,\n_.:q_:52,665.1l:,i'lZ:} \\\":-: 18.,9\"8~ 61,106.01 61,106.01 I c7,903\n255,99 1,,:,.\nA:\" 0,17% 4,066,847.36 7,018,244.31 176,872,788.69[ ~,~, .. 8.37%1 0-2 - $70,405,537.89 $2,321,799.97   $1,599,2071 00 $341,990.58 BUILDING FUND $1,676,206:00 $0.00 FEDERALF.UND $9,635,909.95 $90,651.65 118,465.99 FQQf::SJ ERVICE FUND $2,942,736.00 $181,396.54 2161584.14 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $86,259,596.84 $2,935,838.74 $4,112,558.42 -3 North Little Rock School District FUNCTION-' AUGUST2 005 2005-2006 %of Current Month Budget Function Category Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual Budget Balance Balance 11XX Regular Programs-Elem/Sec $27,427,290.72 $683,729.22 756,530.46 $26,670,760.26 2.76% 12XX Special Education $9,477,206.00 $67,428.35 68,892.39 $9,408,313.61 0.73% 13XX Workforce Education $2,077,304.00 $93,945.07 98,912.11 $1,978,391.89. 4.76% 15XX Compensatory Education $3,857,957.00 $184.62 184.62 $3,857,772.38 0.00% 19XX Other Instructional $3,200,050.51 $51,928.99 $70,198.15 $3,129,852.36 2.19% 21XX Support Services-Students $7, 141,053.00 $171,600.41 192,678.21 $6,948,374.79 2.70% 22XX Suport Services-Instruction $5,587,492.92 $234,841.74 292,846.02 $5,294,646.90 .5.24% 23XX Suooort Services-Administration $1,092,984.39 $62,973.02 125,456.33 $967,528.06 11.48% 24XX Suooort Services-Sch Admin $4,337,794.80 $287,589.14 361,152.91 $3,976,641.89 8.33% 25XX Suooort Services-Business $673,014.00 $52,466.49 103,373.98 $569,640.02 15,36% 26XX ti \u0026amp; 0 Plant Services $6,521,692.50 $562,682.64 1,195,845.16 $5,325,847.34 18.34% 27XX Puoil Transportation $4,141\n782.00 $366,209.22 434,686.61 $3,707,095:39 .10.50% 28XX Suooort Services-Central $1,494,281.00 $85,326.16 155,768.84 $1,338,512.16 10.42% 29XX Other Support Services $456,555.00 $1,934.68 $1,934.68 $454,620.32 0.42% 31XX Food Services $3,615,511.00 $205,222.94 242,646.99 $3,372,864.01  6.71% 33XX Community Service Operations $71,841.00 $127.20 1,058.67 $70,782.33 1.47% 34XX Other Non-Instr Services $68,243.00 $4,834.75 4,834.75 $63\n408.25 7:08% 46XX Bldq Acq/Constr Services $45,500.00 $0.00 0.00 $45,500.00 0.00% 47XX Buildini:i Improvements $1,676,206.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,676,206.00  0.00% 51XX LEA Indebtedness $1,889,564.00 $2,743.44 5,486.88 $1,884\n077.12. 0.29%  53XX Pavment to other LEA .:$1 \\270,000.00 $0.00 0.00  $1\n210,000.00 0.00% 55XX Indirect Cost/Admin Chari:ies $136,274.00 $70.66 70.66 $136,203.34 0.05% GRAND TOTAL ,$86,-259\n596.84 $2,935,838.74 4,112,558.42 , $82,147,038.42 .'. 4\n77% 0-4 - North Little Rock School District SOURCEO F FUNDS- AUGUST2 005 2005-2006 %of Current Morith Budget Source of Funds CateQorv Budget. Actual Y-T-D Actual Budget Balance Balance 000 Non-cateQorical $67,849,075.08 $2,585,853:75 3,637,271.70 $64,211,803.38 5.36%\n020 Alternative-Local $7,047.00 $0.00 0.00 $7,047.00 0.00% 045 Summer School $58,375.00 $3,298.58 26,651.51 $31,723.49 45.66% 050 Camp Robinson Work PQm $44,000:00 $1,315.50 2,255.95 $41,744.051 5.13% 053 Gff Summer Quest $535.00 $0.00 $0.00 $535.00 0.00% 055 Soft Drink Sales $207,352.31 $2,022.39 2,022.39 $205,329.92 0.98% 083 Ark Heritage/Wildwood $640:00 $640.00 640.00 $0.00\n100.00% 090 Yale 21st Century $25,000.00 $0.00 0.00 $25,000.00 0:00% 095 ADE Gates Grant $4,283.15 $0.00 0.00. $4,283i15 . 0.00% 213 Intensive School Improvement $9,000.00 $0.00 0.00 $9,000.00 ., 0:00% 223 Prof Development Act 59 $521,961.22 $65,475.90 84,317.35 $437,643\n87\n16.1'5% 225 TechnoloQY Grant $1,724.00 $0.00 0.00, $1\n724.00 '': 0.00% 227 CPEP $71 7, 10,00 $9,207.54 18,358.69 . . $53\n351,3f \\25:60% 245 Pathwise Mentoring $63,969.00 $2,855.10 $3,094.92 $60\n874.08\n'  4:84o/d 250 Act 591 Residential $73\n000.00 $0.00 0.00 ,'\n, . $73,000.00 { 0:00% 260 Early Childhood Sp Ed $729,627.00 $25,684.42 33,670.40 , .. $695',956.60\n4\n61%' 271 GIT Advance Placement $4,000:18 $0.00 0.00 /'''  .$4',000.78  ... o.OO% 275 Alternative Learning Environmer $1,290,745.oo $14,718.98 22,726.28 $1,268,018:72 Y' -, 1.76%' 276 English Lang Learners $68,973.00 $3,119.20 $3,119.20 ,' $65\n853:80 -\n. :.''4:52% 281 NSLA $2,710,070.00 $37,252.32 43,427.56 $2\n666\n642.'44 ,\" 1:60% 340 Workforce Start-up . $28,090.00 $577.65 577.65 '$27\n512.35\n2.06%' 365 ABC Preschool $2,198,770.08 $16,197.28 16,197.28 $2, 182\n572.80  0.74% 381 Smart Start Literacy $80,619.00 $5,881.97 10,189.77  $70,42923 \n' 12:64% 392 General Facility Funding $564,409.00 $70,846.51 89,331.78 $475,077.22  15.83/d 398 OHS Preschool Improvement $10,711.27 $240,00 240.00 .$10,471.27 ' 224:i/o' 430 ROTC $120,000.00 $7,089.00 7,089.00  $.H 2,911.00 .:5:9.l% 441 Title IV-8 21st Century $242\n547.76 $8,674.84 17,695.08   $224,852.68 .\n-\":-7.30% 501 Title I-Reg Comp Ed $4,490,638.39 $13,914,35 19,839.84 $4,470,798,55 . , 0.44,% -5 North Llttle Rock School District SOURCEO F FUNDS AUGUST2 005 2005-2006 Current Month Source of Funds Category Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual 504 Title I Prooram Improvement $0.00 $123.64 $123.64 520 Title V-A Innovative Program $344,251.00 $0.00 0 523 Title I Reading First I $234,444.00 $0.00 0 530 Homeless-Stewart McKinney $19,209.00 $2,063.74 2094.84 535 Title V-B Charter Schools $131,053.54 $0.00 0 570 Carl Perkins Vocational $196,114.00 $1,977.24 6944.28 595 Title 11-DE d Technology $61,493.95 $0.00 0 702 Title VI-B PL 94-142 $1\n780,741.00 $8,641.95 8641.95 703 Title VI-B Head Start $89,910.00 $2,606.34 2606.34 .7 10 Sp Ed Preschool Sec 619 $823,280.00 $13,123.88 13123.88 720 Title VI-B Sliver Grant $99,254.00 $0.00 0 750 Medicaid $288,382.00 $4,030.32 4574.91 751 Medicaid Sp Ed Preschool l  $60,000.00 $202.07 202.07 756 Title II-A Improve Teachinci $534,343.31 $21,239.72 26815.6 761 Title Ill Enci Lanci Acaui $11,662.00 $419.98 419.98 781 Title IV-A Drug Ed . $73,586.00 $6,496.78 8246.78 796 Workforce Investment Act \\$35,000.00 $47.80 47.8 GRAND TOTAL ,$86,259,'596.84 $2,935,838.74 4,112,558.42 0-6 - %of Budget Budget Balance Balance -$123.64 $344,251.00 0.00% $234,444.00 0.00% $17,114.16 10.91% $131,053.54 0.00% $189,169.72 3.54% $6,1,493.95 0.00% $1,772,099.05 0.49% $87,303.66 2.90% $810,156.12 1.59% $99,254.00 0.00% $283,807.09 1.59% $59,797.93 0.34% $507,527.71 5.02% $11',242.02 3.60% $65,339.22 11.21% $34,952.20 0.14% $82,147,038.42 4.77% Funds Fund# Operating 1,2,4 Capital Outlay 5 BuildinQ (3) 3 Federal (6) 6 Food Service (8) 8 Total North Little Rock School District AUGUST2 005 2005-2006 Revenue Expenditures Beg-Balance** Budget Actual Budget Actual $10,174,964.45 $71,144,418.00 $6,846,116.44 $70,405,537.89 $3,431,846.47 $403,274.91 $1,523,253.00 $37,929.54 $1,599,207.00 $345,661.82 $3,803,940.28 $46,000.00 $6,200.00 $1,676,206.00 $0.00 $2,299,083.88 $7,964,362.00 $61,106.01 $9,635,909.95 $118,465.99 $232,059.83 $3,213,000.00 $66,892.32 $2,942,736.00 $216,584.14 $16,913,323.35 $83,891,033.00 $7,018,244.31 $86,259,596.84 $4,112,558.42 ** Unaudited Beginning Balances -7 Projected Ending-Balance $10,913,844.56 $327,320.91 $2,173,734.28 $627,535.93 $502\n323.83 $14,544,759.51 ' - : $80,000,000.00 $70,000,000.00  $60,000,000.00 $50,000,000.00 $40,00u,o'oo.oo $30,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $0.00 1,2,4 5 05-06 EXPENDITURES 3 FUNDS 0-8 - 6 8 !!I Budget  Actual NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PERSONNEL OFFICE Board Agenda- September 15, 2005 CERTIFIED PESONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS Stephanie Fletcher David Baca Cynthia Bell Allison Callahan Thad Cochran Kathy Hale Allison Ashcraft Amber Baker Elizabeth Hart Nola Hubble Kendrick Rojay Moore Julie Parrish Belwood Elementary- Special Education Effective 8-16-05 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES From Indian Hills Elementary- Fifth Grade To Poplar Street Middle Street- Math/Science From Extended Medical Leave To Argenta- Academy Alternative Learning From Tri-District- Speech Pathologist 1.0 To Tri-District- Speech Pathologist .60 From Argenta Academy- Instructional Aide To Argenta Academy- Computer Engineering Teacher From Poplar Street Middle/Ridgeroad Middle Charter- Band To Indian Hills/ Meadow Park- Elementary Guidance NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL Poplar Street Middle School- Language Arts/Science Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 2, 190 days Amboy Elementary- First Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 0, 190 days NLRHS East Campus- Physical Therapist Effective 8-15-05, Category IV, Step 8, 190 days .60 FTE Boone Park Elementary- Math Coach Effective 9-6-05, Category II, Step 16, 190 days Ridgeroad Middle Charter School- Band Director Effective 8-25-05, Category I, Step 0, 195 days Boone Park Elementary- Fifth Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 0, 190 days P-1 Betty Powell Sarah Robbins Jane Tillery Don Willis North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - September 15, 2005 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED NLRHS West Campus- French III/French IV Effective 8-22-05, Category III, Step 15, 190 days, .38 FIE Park Hill Elementary- First Grade Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 2, 190 days Pike View Elementary- Math Coach Effective 9-6-05, Category V, Step 19, 190 days Ridgeroad Middle School- Science Effective 8-15-05, Category I, Step 0, 190 days NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Allison Ashcraft Poplar Street Middle School- Language Arts/Science BA- University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, ARMay-01 Middle School Language Arts/Social Studies Middles School Science/Math Standard 5 Year License PCSSD, Little Rock, AR August-03 to May-0- Bill Bowers, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Amber Baker Amboy Elementary- First Grade BS- Texas A \u0026amp; M, Commerce, TX May-05 Early Childhood Education Reciprocity Pending-Texas License Greenville School District, Greenville, TX August 04 to May 05 Jann Pharo, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Elizabeth Hart NLRHS East Campus- Physical Therapist .60 FIE MS- University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR December-97 BA-Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR May-92 State Licensed for Physical Therapy NLRSD, NLR, AR (Private Contract) September-00 to May-05 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services  Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Servi\u0026lt;9 P-2 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda- September 15, 2005 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: Nola Hubble Boone Park Elementary, Math Coach BSE- Arkansas State University, Russellville, AR May-71 Elementary 1-6 Standard 6 year license Bryant School District, Bryant, AR Greene County Tech, Paragould, AR Mavis Cherry, Principal August-89 to June-91 August-71 to June-85 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Kendrick Rojay Moore Ridgeroad Middle Charter School- Band Director BA- University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA December-04 Non-Traditional Licensure Program - Acceptance Pending None Dana Chadwick, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Betty Powell NLRHS West Campus, French III/ French IV .38 FTE BA- University of Mississippi, University, MS June-69 French 7-12 Standard 6 year license NLRSD, North Little Rock, AR August-98 to June-02 Gregg Thompson, Prinicpal Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services Julie Parrish Boone Park Elementary- Fifth Grade BSE- Clarion University, Clarion, PA May-05 Early Childhood Education Reciprocity Pending - Pennsylvania License Mary Wilson Elementary, Punxsautawney, PA Jan-05 to March 05 Paint \u0026amp; Play Pre-School, Dubois, PA March 05 to June 05 Mavis Cherry, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services P-3 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda-September 15, 2005 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Sarah Robbins Park Hill Elementary- First Grade BSE- Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN Early Childhood Education May-02 Middle Level Language Arts/Social Studies Middle Level Science/Math Standard 5 Year ticense Child Development Center, Jacksonville, AR May-04 to July-05 August-03 to May-04 September-02 to May-03 PCSSD, Little Rock, AR Sullivan School District, Sullivan, IL Barbara Hartwick, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Jane Tillery Pike View Elementary, Math Coach BSE- Central State University of Oklahoma, Edmond, OK July-81 MED- Central State University of Oklahoma, Edmond, OK July-89 Bldg. Admin P-8\nEarly Childhood Ed P-4\nMiddle Childhood Language Arts/Social Studies 4-8\nMiddle Childhood Science Math 4-8\nStandard 5 year license A St. Patrick Catholic School, North Little Rock, AR July-00 to Ju1'11'3 Mid-Del Schools, Midwest City, OK August-84 to June-00 Peggs Elementary/Intermediate, Peggs, OK August-83 to May-84 Diane Crites, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Don Willis Ridgeroad Middle Charter School- Science BA- Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, AR Middle School Language Arts/Social Studies Middle School Math/Science Non-Traditional Licensure Progr\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_1051","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","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":["2005-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"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/1051"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nI. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL C :cza w ~ u-, c:::, Q: \u0026gt; c:::, u..c::z\u0026gt;: c-..... O::::E - 0 ~~ w ....... C\\l !\n~ -~ 0 ci... ffi ~ w UJ a: Cl) ffi -~ a: ~ Cl Q C) ~ ~ ~ C/lu ~ ~ ts ~ ~ ~ -..J 11. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME TO GUESTS .~s ~ ~ ... ~ ~u g) -~ Q 'ci ~ ~ CXl Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS D. LR C.T .A. I. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS September 22, 2005 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A Administration of the Oath of Office, Newly Elected Board Members Zone 1 and Zone 5 B. Call to Order C. Roll Call II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A Welcome to Guests 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships - Fulbright Elementary School and Coldwell Banker Advantage Realty - Gibbs Magnet Elementary School and Twin City Bank - Broadway - Otter Creek Elementary School and Edward Jones Investments of Otter Creek C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update G. Update: Textbook Allocations 0  'O ~~ -\u0026lt;- Oil: oz ~~ m-\u0026lt;\no..,\n- oCz: o,.. n-\u0026lt; ,.. i5 oz ,,\u0026gt;.... \"' ?' 'O\nz ~ z m g n ~ iz5 Regular Board Meeting September 22, 2005 Page2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Election of Officers B. Minutes Regular Meeting - 08-25-05 Special Meeting- 08-31-05 Special Meeting - 09-08-05 VI. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES A. Special Education: Focus Group Recommendations VII. SCHOOL SERVICES A. Cloverdale Elementary School @ Badgett Student Reassignment Plan VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES A. First Reading: Policy GBK - Staff Concerns, Complaints and Grievances, with Regulations GBK-R B. Personnel Changes IX. FINANCE \u0026amp; SUPPORT SERVICES A. Rightsell Elementary School B. Land Use Agreement: LRSD / LR Boys \u0026amp; Girls Club C. Donations of Property D. Financial Report X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. STUDENT HEARING XII. ADJOURNMENT 0 \u0026gt;\n-\n,0o ~~ -\u0026lt;- Oil: oz el~ m-\u0026lt;\n,o.., -c:\n,oz o.....o... r-o oz ~ en\n,o \u0026gt;m (I) c3 C:\n,o ~ .... 0~ ~ m .\u0026gt;... oo oC\u0026gt; zZ en~ 0z en 0\n,o m 0 ~\n,o r-\n,\u0026lt;\n,::, VJ 0\"T1 =--~ :,.i,i.,: :. ~ VJ I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME TO GUESTS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION C. REMARKS FROM Cl\"TIZENS D. LR C.T .A. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: September 22, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Partners in Education BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. RATIONALE: The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. FUNDING: Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the board approve the following partnerships: Fulbright Elementary School and Coldwell Banker Advantage Realty Gibbs Magnet Elementary School and Twin City Bank-Broadway Otter Creek Elementary School and Edward Jones Investments of Otter Creek PREPARED BY: Debbie Milam, ViPS Coordinator !\" .z... m ~ 'ff! ~ 0 ::::i 0 :,\n, u, ~ ~ ~ Partnership Proposal Coldwell Banker Advantage Realty and Fulbright Elementary School Coldwell Banker Advantage Realty commits to the following partnership activities:  Develop volunteer opportunities for agents  Support the Spring Supper and sil~nt auction  Provide information on public school options to clients  Host a teacher appreciation luncheon or dinner  Provide Russell the mascot on first day of school  Provide career day speaker(s)  Drop school/district information into ad header  Take photos with Russell as a fundraiser Fulbright Elementary School commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide student artwork for display in Coldwell Banker's reception area  Provide the joy choir to perform at special events  Acknowledge Coldwell Banker as a Partner in Education  Invite Coldwell Banker to school events Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank-Broadway and Gibbs Elementary School Twin City Bank-Broadway commits to the following partnership activities:  Sponsor Red Ribbon Week.  Count change collected through fundraisers.  Arrange for penny, Nick and Buck to make appearances at school functions.  Recruit employees to read to the students and listen to the students read.  Job shadowing.  Provide speakers for topics such as economics, saving money, etc.  Provide other assistance when needed. Gibbs Elementary commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide artwork for display in the bank's lobby  Provide choir to perform on holidays and special occasions.  Acknowledge Twin City Bank-Broadway Branch as a Partner in Education.  Invite the bank to school events.  Work with the bank on community service projects. !\"' \"m' c~  \"' r-\n,:\n,au, n-.. :'-,'.\"i' n :::\n,:\nm % (J) PARTNER-IN-EDUCATION CONTRACT EDWARD JONES INVESTMENTS OF OTTER CREEK ' AND OTTERCREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Otter Creek Elementary School, along with its staff and students, are pleased to enter into a partnership with the Edward Jones Company. As part of our willingness to become involved, all parties commit to the following activities: Edward Jones Company:  Will host a \"Staff Appreciation Lunch\" once a quarter.  WilJ provide a guest speaker for Career Day.  Will provide volunteers to assist students as tutors/mentors.  Will assist with other activities/projects at Otter Creek as needed and when possible.  Will encourage other community organizations and businesses to become active participants in volunteer activities at Otter Creek. Otter Creek Elementary:  Will provide students' artwork for display in the Edward Jones' office.  WilJ provide seasonal choir performances for the Edward Jones' office.  Will acknowledge our Partner's participation through our newsletters and school programs throughout the school year. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: September 22, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: September 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: As you know, the Bond construction program started during the summer of 2000. Most of the construction projects shown on the Bond Project List have been completed or the money has been obligated. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the Bond money for construction has been spent or obligated, leaving a total of $15,300,000 available to do the remaining projects originally approved with the 2000 millage election, including the new West Little Rock School. We will keep you apprised of future decisions that will become necessary as we move through the final phase of construction. RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action necessary. PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer !I' !I: z C...:. m en :\" .... m (\") :%: z\nC: -0 0 ?\nm Facility Name Carver Gibbs Henderson Meadowcliff CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Project Description Cost Media Center Expansion $167,490 Addition I $705,670 Skylight Replacement $319,ooo I Remodel $365,600 t:.st. c.\nompIet1on Date Dec-05 --- Dec-05 Nov-05 Sep-05 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - FALL 2005 Est. completIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Central Media Roof $85,000 Unknown Cloverdale Elementary Demolition $520,750 I Nov-05 J. A. Fair 1Sewer Line $82,900 Nov-05 Rightsell I Renovation $2,494,000 Unknown Williams Drainage Repair I $29,200 Dec-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:.st. 1_\nompIeuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Booker Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Brady Metal Roof $250,000 Unknown Chicot Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Child Nutrition Renovation $6,500 Unk-no-wn Forest Heights Remodel $1 ,547,000 Unknow-n Mabelvale Elem. I Site Work $6,000 Unknown Mitchell Renovation $2,212,493 I Unknown -- Pulaski Hqts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Unknown BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED c:si. 1.,ompIetIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Administration Annex ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown I Electrical Upgrade I $9,166 1 Unknown --- --- Adult Education ADA Adaptations $248,020 . Un-kno-wn Structural Repairs I $53,918 Unknown -- Alternative Learning Center ADA Adaptations $43,134 Unknown Electrical Upgrade -- $2,696 I Unknown Roof Repairs ~ $26,959 Unknown -- Restroom Renovation $37,742 Unknown Booker ADA Adaptations $107,835 Spring 2006 -- Cashion Building !ADA Adaptations $21 ,5~ Unknown : Restroom Renovation -- Dodd $26,959 . Unknown --- Facility Services_ _ ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown -- -- Install Water Meters at Cooling Towers $4,313 Unknown ~ Emergency Lighting Replacement $80,876 Unknown -- -- - -- Land Purchase - Booker $100,000 Unknown -- -- - Fulbright - - Renovate Restrooms $10,784 Unknown ADA Adaptations $21 ,567 Unknown -  Renovation --- - Garland -- -- $900,000 Partially Complete ADA Adaptations $188,711 Unknown ---- Geyer Springs ~R eplace Restroom Stalls $4,313 - Unknown -- .. ___A DA Adaptations $21 ,567 Unknown -- ~ Henderson Renovation $450,000 Summer 2006 - --- - A DA Adaptations - $70,093- Unknown - -- -- IRC - ADA Adaptations - $21 ,567 Unknown ~ - Restroom Renovation $21,567 Unknown - - - McDermott Restroom Renovation $32,350 Unknown -- - - ~ Quigley - Restroom Upgrades $53,918 Unknown Dressing Room Renovation $37,742 Unknown ----- --------- -- Facility Name Rockefeller Transportation - Laidlaw West Little Rock School CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED Project Description I Cost I ADA Adaptations $26,959 I Interior Renovation I $16,175 I ADA Adaptations I $32,351 I New School $11,782,638 I BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description I Cost I Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Administration I Fresh air system $55,000 Administration 1Fire alarm $32,350 I Administration HVAC $70,000 I Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation ~lternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation - $15,160 I Alternative Learning Ctr. I Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Badgett 'Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 I Fire alarm - Badgett $18,250 Bale\nClassroom addition/renovation I $2,244,524 I Bale Energy monitoring system I Bale Partial roof replacement I - $269,587 Bale IHVAC $664,587 Baseline Renovation $953,520 Booker Gym Roof $48,525 Booker ADA Rest rooms $25,000 I Energy efficient lighting -+-- Booker $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 I Booker Asbestos abatement -- $10,900 - Booker Fire alarm $34,501 - ---- -~ I - Brady Addition/renovation I $973,621 Brady 1Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 I Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266  Carver Parking lot $111,742 Central HVAC Renovation - Band Area $225,000 Central Reflecting Pond $57,561 -- Student parking --- -- Central Parking -L $174,000 I Central/Quigley -- I stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair -+--- $265,000 Central/Quigley -- Athletic Field Improvement _j__ $38,000 Central/Quigley - Irrigation System --- --l-- $14,500 Central Purchase land for school __...._ Unknown Central - Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Ceiling and wall repair Central - ~.ooo - - Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation ~-- $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 -.-Drainage - Chicot $64,700 -- - Chicot - Sound Attenuation - $43,134 ~ Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 -- - - Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting - - $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 . Est. Completion Date Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Est. Completion Date Mar-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Nov-04 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 - - Jul-01 -- Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 - Aug-04 Oct-04 --- ~-04 Apr-0_!_ Oct-01 Feb-02 --- - - M-a-r-02 Nov-04 -- Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 - - - Sep-05 Aug-03 Dec-04 -- Sep-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Dec-02 - Dec-02 - - - Oct-01 - Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Jul-04 Jul-01 Jul-01 - - Nov-02 Dodd - Fire Alarm Upgrade ---,- $9,200 - Oct-04 Energy efficient lighting - $90,665 - - - Dodd Aug-01 2 !IJ E z C: m-\u0026lt; \"' :\"' -\u0026lt; ~ ::c % 0  C...,: 0 ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Jul-01 Dodd I Replace roof top HVAC I $215,570 Aug-02 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,149,023 Nov-04 Facilities Service 1 Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Facility Services ,Fire alarm $12,000 Aug-03 Fair Park I Remodel $799,000 Aug-05 Fair Park Parking Lot $185,000 . Aug-05 ---- Fair Park I Roof $245,784 I May-05 Fair Park I HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 '. Apr-02 Fair Park I Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Aug-01 Fair Park I Asbestos abatement-ceiling I $59,310 I Aug-01 J. A. Fair 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music 1 room addition $3,155,640 Aug~04 J. A. Fair 'Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 Nov-00 J. A. Fair Security cameras I $12,5oc5'T-- Jun-01 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System _L_ $14,000 Jul-03 J. A.' Fair I Roof repairs I $391,871i Aug-03 Forest Park I Restrooms $152,881 Aug-05 -- Forest Park  Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Nov-03 -- ----- Forest Park - J Diagonal parking j_ ~.742 I __ Aug-03 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 May-01 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting - r- $134,463 -- Jun-01 Fulbright IE nergy monitoring system installation $11,9~ -- i= Aug-01 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 -- Aug-02 Fulbrig_l2_!__ _ Parking lot $140,000 Sep-02 --Roof repairs -1-- -- Fulbright - - $200,000 Oct-02 1 Renovation I $2,511,736 1 -- -- Franklin Mar-03 -- -- - - Geyer Springs . Roof Repair $161,752 1 Jun-04 -- j Energy efficient light~ I Gibbs $76,447 Apr-01 -- -- ---'--- Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11 ,77'L__ Jul-01 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Sep-03 -- - - Hall - Asbestos abatement - $168,222 Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Jul-01 - - Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Aug-01 - - ------ $296,7~ -- Hall - Energy efficient lighting I Apr-01 Hall Intercom Feb-01 - -- I -+-- - Hall - - Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 ~---1- $43,854 -- Henderson Lockers Dec-04 ---- -- Henderson Energy efficient lighting I $193,679 Jul-01 - -- -- Henderson Roof replacement gym I $107,835 ------ May-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I $500~ -- Aug-01 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 - Henderson - $250,000- Aug-02 Energy efficient lighti~ + $109,136 - IRC Jul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatemeiit T $43,639 - Oci-01 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm - I $1,630,000 - - Jefferson Nov-02 - Parking lot -- -- - Laidlaw - - $269,588- Jul-01 -+ - Mablevale Elem Fire Alarm Upgrade $12,000 Oct-04 + Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Aug-01 - - Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 Auq-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description I Cost Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Mabelvale Elem. I Energy efficient lighting I $106,598 I Mabelvale MS I Renovate bleachers i $134,793 Mabelvale MS Renovation I $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 . Mann Asphalt walks The total $1.8 million Mann Walkway canopies ~ is what has been Mann Boiler replacement used so far on the Mann Fencing I projects listed Mann Partial demolition/portable classrooms 1completed for Mann. McClellan Parking Lot Overlay I $65,000 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 McClellan Irrigation System I $14,750 McClellan Security cameras I $36,300 McClellan -- I Energy efficient lighting I $303,614 McClellan Stadium stands repair I $235,000 I McClellan Intercom I $46,000 McClellan 'Classroom Addition I $2,155,622 McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade I $7,700 McDermott Energy efficient lighting ! $79,411 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units i $476,000 I Me-adowcliff Fire alarm +- $16,175 -Meado-wc-liff Asbestos abatement $253,412 M-eadowcliff IE ngergy efficient lighting I -_$88,297 1 Metropolitan Replace cooling tower I $37,203 Metropo~ 1 Replace shop vent system _ ~0.000 Metropolitan  Energy monitoring system installation I $17,145 Mitchell Building Remediation ---- ! $165,000 I Mitchell !Energy efficient lighting I $103,642 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Mitchell Asbestos abatement $13,000 - Oakhurst (Adult Education) New Windows $215,000 Oakhurst HVAC renovation $237,237 Otter Creek Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting -- $81,828 O-tter Creek -- Asbestos abatement $10,000 Otter Creek IP arking lot $138,029 I --+-- Otter Creek 6 classroom addition - $888,778 Otter Creek Parking Improvements $142,54-1 - -- -- -- ---- ~ Parkview Addition $2,121,226 -- - -- - -- Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 -- Parkview Roof replacement $273,877 - $10,784 - Parkview Exterior lights -- .. $301,938 - Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls -- Parkview Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting -- ~ Parkview $315,000 Procurement Energy monitoring system installation --$5,290 -Fire alarm - - $25,000 - Procurement -- Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle - Cafeteria Ceiling $33,378  --- Pulaski HeiQhts Elem/Middle Replace Entry Doors $13,990 Est. Completion Date Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Mar-04 Apr-04 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Apr-05 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Jul-04 Sep-04 Feb-01 Aug-02 -Ju-l-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 - Dec-00 May-01 -~ Aug-01 Jul-04 Apr-01 Jul-01 - Jul-01 Aug-05 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Aug-03 Dec-04 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Aug-03 Aug-05 AuQ-05 4 !D !I: z C: -m\u0026lt; Ul\nn -\u0026lt; ~ :x: % 0  .C.,: 0 ?. m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I Est. completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Pulaski Heights Elementary Clean Exterior Walls $98,660 Sep-05 Pulaski Hgts. Elem 1 Renovation $1,193,259 I Nov-04 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground I $17,ooo I Dec-02 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation - I $3,755,041 I Nov-04 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Apr-01 Rockefeller 1 Energy efficient lighting $137,004  Mar-01 Rockefeller iR eplace roof top HVA C - I $539,175 I Aug~ Rockefeller IP arking addition I $111,742 I Aug-02 Romine ,Asbestos abatement $10,000 : Apr-02 --- Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Mar-03 Scott Field\nTrack Renovations I $289,056 May-05 SecurityrTransportation 1 Bus cameras I $22,500 Jun-01 Southwest 1 New Corridor Ceiling I $300,000 I Aug-05 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Nov-04 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Aug-00 Southwest New roof $690,000 Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Jan-02 Southwest 1 Drainage / street widening $250,000 I Aug-03 Student Assignment 1Energy monitoring system installation I $4,830 I Aug-02 Student Assignment\nFire alarm I $9,ooo I Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation I $275,000 : Dec-01 -- Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II I $3,679,000 Jun=64 -- Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Nov-02 Energy efficient lig~ $73,850 -- - Terry - Feb-01 $83,4~ -- Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking - Aug-02 Terry Media Center add~ I $704,932 + Sep-02 Wakefield Rebuild - $5,300,000 Dec-04 Wakefield Security cameras --- $8,000 --- Jun-01 W-akefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Feb-01 I Demolition/Asbestos Abatement --+ - $200,oooT ------ Wakefield I Nov-02 I Fire Alarm Upgrade I - $11,600 -+- -- Washington Oct-04 --=- -- --l- -- Washington Security cameras $7,900 Jun-01 Washington Energy efficient lighting j__ $165,281- Apr-01 Watson Energy monitoring system installation I $8,5~ - Jul-01 --- -- I $182,24'1 -- Watson Asbestos abatement Aug-01 1 Energy efficient lighting - + Watson $106,868 Aug-01 Asbestos abateme_n_t -- - $10,00~ - Watson Aug-02 f- --- Major renovation \u0026amp; addition - Watson $800,000 Aug-02 -- - Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $622,160 Aug-05 -- - ~ Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade $8,400 Oct-04 --- -- - Western Hills ADA Rest rooms _,__ $25,000 Aug-04 f- -- Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191,946 Aug-02 -- -- - - Western Hills - Intercom -- - + $7,100 Dec-01 We-stern Hills Energy efficient light~ - J $106,000 Jul-01 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Mar-04 - - - - - Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Dec-03 -- -- - - + Williams - Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Jun-01 + ~ Wilson HVAC for Cafeteria $56,000 Mar-05 -- - - Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 Feb-04 -- - Wilson Parking Expansion - - $110,000 + Aug-03 Woodruff Parking addition --- - - _._ $175,000 Aug-05 -- Woodruff _,_Renovation $246,419 Aug-02 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: September 22, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Board Auditor Report BACKGROUND: Monthly report to School Board. RATIONALE: Summary report of activities. FUNDING: No changes. RECOMMENDATION: None. PREPARED BY: Sandy Becker !I\"\nii:: z .C..: m U\u0026gt; \u0026gt;~ . m enO -,:, C mC\"l C\"l  :\n--\u0026lt; r-0 mZ o\u0026gt; C: ,- C\"l en \u0026gt;m .... :,0 0 ?i zm en :.n.. ~ :zr: 0 i C,,: 0 ?\nm Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS September 22, 2005 Board of Directors Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Audit Report - September This is the seventy-first communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two high schools, two middle school and two elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity and related funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. b) The AAB has forwarded a Booster Club Guidelines Package to be included in official publications of the District after review. Board Policy and Regulation a) The Out of District Travel regulation is being reviewed. b) The routing of Professional Leave and Travel Requests is being worked on to make the process more efficient and to prepare for the process being automated to improve documentation and provide information for decision making. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Facilitating technology upgrade in cooperation with the English Department for Yearbook and Newspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. Provided training with the Arkansas PTA on financials controls and financial preventive maintenance. ----- -- - - Audit Report - September 2005 Page 2 of2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Implementing in coordination with Human Resources. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) c) d) e) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Assisting schools to track and reconcile Teacher School Supply Funds. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April I 7, 2005. Eleven schools participated. Sharefest is scheduled for October 29, 2005. Assisting LRSD PT A's in financial process training. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1 I 15. My e-mail is sandy.beckcr@lrsd.org. !XI I: z c:: -m\u0026lt; en ~ . m e-n., co:: mn n  \u0026gt;= r-0 mZ oc:: \u0026gt;,- n en  m -\u0026lt;\nIJ (5$ zn m \"' DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 September 22, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Special Education In November of 2004, a group of special education instructors, representing the interests of Little Rock School District special education teachers, brought to the Board a series of concerns regarding special education issues and the delivery of instructional services to LRSD students with special needs. At the Board's direction, a special task force was formed which included the Associate Superintendent for Educational Services, Jhe Special Education Director and Staff, the CT A Executive Director and President, and a representative sample of special education teachers. The task force began monthly meetings in December of 2004 and examined the needs of special education students through the following topics:  Professional Development  Instructional Materials  Communication  Technology  Compliance  Working Conditions RATIONALE: From the outset, the goal of the task force was to develop ways of improving services to special needs students. The task force found that by modifying a number of practices currently in place and by instituting others, the concerns brought to the Board on behalf of the special needs students could be dramatically reduced and the special needs student could be better served. The task force recommendations are detailed in the accompanying report. FUNDING: Funds generated as a result of the reorganization of the District along with federal entitlement dollars will be allocated to support the implementation of the recommendations. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the task force report. PREPARED BY: Barbara Barnes, Dr. Olivine Roberts, and Special Education Focus Group Representatives ?l \"ti m\n,:, ~ z z ,m... n ::c ~ C\u0026gt; m V, ?\u0026lt; ?\u0026gt; i :,:,\u0026gt; ci ~ :cm .... po ~~ ,--c m c3 ,...\n,:, ~ .... m v, zm -\u0026lt;\n,:, ~s -\u0026lt; ~ V, \u0026gt; z C C: V, m ~ ~ m l!l\n.z.. . -- Department of Exceptional Children - CT A Focus Group Recommendations !Professional Development 1. Coordinate and facilitate an August professional development activity for new teachers regarding portfolio regulations and pacing. 2. Provide joint training for paraprofessionals and assigned teachers. 3. Create a joint committee of teachers and DEC staff to address training needs and to design a system for assessing the need for and the implementation of professional development. 4. Offer appropriate professional development for general education and special education teachers, plus administrators. I Instructional Materials 1. Provide a catalog of instructional materials and resources available through the DEC. 2. Where appropriate, special education teachers will receive the same books and instructional materials as regular education teachers. 3. Provide supplemental materials/supplies as indicated by the IEP team, in a timely manner. I Communication 1. Create a quarterly DEC newsletter (hard copy or email) to address issues, identify needed information, and include a calendar of upcoming events (i.e. ADE Special Show, annual review meetings, etc.) 2. Create a school calendar to show what is required from staff for that school year. 3. Notify the administrator/teacher of a student returning to his/her zone school in a timely manner to ensure a smooth transition for the student and staff. 4. Provide teachers with all the necessary paperwork, specialized equipment, and professional development before a student is placed in their classroom, when possible. 5. Provide monthly opportunities for special education staff to meet before or after school without pay. 6. Develop a listserv for teachers/staff to use to communicate with each other. I Technology 1. Create a DEC website by the end of the 2006-2007 school year. 2. Provide district-wide professional development for special needs technology. 3. Provide modifications of existing management system for Grade Quick or Ed Line for special education. 4. Assure that special education teachers have computer work stations with Internet access in their classrooms. 5. Provide updated technology as necessary. 6. Develop a district level assistive technology committee (special education teacher, SLP, OT/PT, etc.) to address assessment needs for technology. I Compliance 1. Create an e-file for the district required DEC forms. The district required forms could be completed electronically and forwarded to DEC. 2. Collaborate with Technology Department in the creation of program that allows for forms to be completed electronically. 3. Provide a two-week notice of deadlines for reports by the DEC, except when ADE provides shorter notice. 4. Review all district forms for redundant and unnecessary information. 5. Hold every special education teacher accountable for the accuracy of his/her due process folders. 6. Create a more efficient way of tracking students' due process folders from school to school. (NOTE: No LRSD staff shall remove a due process folder without signing out in the area where all due process files are located.) 7. Reconstruction of a missing due process folder will occur within fifteen days by the IEP team and DEC. 8. Review mental health services and supports for students in order to ensure appropriate placement. 9. Provide a pacing document and guidelines aligned with the curriculum for portfolio completion. 10. Establish a district wide protocol for better distribution of IEP's in order to improve the scheduling of special education students prior to the end of each school year. 11 . Teachers will provide their principals with an itinerary for students in CBI classes prior to leaving the school. 12. Review all classroom facilities, storage, and accessibility needs to ensure compliance with state and federal mandated guidelines. 13. Purchase current Special Education Automation Software (SEAS) program for each special education staff. 14. The school team (principal, teachers, counselors, and other appropriate personnel) will place students in the self-contained classroom at the building level. I Working Conditions 1. Paraprofessionals assigned to special education assist in special education services only. (Paraprofessionals should not be pulled from their regularly assigned duties\nparaprofessionals assigned to one student should be pulled only in the event of the absence of their assigned student - assigned to special education only.) 2. Investigate the possibility of instituting differential pay/increase for paraprofessionals. 3. Develop a paraprofessional sub pool to serve in special education classes. 4. Conduct a feasibility study by the end of the 2006-2007 school year to determine the need for more self-contained classrooms and to address transportation issues with the CBI program. 5. Use District vehicles for fieldtrips and other outings. 6. Ensure new teachers receive start-up equipment and materials. 7. Redefine the role and job description of special education department chairs. 2 C')V, ,-n O:J: ~8 :,o,Ov, \u0026gt;m r\n~ mr\n,-m ~V\u0026gt; .!J,,l m :,0 ~ z z ,m... n :J: \u0026gt;z C') m V\u0026gt; !Jl \u0026gt; z 0 C V\u0026gt; m \u0026gt; C') ~ m E m .z... . 8. Provide teachers with one release day per semester to work on portfolios and/or annual reviews. These days must be used prior to March. 9. Ensure a duty free lunch and preparation period for special education teachers, as outlined in the PN Agreement. I Additional Recommendations 1. Engage teachers in the District's review of the ALC program. 2. Increase involvement of District in state and national activities regarding Special Education. 3. School-level Special Education departments will periodically review class options for special education students. 3 DATE: TO: FROM: September 22, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Cloverdale Elementary School at Badgett Student Reassignment Plan BACKGROUND: Cloverdale Elementary School, built in 1959, was transferred by court order from the Pulaski County Special School District to the Little Rock School District during the 1987- 1988 school year. The school is single-story and shares a campus with Cloverdale Middle School. The elementary school was built on land considered poor for construction. The combination of the soil and techniques used in construction caused the structural beams supporting the school's floor to erode. A structural study completed in 2004 determined that structural failure is occurring and that the building is slowly sinking. In the spring of 2005, the Board approved plans to relocate Cloverdale Elementary students at the former Badgett Elementary building and to tear down the school. Cloverdale Elementary had a capacity of 448 students. In October 2004 enrollment was 360. Following the announcement that Cloverdale students would be relocated to Badgett for the 2005-2006 school year, parents began requesting Transfer No Transportation (TNT) transfers to other LRSD schools. By August 18, 2005, TNT transfers had been granted to 144 Cloverdale ES students. In addition, other students were reassigned out of Cloverdale because they moved away from the attendance zone. accepted seats at magnet schools, requested assignment to Pulaski County Special School District on Minority to Majority (M to M) transfers or were attending Cloverdale on TNT transfers and requested a return to their attendance zone school. On August 26, 2005, only 111 Cloverdale ES students were registered and attending school at Badgett. By September 6, 2005, registration had risen to only 119. An inventory reveals that there are enough vacant seats to accommodate K-1 students at Watson Elementary and !.J,,' m\n:o is z z m..... (\") ::c \u0026gt;z C) m (/) !J' r\n:: z C C: (/) m ~ ill m ~ ='i p g z ~ iz5 (/) 0 .-,n, .~,, m ~ grades 2-3 at Mabelvale Elementary. Parents of grade 4-5 students will be able to select from available seats in other schools in southwestern part of the district. RATIONALE: The continued operation of low enrollment schools and the resulting fiscal inefficiency has been a concern in the district for several years. The Cloverdale at Badgett Elementary School qualifies as a low enrollment school. FUNDING: Reassignment of the Cloverdale at Badgett students presents no additional cost to the Little Rock School District. RECOMMENDATION: It is not financially prudent for the district to continue operating Cloverdale at Badgett with its low enrollment. The students should be reassigned to Watson, Mabelvale and other southwest elementary schools. A timeline for notifying students, parents, teachers and school staff about reassignment and the options that are available has been developed. In addition, a special task force appointed by the Superintendent will examine the future of Cloverdale Elementary School. The task force report will become part of the Superintendent's recommendation on Cloverdale which will be brought to the Board before the end of the calendar year. PREPARED BY: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: September 22, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Larry Berkley President, Board of Directors SUBJECT: Policy GBK Staff Concerns/Complaints/Grievances BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors periodically reviews polices and regulations which provide the district's administration a clear line of authority for operating the district in an efficient and effective manner. A review of Policy GBK Staff Concerns/Complaints/Grievances and the accompanying Policy GBK-R, both of which are modeled after Act 1357 amended by the Arkansas Legislature in 2003, describes the process an employee must use in resolving a work-related grievance. A copy of Act 1357 is attached. However, the policy, and its companion regulations in their present forms, does not clearly encourage employees to adhere to the process. School Board members are also part of the grievance process and our obligations also must be more clearly defined. In addition, Policy GBK does not strongly communicate that the Board will not tolerate reprisal or retaliation directed at employees who make use of the policy. RATIONALE: Policies should be clear and concise and offer specific directives to staff and administration. The revision of GBK and GBK-R prescribes a more thorough process for resolving employee grievances and protects employees from retaliation. FUNDING: This policy revision carries no financial implications. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board adopt on first reading the revisions to Policy GBK and Policy GBK-R. New text is underlined text. Eliminated text is marked in (parentheses). PREPARED BY: Joseph Mittiga Government/Public Affairs Officer .?.,' m ~ z~ z ,m... n ::r:: \u0026gt;z C\u0026gt; m U) ?' \u0026gt; z C C U) m \u0026gt; C\u0026gt; ~ m m !I: m ~ 8 z ~ i5 z U) ..0.. ,, jg ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBK STAFF CONCERNS/COMPLAINTS/GRIEVANCES It is the policy of the Board of Education to have written grievance procedures which will result in encouraging employees to express themselves on subjects concerning condition of employment, in fostering a better understanding of policies, and in ensuring all employees that their questions and concerns are considered fairly(,) and rapidly(,). (and without reprisals.) It is the expressed intent of the Board of Education that there shall be no reprisals or retaliation of any kind made, nor will any be tolerated, against any employee who exercises his or her rights under this policy. \"Grievance\" will mean any concern related to personnel (policies)~ (or) salary.,_ federal or state laws and regulations. or terms or conditions of employment raised by an employee. \"Employee\" will mean a person employed by the District under a written contract. The specific processes and provisions applicable to grievance procedures are outlined in the Grievances/Concerns/Complaints regulation. GBK-R. The Board of Education encourages an employee to resolve a grievance or any other issue through the chain of command process prescribed by this policy and regulation or by a negotiated agreement. Revised : Adopted: November 18, 1999 References: Board of Education Regulation GBK-R Legal Reference: AC.A. 6-17-208 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBK-R GRIEVANCE/CONCERNS/COMPLAINTS Purpose Some groups of employees are covered by grievance procedures defined in their respective negotiated agreement. For those employees not covered by a negotiated agreement the following process will apply. Communication and discussion can resolve the majority of questions and problems that cause difficulties between the employer and employee. When resolution is not reached rapidly, the employer and the staff member may proceed to effect resolution in writing as defined in this procedure. The purpose of the resolution procedures is to secure, at the lowest possible level, equitable solutions consistent with the legal standards of \"due process,\" to problems that may from time to time arise. The purpose is to (obtain better understanding of policies, to) encourage employees to express themselves more effectively on subjects concerning conditions of employment, and to ensure to all employees that their questions and problems are considered fairly, rapidly and without reprisals. Documents and Confidentiality All documents, communications and records dealing with the processing of a grievance will be filed separately from the personnel files of the participants and will be destroyed three years after the last official entry. All parties will hold the resolution proceedings in confidentiality at all levels. Normally, the resolution process should be conducted at times that do not interfere with the assigned duties. Process \"Grievance\" means any concern related to personnel policy, salary, federal or state laws(,) and regulations, or terms or conditions of employment, raised by an employee. \"Employee\" means a person employed by a school district under a written contract. The first step in the procedure is to seek an informal resolution between the employee and the immediate supervisor. If the grievance is not resolved at the informal phase, the grievance is to be committed to writing and sent to the applicable supervisor within five calendar days of the incident resulting in the grievance. The employee will immediately thereafter schedule a meeting with the appropriate supervisor to discuss the complaint and resolutions sought. The parties should act in good faith to expedite the process. .!J.,I m i\"s' z z ,m- (\") ::r:: ~ C\u0026gt; m V, !JI r\nz C C V, m \u0026gt; C\u0026gt; \"m' m\nIC m ::i 8 z ~ iz5 V, 0.... ,, ~.., m s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBK-R Upon request, the applicable supervisor will schedule a meeting with the grievant within five workdays of receipt of the written grievance. If the problem is not resolved in the meeting held with the supervisor, and the employee indicates a desire to pursue further, a written request must be submitted within five workdays for an appeal to the Office of the Superintendent or designee. Appeals The appeal will be heard in the Office of the SuperintendenUdesignee within ten workdays of the request for an appeal. An employee who has not been satisfied with the answer at the Superintendent's level may request that the grievance be submitted to the Board of Education. The request will include a written statement setting forth the issue(s) to be reviewed by the Board of Education and is to be addressed to the President of the Board c/o Superintendent's Office. Other Provisions An employee seeking to resolve a grievance as defined above is required to use the terms and conditions of their negotiated agreement for resolution of grievances. Employees not covered by a negotiated agreement are bound by the provisions of this policy. In either case, the responsibility for ensuring that the prescribed due process is adhered to and will not be circumvented is shared at all levels of the district, up to and including the Board of Education. Employees who have begun or who are considering initiating a grievance procedure either under the terms of this policy or under the terms of a negotiated agreement are prohibited from undertaking any action that seeks to circumvent the prescribed process. Specifically, employees are prohibited from conveying or causing the conveyance of information about their grievance to members of the Board of Education prior to completing the chain of command process prescribed by this policy or their negotiated agreement. Employees must be aware that receipt of such information by a member of the Board may be cause for that Board member to recuse him/herself from an employee grievance hearing. Likewise, members of the Board of Education, by definition of their role in the process, must refrain from any involvement in an employee grievance until the process formally reaches the Board as prescribed in this policy or a negotiated agreement. Members of the Board should always encourage an employee to resolve a grievance or any other issue through the chain of command process prescribed by this policy or by a negotiated agreement. Date: August 5, 2005 Legal Reference: Act 1357 of 2003 1 2 3 4 Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to the law as it existed prior to this session of the General Assembly. State of Arkansas 84th General Assembly Regular Session, 2003 Act 1357 of 2003 SENATE BILL 913 5 By: Senators Wilkins, Broadway 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 For An Act To Be Entitled AN ACT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CODE 6-17-208 TO PROVIDE FOR PROCEDURES TO THE GRIEVANCE LAW\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Subtitle AN ACT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CODE 6-17-208 TO PROVIDE FOR PROCEDURES TO THE GRIEVANCE LAW. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Arkansas Code 6-17-208 is amended to read as follows: 6-17-208. Grievance procedure. (a)(l) It is the public policy of the State of Arkansas that~ ill eaeh Each school district shall have a written grievance procedure which provides for an orderly method of resolving concerns raised by an employee at the lowest possible administrative level and in a clear and timely manner for both parties\n(B) All school employees shall have the right to file grievances and have those grievances heard. A group of employees who have the same grievance may file a group grievance. (2)(A) \"Grievance\" means any concern related to personnel pelieies er salary policy, salary, federal or state laws and regulations, or terms or conditions of employment, raised by an employee\nand (B) \"Employee\" means a person employed by a school district under a written contract. (b) ( 1) The grievance policy shall at least include the following lllll!llllllllllllll rnllllllllll 03082003LDH0835.JMB291 .!,I,' m :ID ~ zz ,m- (\") ::c ~ C) m U\u0026gt; !I' 8 z ~ iz5 U\u0026gt; 0 ~ .,, ~ ~ s As Engrossed: S3/27/03 1 provisions: 2 (A) A procedure for resolving the matter informally with 3 the employee's innnediate supervisor\n4 (B) A procedure to appeal in writing an unsatisfactorily 5 resolved grievance from the innnediate supervisor to the superintendent of 6 schools or his or her designee\n7 (C)(i) A procedure to appeal in writing an 8 unsatisfactorily resolved grievance from the superintendent or his or her 9 designee to the school board at the next regularly scheduled school board 10 meeting unless both parties have agreed to a different date. 11 (ii) The hearing shall be open or closed at the 12 discretion of the employee. S8913 13 (iii) If the hearing is open, the parent or guardian 14 of any student under the age of eighteen (18) years who gives testimony may 15 elect to have the student's testimony given in a closed session\nand 16 (D) The right of all parties to be represented by a person 17 of his or her own choosing, at least at the seheel beard le..,.el but not by a 18 member of a party's immediate family at any level of the procedure. 19 (2)(A) The determination by the principal, superintendent, or 20 their designees that the concern expressed by the employee is not a grievance 21 may be appealed to the school board for a final decision. 22 (B) At the hearing, the employee shall have an adequate 23 opportunity to present the grievanceT but no less than ninety (90) minutes, 24 and both parties shall have the opportunity to present and question 25 witnesses. 26 (c) The grievance policy shall be adopted in accordance with this 27 subchapter and other applicable policies of the district. 28 (d) There shall be no reprisals of any kind against any individual who 29 exercises his or her rights under this act. 30 (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring a school 31 district to enter into an agreement recognizing an organization for the 32 purpose of negotiating personnel policies, salaries, and educational matters 33 of mutual concern. 34 35 36 Isl Wilkins 2 APPROVED: 4/15/2003 03082003LDH0835.JMB291 DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 September 22, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.CA 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2005 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 8, 2005 for EYE are co~pidered intern teachers. ~tlf PREPARED BY: David E. Hartz, Senior Director of Human Resources ?' r\nz C C: \u0026lt;n m \u0026gt; c\n,\n,\n, m m .z~. . p g z ~ c5 z \u0026lt;n 0 -n \"'0 ~ ~ Personnel Changes Page2 September 22, 2005 NAME START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE ResignationsfTerminations Certified Employees Berryman, Sara Elementary I/ 8-9-00 Reason: Accepted another KING 8-5-05 position New Certified Employees Harrison, Lauren Reading Recovery/ 8-18-05 WAKEFIELD Jacob, Melissa Special Education (.5)/ 8-11-05 FOREST PARK Keogh, Ruth Reading Recovery/ 8-11-05 BOOKER Mitchell, Avis Elementary I/ 8-1-05 STEPHENS Stevenson, Carolyn Counselor/ 8-11-05 CHICOT SALARY CLASS 4-05 TCH925 6-10 TCH925 4-07 SPE925 4-18 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 4-13 TCH925 ResignationsfTerminations Non-Certified Employees Andrews, Robert Maintenance/ 3-9-05 49-07 Reason: Resigned without FACILITY SERVICES 8-22-05 MAINT notice Baggett, Emily CARE/ 8-21-03 1-03 Reason: Position Eliminated CARE 8-1-05 CARE Bealer, Dechandra Instructional Aide/ 10-11-04 33-09 Reason: None Given GIBBS 8-26-05 INA925 Bonds, Dorothy CARE/ 9-2-03 1-07 Reason: None Given CARE 8-1-05 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 38041 .00 46966.00 annual 45742.07 prorated 20175.50 53061 .00 30617.00 47284.00 29760.00 7.28 per hour 13070.00 7.89 per hour Personnel Changes Pagel September 22, 2005 .!=.,' z  z 0 .\u0026gt;.... START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL\n,o m NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY c3 ~ Broyles, Paris CARE/ 9-2-03 3-06 8.54 Reason: None Given CARE 8-1-05 CARE per hour Carbo, Haywood Custodian/ 8-23-04 31-07 17388.00 Reason: Health STEPHENS 8-19-05 CUS12 Carter, Noda CARE/ 2-3-03 1-03 7.28 Reason: None Given CARE 8-1-05 CARE per hour ~?-\u0026lt; u....i..O.... c:0 Dunlap, Linda CARE/ 8-23-01 3-08 8.85 c!!! mzcz, Reason: None Given CARE 8-1-05 CARE per hour .....\n,o :cm ~~ Eichelberger, Rita Instructional Aide/ 9-8-04 33-16 16109.00 ~~ Reason: Leaving the city BOOKER 9-1-05 INA925 ~.., - Haggans, Monica CARE/ 8-9-04 1-02 7.13 . z\n,o  Reason: None Given CARE 8-1-05 CARE per hour i\n'i~ :cm ..... po Harvell, Lola CARE/ 8-19-04 3-08 8.85 ~,...~..., m\ng Reason: None Given CARE 8-1-05 CARE per hour .-\n,a ~ ..... m UI zm Henry, Melanie Instructional Aide/ 1-6-03 16595.00 -,\n,o 33-17  \u0026lt; ~~ Reason: None Given BRADY 6-6-05 INA925 UI Hill, Carolyn CARE/ 8-15-95 1-12 8.68 Reason: None Given CARE 8-1-05 CARE per hour Hill, Rhonda CARE/ 9-15-03 1-06 7.74 !I' Reason: None Given CARE 8-1-03 CARE per hour  z C C: Jones, Emma CARE/ 4-23-02 1-06 7.74 UI m Reason: None Given CARE 8-1-05 CARE per hour  C,\n,o m m ii: Jones 111, William CARE/ 9-2-03 3-06 8 54 m z.... . Reason: None Given CARE 8-1-05 CARE per hour Logan, Ira Nurses/ 11-03-04 52-08 33528.00 Reason: Accepted another FRANKLIN 6-06-05 NURSES p C position 0 z ..... c5 Madden, Andrea Child Nutrition/ 9-27-04 7-01 11050.00 z UI Reason: None Given WILLIAMS 6-6-05 FSH650 .0.... ,, jg McKinney, Mary Instructional Aide/ 8-11-04 33-16 16109.00 ..., m Reason: None Given OTTER CREEK 9-16-05 INA925 ~ Personnel Changes Page4 September 22, 2005 NAME Moser, Matthew Reason: Resigned without notice Perry, Mary Reason: None Given Reed, Kelly Reason: None Given Roberson, Shannon Reason: Resigned without notice Robinson, Kamesha Reason: None Given Shelton, Annie Reason: None Given Smith, Mary Reason: Retired Vick, Jo Reason: None Given Woods, Andrea Reason: None Given Bailey, Robbie Burgess, Leonard Burris, Tammy START DATE/ POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Security Officer/ 1-4-05 MCCLELLAN 8-16-05 Instructional Aide/ 10-5-90 WILLIAMS 8-25-05 CARE/ 8-30-04 CARE 8-1-05 Instructional Aide/ 8-11-04 JEFFERSON 8-10-05 CARE/ 1-24-05 CARE 8-1-05 CARE/ 4-7-03 CARE 8-1-05 Custodian/ 4-1-74 ROCKEFELLER 8-25-05 CARE/ 8-15-03 CARE 8-1-05 Bus Driver/ 8-14-00 TRANSPORTATION 8-16-05 New Non-Certified Employees Child Nutrition/ 8-17-05 FOREST PARK Bus Driver/ 8-17-05 TRANSPORTATION Instructional Aide/ 8-16-05 FULBRIGHT SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 36-10 15463.00 SOFR9 33-13 14735.00 INA925 3-17 10.36 CARE per hour 33-13 14735.00 INA925 2-03 7.85 CARE per hour 1-05 7.56 CARE per hour 31-20 25632.00 CUS12 1-07 7.89 CARE per hour 3-09 15316.00 BUSDRV 3-01 9350.00 FSH550 2-01 9481 .00 BUSDRV 33-09 13070.00 INA925 annual 12858.00 prorated Personnel Changes Page5 September 22, 2005 !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z n ,\u0026gt;- START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL\n,, m NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY\n:g ~ Cobb, Helen Secretary/ 8-22-05 39-12 25632.00 TERRY CLK10 annual 23864.28 prorated Davis, Ebony CARE/ 9-6-05 3-03 8.06 CARE CARE per hour\n!:5 ?\u0026lt; u,n Fields, Janice CARE/ .... ,- 8-19-05 1-08 8.05 c:0 C!!! CARE CARE per hour mz ZC) \"\"'\n,, :cm Ghant, Natalyn CARE/ 8-19-05 3-05 8.38 ! f\n~~ CARE CARE per hour ~ Green, Michael Security Officer/ 9-2-05 36-10 15463.00 .., \u0026gt;. z- OTTER CREEK SOFR9 annual\n,,\u0026gt; i5 ~ 14358.50 :cm .... II\" prorated ~,-~.., m\n:g Griffith, Keysha CARE/ 8-29-05 3-17 10.36 ~~ CARE CARE per hour mui zm --\u0026lt;\n,J \u0026gt;\u0026lt; ~~ Harris, Jacqueline Instructional Aide/ 8-17-05 33-06 11946.00 U) FULBRIGHT IN925 annual 11687.71 prorated Harrison, Jami CARE/ 8-19-05 1-08 8.85 !%1 CARE CARE per hour r\nz C C: Harton, Lanna Instructional Aide/ 8-16-05 33-09 13070.00 U) m \u0026gt; FULBRIGHT INA925 annual C)\n,, m 12858.00 m I: prorated m .z.. . Hearn, Tonya CARE/ 8-29-05 2-04 8.01 CARE CARE per hour Occupational 8-18-05 47976.00 f) Hill, Kyla 60-12 C 0 Therapist/ AN925 annual z ~ SPECIAL PROGRAMS 46762.62 ~ prorated z U) .0... ,,\n,, .0. , m ~ Personnel Changes Page 6 September 22, 2005 NAME Hunter, Kourtney Johnson, Adelras Johnson, Charles Johnson, Helen Johnson, Nikol Jones, Millie Kelley, Dorothy Lewis, Kimberly Leblanc, Emmitt Long, Carmen Marion, Rose START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Instructional Aide/ 8-16-05 CHICOT Instructional Aide/ BRADY 8-15-05 Instructional Aide/ 8-22-05 CHICOT Child Nutrition/ 8-17-05 KING Instructional Aide/ 8-18-05 FULBRIGHT CARE/ 8-19-05 CARE Instructional Aide/ 8-18-05 MABEL VALE ELEMENTARY Instructional Aide/ 9-6-05 BRADY CARE/ 8-19-05 CARE Occupational 8-16-05 TherapisV SPECIAL PROGRAMS CARE/ 8-19-05 CARE SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 33-04 11253.00 INA925 annual 11070.52 prorated 33-16 16109.00 INA925 annual 15934.85 prorated 33-16 16109.00 INA925 annual 15934.85 prorated 3-01 9350.00 FSH550 33-14 15179.00 INA925 annual 14766.76 prorated 2-13 9.41 CARE per hour 33-09 13070.00 INA925 annual 12716.76 prorated 33-17 16595.00 INA925 annual 15070.05 prorated 1-03 7.85 CARE per hour 60-12 47976.00 AN925 annual 47226.38 prorated 3-09 9.00 CARE per hour Personnel Changes Page7 September 22, 2005 !=' \"Tl z \u0026gt;z n ,- START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL\na m NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY c3 ~ McDonald, Gladys CARE/ 8-29-05 3-06 8.54 CARE CARE per hour Mosby, Jimmy Instructional Aide/ 8-11-05 33-04 11253.00 Washington INA925 Pearson, Rosalyn CARE/ 8-29-05 2-05 8.18 CARE CARE per hour ~?\u0026lt; u,n Powell, Lisa Instructional Aide/ 8-18-05 33-03 10934.00 .... ,- c:O O!!! BRADY INA925 annual mz zc, 10638.49 .....\na :Cm prorated ~~ ~~ Reed.Shonda CARE/ 8-19-05 1-05 7.56 ?\u0026lt; CARE CARE per hour \"Tl \u0026gt;. z-\na\u0026gt; Rose, Clayton CARE/ 8-19-05 2-01 7.55 i5 ~ :cm ..... QO CARE CARE per hour ~ ~ ,- .., m c3 Rose, Jason CARE/ 8-19-05 2-01 7.55 ,..\na ~ .... CARE CARE per hour mu, zm .....\na \u0026gt;\u0026lt; ~~ \"' Saine, Liltiunna CARE/ 8-19-05 2-08 8.64 CARE CARE per hour Shelton, Sharon Instructional Aide/ 8-19-05 33-16 16109.00 FAIR PARK INA925 annual !JI 15586.55 r\nz prorated 0 C: \"m' \u0026gt; Sims, Katina CARE/ 8-29-05 2-03 7.85 C)\na CARE CARE per hour m m s: m .z... . Sims, Lakisha Instructional Aide/ 8-19-05 33-16 16109.00 MEADOWCLIFF INA925 annual 15586.55 p prorated 8 z Sitton, Tanya Occupational 9-9-05 60-07 41328.00 ~ i5 Therapist/ AN925 annual z \"' 0 SPECIAL PROGRAMS 37023.00 .\".T,l prorated\na .0. , m\nPersonnel Changes Pages September 22, 2005 NAME Smith, Beverly Spearmon, Kimberly Stewart, Dale Taylor, Katherine Thomas, Arik Thomas, Lavette Tippitt, Sharella Williams, Keena Wingfield, Jennifer Wright, Lona START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CARE/ 9-2-05 CARE Instructional Aide/ 8-18-05 BRADY Custodian/ CHICOT 8-23-05 Instructional Aide/ 8-19-05 MEADOWCLIFF CARE/ 8-19-05 CARE CARE/ 8-19-05 CARE CARE/ CARE 8-19-05 CARE/ CARE 8-19-05 Occupational Therapist/ 8-29-05 SPECIAL PROGRAMS CARE/ CARE 8-19-05 SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 2-05 8.18 CARE per hour 33-07 12307.00 INA925 annual 11974.38 prorated 31-01 14532.00 annual 12305.82 prorated 33-04 11253.00 INA925 annual 10888.04 prorated 2-08 8.64 CARE per hour 3-09 9.00 CARE per hour 2-02 7.70 CARE per hour 1-06 8.33 CARE per hour 60-05 38928.00 AN925 annual 36495.00 prorated 1-08 8.05 CARE per hour DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 September 22, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of Assistant Principal for Southwest Middle BACKGROUND: To provide leadership to students and staff of Southwest Middle. RATIONALE: To fill the position being vacated by Andrew Bennett. FUNDING: District Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Mr. David Bernard, to the position of Assistant Principal at Southwest. Mr. Bernard's resume and a job description are attached for your review. J.)l-~' PREPARED BY: David E. Hartz, Senior Director of Human Resources !\" i\nz 0 C: (JI m ~\n,\n, m m :I: m ~ 8 z ?\niz5 (JI .0. , -0 ~  I 1  I I ,,, ,: I I. ,, 'H il OB.JECTIVE A challenging administrative position in a growth-oriented school district. EDUCATION MED SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Wilmington College B.S. HEAL TH \u0026amp; PHYSICAL EDU CA TIO Delaware State University NCATE Accredited School Praxis I Taken and Passed Graduated Magna Cum Laude 2002-04 New Castle, Deluwure 1998-200 I Dover, Delmwr\u0026lt;' CORRESPO DENCE SUB-COURSE, MP1004 CIVIL DISTURBA CE PLA 'I G The Army Institute for Professional Development MAJOR: PHYSICAL EDUCATION Southwestern Christian College MAJOR: SOCIOLOGY l nfrersity ufSowhwestern Louisianu L11f, 11 , 1/(' I II/' '\"'''' F:MPLOYMENT Garland Alternative Learning Center Little Ruck Schuul District Li11le Rock. Arku11sus Taught Physical Education 6-8 Grade Acting Assistant Administrator (4 th marking period 2005 School Year) McClellan Magnet High School Little Ruck School District Little Ruck. Arka11sas Assistant Varsity Football Coach Offensive Line/Linebacker Coach Immaculate Conception Catholic School 7000 JFK Blvd-North Little Ruck. AR 72116 (501) 1135-077 I Taught Physical Education Grades K-8, Head Football Coach SUMMER SCHOOL HEALTH TEACHER Caesur Rudney High Schou! Cuesar Rudney School District Taught 9th Grade Health HEAD SOFTBALL COACH Fred Fifer J1J Middle Schou! Cuesur Rudney School District Februar~ 2005-Prcsent March 2005-Present July 2004-February 2005 Sl 1MMER 2003 Camden, Delaware Fm. 2004-MA Y 2004 Cu111cle11. Delmn1re Responsible for designing practices, supervising assistant coache . developing student-athletes ph: ically. mentally. and socially. :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; e..n.. ,n.. . c:O O!!? mz Zc, \"\"'::a :Cm ~~ ~~ !X'  z 0 C: en m \u0026gt; C) :,:, m m ~ z --\u0026lt; 8 z ~ ~z en 0.. , \"D ~ \"D m ~ HF.AD FOOTBALL COAC\"II Freel Filer 111 Middle School ( 'aesur Rod11ey Schou/ Disrricr Mi\\ Y 2003-M,\\ Y 2004 Camden, Delaware Responsible for designing practices. supervising assistant coaches. developing student-athletes physically. mentally. and socially. ASSIST A T GIRLS' BASKETBALL COACH Fred Fifer IJJ Middle School Caesar Rodney School Districr ASSIST A T SOFTBALL COACH Fred Fifer III Middle School Cuesar Rodney School District Hitting and infield coach HEALTH \u0026amp; PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER Fred Fifer IJJ Middle School Caesar Rodney School District JAN. 200 I -MAY 2004 Camden, Delawure OCT. 200 I -FEB. 2004 Camden, Delaware JUL. 2001-M/\\Y 2004 Camden, Delaware Responsible for teaching 61 \" grade Life Skills and Physical Education. Developed the school's Peer Leader Program. Served on the District's Developmental Arts Council, which dealt with curriculum development and installation in the District. Developed the District's 61 Grade Health Curriculum. Helped develop the school's Adult Mentoring Program and responsible for the planning and implementation of the school's Red Ribbon Week Program. Served as Vice-President for Health from 2002-2003 and Vice-President for Sport during 2004 for the state of Delaware's Professional Health \u0026amp; Physical Education organization. ASSIST A T VARSITY FOOTBALL COACH Milford High School Milford School District Offensive. Defensive Line Coach J u . 2001-M,'\\Y 2003 Milford. Delall'are SOFTBAl,I, I NSTRl lCTOR De/u,rttn! State L,'11iPersi1_, , \\\"utionul ro11th Sports l'rogn1111 (l'ffSI') Responsible for teaching softba ll to students ages 8- 18 . STUDENT ACCOUNTS CUSTOMER SERVICE Delm1'tlre Stale Universiry Sl v1\"11.R 2001 Don!r. DC'lmrure MAY 1998-JAN. 2001 Dover. Delaware tudent worker responsible for third party billing. registration. and student billing inquiries. SOFTBALL STATISTICIAN Deluware Stale University Responsible for taking statistics during NCAA softball games. ASSISTANT VARSITY FOOTBALL COACH Smyrna High School Smyrna School District Defensive Line/Running Backs Coach H EAD FOOTBALL COACH East Anchorage High School Anchorage School District AUG. 1999-MA Y 2000 Dover, Delaware JUL. 1998-MA Y 1999 Smyrna, Delm1are J A . 1996-FU~. 1997 Anchorage. Alaska Responsible for the school's 3 level football program (freshman. junior varsi~ \u0026amp; varsit~) and supervised 7 assistant coaches. BRANCH MA 'AGER OCT. 1991-Fl ll. 1997 Boys \u0026amp; Girls Clubs of Greater Anchorage ,.J nchornge. Alo  Managed Branch Operations  Recruitment/Training of Professional and Volunteer Staff  Development of Branch Level Budget  Development and Implementation of Branch Level Fund-raiser  De\\'clopment of Regional Award Winning Program ( ' treet Beat \u0026amp; In the Field) ~ ?\u0026lt; .,,n -4r c:0 0111 mz ~~ :Z:m ii .?.\u0026lt;,\n,-z\n::o\u0026gt; ci ~ :z:m .... \"\" ~~ r-c m\n:3 r::o ~ .... mu, zm -\u0026lt;::O ~~ -\u0026lt;m Ill ASSIST.\\NT FOOTBALL COACH East Anchorage High Schuol . /11choraKe School District Defensive Linc Coach SR. INSTRUCTOR M,,, 1995-L\\ 1\\. 19% MA v 1990-Ocr. I 991 Buys and Girls Clubs uf Greater A11chora1-\ne Anchorage. Alaska Responsible for organizing. planning. and implementing activities for the clubs drop in program. (l\\ges 8-1 8) FIRE SUPPORT SPECIALIST (13F) United States Army MAY 1987-FEH. 1990 Plotted and located enemy targets by using maps. compasses. and binoculars Called and adjusted fire on targets PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHlPS ational Health \u0026amp; Fitness Association National Association for Sport and Physical Education American Alliance for Health, Physical Education. Recreation and Dance Kappa Delta Pi. International Educational Honor Society  National Education Association CERT\\FlCATIO S Delaware K-12 Teacher of Physical Education Delaware K-12 Teacher of Health Education Delaware Secondary Administrator Dela,,are Middle Level Teacher Arkansas Physical Education/Wellness/LEI (P-8 \u0026amp; 7-12) Arkansas Building Administrator (312: grades P-8 \u0026amp; 313: grades 7-12) Certified CPR/First AID Instructor (Certified through EM afet: erv1ces) Anchoruge. Alaska PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 15, 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year. POSITION: Assistant Principal - Southwest Middle School QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Master's degree or higher with eligibility for Arkansas certification as an Elementary/Middle School Assistant Principal. 2. At least three (3) years successful experience as a teacher and/or administrator in an urban school district. 3. Knowledge of the District's desegregation plan. 4. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 5. Knowledge of high school curriculum\nof current educational theory and practice\nof cultural, socioeconomic, ethnic, and gender differences. 6. The ability to apply this knowledge when working with faculty, students, parents, administrators, community members, and support staff to design school programs and curriculum. 7. Commitment to staff development demonstrated by a willingness to initiate, participate in, monitor, and maintain in-service activities. 8. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 9. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision making. 10. Evidence of successful experience in dealing with students' problems. 11. Strong interpersonal skills. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. JOB GOAL: To relieve the Principal of such impediments as prevents him/her from fulfilling chief responsibilities of promoting the educational well-being of each student in the school, and to demonstrate the capacity to perform the responsibilities of an assistant principal. !.=.,' z  z n \u0026gt; r- Rl c8 ~ !%' ~ C C: \"m' ~\n,:, m m E .zm.. f\" 8 z ~ iz5 \"' .0... ,, ~.., m ~ ACCOUNT ABILITY: Reports Directly to the Principal ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS/ RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Assists the Principal in the management of his/her school, and serves as an advisor to the Principal, Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools and Associate Superintendent on matters pertaining to administration and program implementation in that school.  2. Serves on such advisory groups and task forces as assigned by the Principal, Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools and Associate Superintendent. 3. Assists with the process whereby school-level educational programs needs are identified. Alerts the Principal, Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Schools and Associate Superintendent regarding needed logistical and consultative support in order to accomplish this task. 4. Works with staff and patrons to determine educational program priorities and goals for his/her school. 5. Assists in the development of educational programs and the plan for implementing them on the school level. 6. Assumes responsibility for encouraging and involving community, staff and where appropriate, students in decision making about educational program development and implementation at the building level. 7. Assists the Principal in developing and conducting aggressive recruitment campaigns. 8. Cooperates in conducting safety inspections and safety drill activities. 9. Works with the Principal in the preparation of the student handbook. 10. Assists in the administration of school rules regarding attendance. 11 . Assists the Principal in the general administration of the school. 12. Assumes responsibility for coordinating custodial, transportation, cafeteria, and other responsibilities. 13. Supervises conduct within the school, and oversees disciplinary action. 14. Requisitions supplies and equipment, conducting inventories, maintain records, and checking on receipts of such materials. 15. Performs such other responsibilities as the principal may assign. SALARY AND TERMS: PA Yl 0 - Grade 65 - $40,116 - $70,728, Ten and one-half (10.5) month 210 days, plus benefit package NOTE: Precise placement within the salary range will be determined based upon education and experience. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: August 26, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND RESUMES/INQUIRES: David E. Hartz - Senior Director HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 501-447-1162 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. \u0026gt; z 0 c:: en m ~\nc Hl ii: m ~ f\u0026gt; g z ~ iz5 cn .0. , -0 ~ -0 s DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 September 22, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Rightsell Elementary School BACKGROUND: A complete executive summary report dated August 26, 2005, provided a detailed analysis of the enrollment and renovation estimates for Rightsell Elementary School. The official enrollment at Rightsell for the 2004-2005 school year was 262 students\nby comparison, the total enrollment as of August 26, 2005, was 190 students. In summary, the Rightsell facility is unable to meet current educational standards without extensive and costly repairs and renovations. In the spring of 2005, a committee of district administrative staff developed a plan to temporarily educate the students assigned to Rightsell at Badgett Elementary School so that renovation and remediation projects could proceed. After additional review, it was determined that sufficient numbers of vacant seats were available at other schools located near Rightsell, and the students were therefore relocated to Washington Elementary School. It should be noted that Washington Elementary School has a capacity of approximately 900. The total number of students now attending school at the Washington site is 821 : 631 Washington students and 190 Rightsell students. Meetings were held with Rightsell parents, community members, teachers and staff on June 28, 2005, and again on August 30, 2005. Rightsell parents have been assured that their children will continue to receive a high quality education this year, and in upcoming years in the LRSD. RATIONALE: The operation of low enrollment schools has been a concern in the District for several years. In May of 2000 the Board of Directors adopted Policy FBG--Closing of Schools, that allows for closure to be considered based on factors such as excessive cost of operation due to enrollment and excessive cost of renovation and repair due to the age !D  z 0 C CJ\u0026gt; m \u0026gt; C)\no m m I:: m ~ !\"' g z ~ c5 z CJ\u0026gt; .0. , \"ti ~ \"ti m ~ and physical condition of the facility. Schools in similar situations, such as Garland, Badgett, lsh, Fair Park (recently converted to the Early Childhood Center) and Mitchell, were closed because of low enrollment coupled with high operational and renovation costs. The detailed circumstances and conditions that lead the administration to make a recommendation to close Rightsell Elementary School at the conclusion of the 2005- 2006 school year were provided to you in an executive report attached to the August 26, 2005, edition of the Snapshot. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is not financially prudent to renovate Rightsell Elementary School. The administration recommends that Rightsell Elementary be closed and the students currently assigned to Rightsell Elementary at Washington be reassigned effective at the beginning of the 2006-07 school year. The closure of Rightsell will allow students to attend newer schools and will not negatively impact their education. The administration further recommends that the district work with the community to develop other options for utilizing this facility in the future. PREPARED BY: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: FBC CLOSING OF SCHOOLS A school will be considered for closure based on a recommendation from the administration to the Board of Education or the recommendation may originate from the Board. Consideration for closure will be based on the following factors: excessive cost of operation due to enrollment, excessive cost of renovation and repair due to the age and physical condition of the facility, inability of the district to deliver the required curriculum in the facility, and any applicable federal court orders. A decision to close a school will be made by the Board of Education. Prior to any decision to close a school, there will be open discussion of the prospect of closure with the community in which the school is located. A public announcement of the proposal to close a school will precede the closing date by at least twelve months, except in cases of extreme emergency. Adopted: May 25, 2000 \u0026gt;:\u0026lt;- \u0026gt;.\u0026lt; c-\u0026lt;n ,nc: O CCI\u0026gt; ~z -\u0026lt; Cl ::i::\n,o ~m ~! Zr \u0026gt; z C C: Cl\u0026gt; m ~\n,o m m !IC m ~ ~ \u0026gt; ~ 0 C: ~ !IC m z -\u0026lt; 8 z ?\nc5 z Cl\u0026gt; ..0.. ,, .e.,l m ~ RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY STUDENT ATTENDANCE ZONE ANALYSIS \u0026amp; REASSIGNMENT OPTIONS The Rightsell proposed attendance zone and reassignment analysis is depicted in the following tables: Students Who: (a) Reside in the Rightsell Attendance Zone, Pre-K - 4th Grade (b) Reside in Rightsell Attendance Zone and Attend Other Elementary Schools. (c) Attend Rightsell but do not live in Rightsell Attendance Zone (K thru 4) Currently 162 elementary-age students (Pre-K through 4th grade) live in the Rightsell Attendance Zone (see Attachment Table: A). Sixty nine (69) of these students presently attend another elementary school through choice options and would remain in their current school for the 2006-2007 school year (see Attachment Table: BJ. As of September 14, 2005, Rightsell Elementary School has a student population of 186\n28 of those students are in the 5th grade and will move into middle school for the 2006- 07 school year. The Washington Elementary School complex currently houses a total of 829 students\n186 Rightsell Elementary students and 643 students Washington Elementary School students. A total of 158 Pre-K through 4th grade students currently attend Rightsell Elementary School\n93 from the Rightsell attendance zone and 65 from out-of-zone. The sixty-five (65) students would be reassigned to their attendance zone schools for 2006-2007 school year (see Attachment Table: CJ. A total 162 students who reside in the Rightsell Attendance Zone would be impacted by the reassignments. Naturally, all students are provided choice options through magnet school placements, Transfer/ No Transportation {TNT) or Majority to Minority (M to M) transfers through established procedures provided by the Student Registration Office. With the majority of Rightsell students presently attending Washington Elementary, the disruption to students and parents should be minimal. The administration will recommend dividing the Rightsell Attendance Zone utilizing Wright Avenue / 1th Street as the zone boundary. This will result in thirty (30) students who reside north of Wright Avenue/ 17th Street to be assigned to King Elementary School\n132 students who reside south of Wright Avenue / 1 ih Street would be reassigned to Washington Elementary School. kU13dOHd :10 SNOllVNOO ':) Little Rock School District Rightsell Attendance Zone 2006 - 2007 Elementary Students Who Reside in the Rightsell Attendance Zone (P4 - 4th Grade) RIGHTSELL Grade Level Zone Blocks P4 K 1 2 434 1 2 1 435 2 1 1 448 3 2 1 449 3 8 2 450 1 0 1 454 1 3 3 455 1 2 5 456 3 6 6 464 4 4 2 Total 19 28 22 Table: A 1N3W33H~V 3S0 ONYl a 1N3WNHnorov 11x 0 2 1 6 7 5 2 5 5 33 3 2 1 3 4 3 4 4 0 5 26 \"'INIHV3H 1N3001S 'IX IHVW3H ~NISOl:\u0026gt; 'X 4 3 1 3 4 6 5 8 0 4 34 Total 9 8 13 27 18 21 22 20 24 162 1HOd3H 1111:\u0026gt;NVNl:I a Little Rock School District Rightsell Attendance Zone Study 2006-2007 Reside in Rightsell Attendance Zone and Attend Other Elementary Schools Rlghtsell Zone Current School Grade Level Total Blocks P4 K 1 2 3 4 FOREST PARK 1 1 FRANKLIN 1 1 KING 1 1 0434 MCDERMOTT 1 1 WASHINGTON 1 1 WILLIAMS 1 1 Subtotal 1 0 0 0 2 3 6 FAIR PARK 1 1 Home School 1 1 0435 JEFFERSON 1 1 KING 1 1 ROCKEFELLER 1 2 3 Subtotal 2 0 1 2 1 1 7 ALT AGENCY 1 1 BALE 1 1 GIBBS 1 1 0448 KING 1 1 STEPHENS 1 1 WASHINGTON 1 1 Subtotal 3 0 0 0 2 1 6 BALE 1 1 2 CARVER 1 1 0449 CRYSTAL HILL 1 1 1 3 FAIR PARK 3 3 GIBBS 1 1 Subtotal 3 0 1 2 1 3 10 CHICOT 1 1 0450 STEPHENS 1 1 WASHINGTON 1 1 Subtotal 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 CARVER 1 1 2 GIBBS 1 1 JEFFERSON 1 1 0454 KING 1 1 OUTSIDE DIST. 1 1 STEPHENS 1 1 WASHINGTON 1 1 Subtotal 1 2 0 2 1 2 8 BOOKER 2 1 3 GIBBS 1 1 JEFFERSON 1 1 0455 KING 1 1 ROCKEFELLER 1 1 2 4 WASHINGTON 1 1 Subtotal 1 0 2 2 2 4 11 BOOKER 2 2 CARVER 1 1 GIBBS 1 1 2 0456 KING 1 1 2 OUTSIDE DIST. 1 1 2 WASHINGTON 1 1 Subtotal 3 2 4 1 0 0 10 BOOKER 1 1 FAIR PARK 1 1 FRANKLIN 1 1 0464 KING 1 1 WASHINGTON 2 2 WILLIAMS 1 1 WOODRUFF 1 1 Subtotal 4 1 0 0 1 2 8 Grand Total 19 5 9 9 10 17 69 Table: B Little Rock School District Rightsell Study 2005-2006 Students Attending Rightsell not living in Rightsell Attendance Zone (K thru 4) Grade Attendance Zone School K 1 2 3 4 Total OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT 3 1 1 2 7 BALE 1 1 1 1 4 CLOVERDALE ELEM 1 1 1 3 FRANKLIN 2 1 3 GEYER SPRINGS 1 1 KING 1 2 2 5 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 1 1 ROCKEFELLER 5 3 4 1 2 15 - STEPHENS 1 2 3 TERRY 1 1 WASHINGTON 8 3 5 2 3 21 WATSON 1 1 Total 20 14 12 12 7 65 Table: C ..,, z \u0026gt; , z n ,\u0026gt;- ~ el ~ :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- \u0026gt;.\u0026lt; v...,. ,nc: O C v, mz Zc, \"\"'::a :Cm ~~ z2:!\n-a r ~ \u0026gt; ~ 0 C: ~ ~ zm .... p C 0 z ~ ~z V, ..0.., ,, .e.,: m ~ DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 September 22, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Land-use Agreement Little Rock School District/Little Rock Boys and Girls Club BACKGROUND: The 2000 millage program identified a need for additional parking at Woodruff Elementary School. Recently, the opportunity presented itself to partner with the Little Rock Boys and Girls Club to develop property owned by them to meet the parking needs of both the elementary school and Lamar Porter Baseball Field. RATIONALE: Negotiations between the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock Boys and Girls Club provided an agreement for the joint-use of property located on the southwest corner of Johnson and th Streets upon which a parking lot has been constructed according to current City standards. The parking lot will be available for use by both Woodruff Elementary School and the Little Rock Boys and Girls Club at Lamar Porter Baseball Field. The attached agreement provides for cost-sharing in the initial development of the property and a prorated share dealing with maintenance and upkeep for a period of 25 years beginning in 2005. FUNDING: Bond funds for this project were approved by the Board of Directors as a part of the 2000 millage appropriation. On-going maintenance and repairs will be funded by the Dedicated Millage Fund. ,\u0026gt;.\u0026lt;. .\u0026gt; \u0026lt; rn n .... re: 0 om mz Zc, \"\"'\nc :\u0026gt;::m ~f\n!!\nc rz - ~ \u0026gt; E 0 C: ~ ii: .mz.. . r\u0026gt; 0 0 z ?\n0z u, 0.. , \"ti i3 \"ti ~ RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Board of Directors approve the agreement with the Little Rock Boys and Girls Club as attached. PREPARED BY: Douglas Eaton, Director School Construction PARKING LOT LEASE, MAINTENANCE AND USE AGREEMENT THIS PARKING LOT LEASE, MAINTENANCE AND USE AGREEMENT (\"Lease\") is made and entered into this _ _ day of ____ , 2005 by and between the LITTLE ROCK BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, a non-profit corporation whose mailing address is 16 I 6 West Yd Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (the \"B\u0026amp;G Club~') and the LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, a State of Arkansas public school district, whose mailing address is 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (\"LRSD\"). WITNESS ETH: WHEREAS, B\u0026amp;G Club is the owner of certain real property located in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas on the  comer of ih and Johnson Streets (being approximately .25 acres, more or less) upon which a basic parking lot is located, said property being more particularly described on the site plan attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit \"A\" (the \"Parking Lot\")\nWHEREAS, the Parking Lot is located across the street from and in the immediate vicinity of the Lamar Porter Field, which is owned and operated by B\u0026amp;G Club, and across the street from and in the immediate vicinity of the campus of Woodruff Elementary School, which is owned and operated by LRSD\nWHEREAS, the Parking Lot has been recently paved by the B\u0026amp;G Club, but was not completed in full compliance with certain City of Little Rock Codes and Ordinances\nWHEREAS, the Parking Lot is primarily utilized by B\u0026amp;G Club during the summer months for sporting events at Lamar Porter Field, but is not used by B\u0026amp;G Club as frequently during the months commonly associated with the public school year\nWHEREAS, LRSD desires to make available more parking for its faculty , administration, employees, parents of students, and invitees\nwhich use would be primarily during school hours during the public school year and during certain evenings for meetings and events at Woodruff Elementary School\nWHEREAS, the parties hereto hereby recognize and acknowledge the benefits of sharing the use of the Parking Lot\nand WHEREAS, LRSD proposes to make certain upgrades, alterations, and modifications to the Parking Lot (as set forth below) and provide certain other consideration in exchange for the right to use the Parking Lot. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises set forth above and other good and valuable consideration, including the consideration recited hereinbelow, ~ .C\u0026gt;.. . 0 C ~ :I: zm ..... the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby expressly acknowledged by both of the parties hereto, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Lease shall be for a period of twenty-five (25) years, beginning on the date hereof, and expiring ______ , 2030. 2. RENT: As monetary rent for the use of the Parking Lot, LRSD shall pay to B\u0026amp;G Club as of the date hereof, in full in advance, Twenty-Five and No/ 100 Dollars ($25.00), representing a rental amount of One and No/100 Dollars ($1.00) per year during the Term hereof (the \"Monetary Consideration\"). The Monetary Consideration shall be in addition to the Infrastructure Consideration, as such term is defined hereinafter. In addition to the Monetary Consideration given by LRSD for the use of the Parking Lot, LRSD also agrees to make certain \"Infrastructure Improvements\" (as such term is defined hereinafter) to the Parking Lot. The monetary value of the Infrastructure Improvements, as well as the planning, design, and labor therefore shall be known as the \"Infrastructure Consideration,\" 3. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. LRSD agrees to plan, design, perform, and be responsible for the costs of labor and materials to install the following improvements at the Parking Lot: - striping for parking spaces (approximately 32 spaces total)\n- curbing\n- landscaping\n- fencing along the western boundary of the Parking Lot\n- concrete drive area\n- ADA curb-cuts\nand - drainage. All such improvements to the Parking Lot as above described are general!) identified on the site plan attached hereto and incorporated herein by thi referenc~ a~ Exhibit\" A\" (the \"Infrastructure Improvements\"). B\u0026amp;G Club hereby expressly consents to LRSD placing appropriate, cuswmar~ parking lot signage on the Parking Lot to indicate that the Parking Lot ma) be util izcu by LRSD, its faculty , administration, employees , parents of students, and invitee~ . LRSD agrees to complete the installation of the Infrastructure Improvements within two hundred seventy (270) days after any and all approvals of such Infrastructure Improvements are obtained from the City of Little Rock, Arkansas . 2 4. MAINTENANCE. Once the Infrastructure Improvements are made and the Parking Lot becomes usable by the parties hereto, B\u0026amp;G Club and LRSD agree that each shall be equally responsible (on a 50/50 basis) for the costs, labor, and materials necessary to maintain and repair the Parking Lot on a day-to-day basis, including, but not limited to, such items as re-striping, re-surfacing, repairs to potholes or cracks, and repairs to curbing, drainage, fencing, or lighting\nprovided, however, any typical clean up or repair of damage to the Parking Lot which is caused by the sole and direct actions of the users of the Parking Lot associated with either B\u0026amp;G Club or LRSD shall be borne by B\u0026amp;G Club or LRSD, as the case may be [for example, if cans, bottles, or other trash are left on the Parking Lot following an event at which invitees of either B\u0026amp;G Club or LRSD are using the Parking Lot, B\u0026amp;G Club or LRSD, as the case may be, shall be responsible for the clean up of the Parking Lot, or, during any such event, damage is caused to a portion of the Parking Lot by the invitees of either B\u0026amp;G Club or LRSD, B\u0026amp;G Club or LRSD, as the case may be, shall be responsible for the necessary repairs or replacements for the damage caused). 5. COMMON USE OF PARKING LOT. The parties hereto hereby expressly acknowledge and agree that each party shall have the right of use of the Parking Lot, and that neither party's use shall be exclusive\nprovided, however, each party recognizes, acknowledges, and agrees that B\u0026amp;G Club will most often utilize the Parking Lot during summer months for sporting events held at Lamar Porter Field and LRSD will most often utilize the Parking Lot during public school year months for dayto- day school classes and events. Each party hereto agrees to cooperate in good faith so as to avoid interference with the other party's use of the Parking Lot during the expected times of use by such other party. In the case of unexpected events and the need for use of the Parking Lot by one or the other party beyond such expected uses as set forth herein, the party planning to use the Parking Lot shall use its best, reasonable, good faith efforts to provide advance notice to the other party. 6. UTILITIES. B\u0026amp;G Club shall be responsible for the prompt and full payment, as and when due, of any and all utilities charged to the Parking Lot, including but not limited to electricity and lighting. 7. TAXES. B\u0026amp;G Club shall pay all ad valorem taxes, assessments and other taxes of any kind whatsoever due to improvement districts or governmental bodies which may be levied, assessed or charged against the Parking Lot, or any improvements at any time situated thereon. 8. WARRANTIES OF TITLE. B\u0026amp;G Club hereby warrants and covenants with and unto LRSD that it has an absolute and indefeasible title to the Parking Lot, and that B\u0026amp;G Club will, during the Term hereof and the full performance by LRSD of LRSD 's obligations and covenants hereunder, defend the same and hold harmless LRSD against the lawful claims of any and all persons whomsoever with respect to the 3 ~?\u0026lt; U...I. ,n... C: 0 CUI mz ~~ :Cm ~~ ~=! r g z ~ iz3 UI .0... ,, jg ~ title thereto. Upon performance of its obligations hereunder, LRSD will be entitled to the quiet enjoyment of the Parking Lot, subject only to B\u0026amp;G Club's rights to use the Parking Lot in accordance with the terms hereof. 9. SIGNS AND ADVERTISING. Any sign displayed on any part of the outside of any improvement shall be for identification only, and not in the nature of advertising. 10. INSURANCE\nINDEMNITY AGAINST DAMAGE OR INJURY. LRSD agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless B\u0026amp;G Club against any claim, expense, loss or liability to the extent the same is caused by the direct action or inaction of LRSD, LRSD's agents, servants, employees, faculty, administration, students, parents of students, and invitees. B\u0026amp; G Club agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless LRSD against any claim, expense, loss or liability to the extent the same is caused by the direct action or inaction of B\u0026amp;G Club, B\u0026amp;G Club's agents, servants, employees, coaches , administration, B\u0026amp;G Club members , parents of B\u0026amp;G Club members, and invitees. B\u0026amp;G Club agrees to keep and maintain at all times during the term hereof, in full force and effect insurance against third party liability by reason of B\u0026amp;G Club's use or occupancy of the Parking Lot with an aggregate limit of liability thereunder of not less than $1,500,000.00, and B\u0026amp;G Club shall require that LRSD be named an additional insured in such policies, and shall be entitled to receive thirty (30) days prior written notice of any cancellation or non-renewal of such policy. 11. DEFAULT. LRSD or B\u0026amp;G Club shall be in default under the provi-sions of this Lease upon LRSD's or B\u0026amp;G Club's failure to keep or perform any of the covenants on such party's part herein to be kept or performed and such failure continues more than sixty (60) days after notice thereof given by the non-breaching party to the breaching party outlining the specific default by the breaching party and the actions necessary to cure said default\nprovided, however, that if the default is not reasonably susceptible of cure within said sixty (60) days, such breaching party will not be in default if within said sixty (60) days period it commences and continuously and diligently pursues a cure of such default until cured. 12. REMEDIES IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT. In the event of a default by either party hereto, during the term hereof, such non-breaching party may, at it's option, declare this Lease thereupon terminated by written notice to the other party. 13. WAIVER OF SUBROGATIO . B\u0026amp;G Club and LRSD and all parties claiming under them hereby mutually release and discharge each other from all claims and liabilities covered by insurance in connection with the Parking Lot, regardles of the cause of the damage or loss. 4 14. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. LRSD shall not assign this Lease, nor sublet the Parking Lot or any part thereof, without the prior written consent of B\u0026amp;G Club. which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 15. CONDEMNATION. In the event all or any part of the Parking Lot should be subjected to eminent domain proceedings, and if pursuant thereto an amount of the Parking Lot shall be condemned so as to render the residue inadequate for LRSD 's purposes as herein set forth, LRSD shall have the option to terminate and cancel this Lease by giving written notice of such intention to B\u0026amp;G Club. If any such taking shall not render the residue of the Parking Lot wholly inadequate for LRSD  s purposes as herein set forth, LRSD's rentals hereunder shall be reduced in the proportion which the value of the Parking Lot taken bears to the whole value of the Parking Lot with any improvements thereon. In any such condemnation proceedings , all damages allocable to full fee simple ownership of the Parking Lot shall be payable to B\u0026amp;G Club, and any damages for loss of leasehold interest, including the unamortized portion of the value involved in such condemnation of any non-removable improvement or fixture placed on the Parking Lot by LRSD with B\u0026amp;G Club's approval, shall be payable to LRSD to the extent same would have been amortized over the term hereof. 16. BINDING EFFECT. This Lease shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective successors, legal representatives, and assigns, except as expressly limited otherwise herein. 17. TIME OF ESSENCE. The time of the making of the payments and of the keeping of the covenants herein are of the essence of this agreement and the parties hereto so agree. 18. NOTICES. Any notice called for or permitted under the terms hereof may be given in writing and sent by ordinary mail, a reputable overnight courier, to the last address of the party to whom the notice is to be given, as designated by such party in writing. The parties hereto hereby establish their notice addresses, as of the date hereof. as the addresses set forth in the introductory paragraph hereof. 19. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE. This Lease shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Arkansas. The parties hereto hereby expressly acknowledge and agree that the courts of Pulaski County, Arkansas shall be the proper venue for any dispute arising hereunder . 20. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL. If, during the Term hereof, B\u0026amp;G Club ,h.tll receive a written, bona fide offer to purchase the Parking Lot from a third party bona fide purchaser, which offer B\u0026amp;G Club would otherwise be willing to accept (a \"Third Party Offer .. ). B\u0026amp;G Club shall notify LRSD in writing of such Third Party Offer, including a copy of th1.: Tlurd Party Offer (the \"B\u0026amp;G Club Notice\"). LRSD shall have the right of first refusal to purchase the Parking Lot for a period of twenty (20) days from the date of actual receipt ofthe.B\u0026amp;G Club Notice on the same terms as set forth in the Third Party Offer (\"'Right of First Refusal\"). 1 f LRSD elects to exercise its Right offirst Refusal during such twenty (20) day period, LRSD 5 ~ \u0026gt; .C.. . 0 C ~ :I: mz -\u0026lt; shall notify B\u0026amp;G Club in writing that LRSD will purchase the Parking Lot on the same terms as set fo rth in the Third Party Offer. In the event that LRSD shall fail to exercise its Right of First Refusal within such twenty (20) day period following LRSD's actual receipt of the B\u0026amp;G Club Notice. the Right ofFirst Refusal shall automatically expire at the conclusion of such twenty (20) day period. LRSD's failure to exercise its Right of First Refusal shall not affect its lease rights hereunder. (Signatures Conmined on Following Page.) 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands below on the day and year first above written. LITTLE ROCK BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, a nonprofit corporation Title: clu LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public school district By: (Print name) (Signature) Title: 7 ~  C ls C ~ :mI: .z. . NOl!S: 1. AU. NEW PARl\u0026lt;INO AAAS AN\u0026gt; Dfl\\B ARE. DElJNEAlE\u0026gt; Vl11H CURB Nm CUTltR.. 2. DCISllNO PAVEMENT, CURBS Nm WALKS NOT 'THIN PUN PA~ ARE.\u0026gt;S SH\u0026lt;\u0026gt;-. SHALL BE REMO'.fD. lHE ARE.A DRESSED Vl11H 1tlPS0L AND SEEDED OR SOOOED M OH:CTm ON PLAN. SPEQAL CONSTRUCTION NOlE: ACCESS 10 1l PARl\u0026lt;ltC LOT SHALL BE OPEN Nm UNOBSTRUCTED AT n END Of EAat W0AI\u0026lt; DAY. AA.AS Of Nf'f PAVEMENT REMOVAL OR EXCAVATION SHALL BE PROPR.Y BARRICADED~ INAO\\RTENT ENlRY BY 'tatCU:S lRA~ AL.ONO EmiER 7TH STREET OR JOtHiON SfflEET OR YflHIN lHE PARl\u0026lt;ltC LOT. _.,. .-..r.. .~,.,,: ..: ~-.-~-,-- ..rd.L -\"~- =.......-...~. , .. LMI .... AIIIJllllla EXHIBIT A 2 WIOTMOltANMil.SWALE WITH 2: 1 SIOE 9'-0PES CUT TO EXISTING ORAJ.IAG otTCH TOSOUTHWE5l VEAIFV ONNERSMIP OR EASEJ.aEHT PAIOA TO COH9TIUX:1'0H The Parking Lot PROPOSED LEGfNP _,. CURI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY LAMAR PARKING F-,...,.F--l SITE PLAN -- g .......... lml . 41.l.l . anna-. DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 September 22, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District receives donations from businesses and individuals on a regular basis. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District that donations are not formally accepted until they are approved by the Board of Directors. RATIONALE: District policy states that, in order to maintain the centralized fixed asset property accounting system, all property donation requests are forwarded to the Director of Procurement. The Procurement Department forwards the requests, along with the appropriate recommendations, to the Board of Directors for acceptance and approval. In order for proper recognition and appreciation to be conveyed to the donor, donor's name and current mailing address should be included in the donation memo. FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached donation requests be approved and accepted in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. PREPARED BY: ~rral Paradis, Director of Procurement v~:en Caraway, Fixed Asset Property Manager ~ .C\u0026gt;. . 0 C ~ :I: z.m. . DONATIONS School/Department Item Donor Central High School $100.00 cash to be Jahn M. Oraha used to purchase tee-shirts Central High School $300.00 cash to the Mr. Gregg Heming on Cheerleading squad behalf of The Peabody Little Rock Chicot Elementary A check in the amount Ms. Stella Phillips School of $125.00 to be used for school uniforms Chicot Elementary A check in the amount UALR Children International School of $1,000.00 to be used for playground enhancement Mabelvale Elementary Contribution of goods and Johnson Controls, Inc. in School services in the amount of conjunction with the $27,075.00 over a period Performance Contract with of time. Goods and the District and funded services valued at through Qualified Zone approximately $5,668.00 Academy Bonds to be contributed during 2005-06 school year. Mann Arts/Science $300.00 cash for general Dr. Stephanie F. Gardner Magnet Middle School support of the school Pulaski Heights $500.00 cash to be used The Hillcrest Residents Elementary School to purchase school Association in honor of supplies for needy Mr. Robin Borne', retiring families Board member Pulaski Heights Wrought iron fence, Pulaski Heights PT A Elementary School valued at $21,000.00, surrounding the playground on the Colonial Court and Pine Street sides. Western Hills Student violin valued Ms. Beth Hill Elementary School $200.00 to be used by students School/Department LRSD Adult Education Center $750.00 Literacy grant to be used to purchase basic literacy textbooks and materials Donor Ms. Renita Thompson, Personnel Manager, Wal-Mart Store #126 \u0026gt;:\u0026lt;- .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; u..,.C..\"..\u0026gt;. c:O CUI mz zc\n, ...\na \"'m i! zr  ..itt{e 1wck Centra{ :f{itJli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 Plione 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 8/9/2005 - - - -- TO: DARR.!\\L PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~~ SUBJECT: DONATION Jahn M. Oraha of 3011 W. Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205, graciously donated $100 to our school for tee-shirts. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Litt{e 'Rock Centra{ Jfi/Jli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutli 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .. 'Arkansas 72202 'Pfione 501-447-1400 jax 501-447-1401 DATE: 8/9/2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, P~NCIP AL J}V,,1.,, L./.J.t{j_J~.1 SUBJECT: DONATION Gregg Herning on behalf of The Peabody Little Rock at Three Statehouse Plaza, Little Rock, AR 72201, generously donated $300 to our cheerleaders. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. i .\n. -. ~ . .' .....~.. ... ,.~ : . ~ . CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Procuremecr ctor From: Jane Harkey, Principal Date: August 9, 2005 Re: Donation ./ Chicot has received a $125 check from Ms. Stella Phillips to be used for school uniforms. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with LRSD policies. We are grateful for the support of community members like Ms. Phillips. Ms. Stella J. Phillips 3700 Cantrell Rd., Apt. 304 Little Rock, AR 72202 1 100 Chico Road Phone (501) 4.17-7000  Fax 50' ..!..!7-7QQ  AUG 11 2U05 , CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Procureme7~~ From: Jane Harkey, Principal .  f1 Date: August 9, 2005  Re: Donation I Chicot Elementary has received a $1000 check from UALR Children International as an incentive for completing student projects. Per our Campus Leadership Team vote, it will  be used to enhance our playground. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with LRSD policies. We are grateful for the assistance that UALR Children International provides our students and families. UALR Children International 2510 Fair Park Little Rock, AR 72204 RECEIVED AUG 11 2005 111 00 Chicot Road Phone (501) 447-7000 Fax (501) 447 -7001 Mabelvale. Arkansas 72103 PROCUREMENT \u0026amp; MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1800 East 6th Street  Little Rock, AR 72202  (501) 447-2260  Fax: (501) 447-2261 DATE: TO: September 1 , 2005 Board of Directors FROM: ~I Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management THROUGH: Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D., Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donation Johnson Controls, Inc. has agreed to contribute $27,075.00 in goods and services to Mabelvale Elementary School. The contribution will continue over a period of time, beginning with the 2005-06 school year, until the total contribution is met. This contribution will be made in conjunction with the Performance Contract between Johnson Controls and the Little Rock School District that is being funded through Qualified Zone Academy Bonds. Goods and services, valued at approximately $5,668.00 as outlined in the attachment, will be contributed during the 2005-06 school year for Parts I and II of the proposed plan. The donor's mailing address is: Johnson Controls, Inc., Attn: Melanie A Hayes, Account Executive, 10801 Executive Center Drive, Suite 103, Little Rock, AR 72211. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. Thank you. August 12, 2005 Mr. Darian Smith, Principal Mabelvale Elementary School 9401 Mabelvale Cut-Off Mabelvale, Arkansas 72103 ' ~HNSON CO~LS 10801 Executive Center Drive Suite 103 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 (501) 537-2741 RE: Johnson Controls, Inc. - Private Contribution - QZAB Project Plan Summary Dear Mr. Smith, Thank you so much for your time and Ms. Cargill's time during the past weeks in working to develop an appropriate contribution for Johnson Controls, Inc. to make to Mabelvale Elementary School in conjunction with the Performance Contract between Johnson Controls and the Little Rock School District that is being funded through Qualified Zone Academy Bonds. As we have discussed, this contribution must meet 10% of the value of the improvements being installed at Mabelvale Elementary School under the Performance Contract. The contribution, totaling $27,075.00, will be made through goods and services over a period time beginning with the 2005/2006 school year and continuing until the total contribution is met. It is currently anticipated that an annual contribution will be made through the 2014/2015 school year. In conjunction with the proposed plan, our point of contact at Mabelvale Elementary School will be Ms. Kathleen Cargill. Based upon our discussion, we are proposing the following contributi0n plan for your review and acceptance. ~?\u0026lt; ....,. ,,nc: 0 cm\"z' ~~ :Cm ~~ zr - Part I Support of Mabelvale Elementary Schools' Mission to Improve Student Achievement in Math. In support of this effort, Johnson Controls will provide the following for the 2005/2006 school year: Goods/Services Cost per Item Total Everyday Math Counts Kits- One Per Grade 6 Total @ $175.00 ea. $1,050.00 Level Today's Math Student Workbooks 90 Total(@ $7.00 ea. $630.00 Today's Math-Teacher Training 12 Total(@ $50.00 ea. $600.00 Today's Math-Game Kits 12 Total @$120.00 ea. $1,440.00 Part I Total $3,720.00 I have spoken with Kathleen and she will provide us with the vendor and ordering information on the items so that we can expedite these purchases. We will order and deliver these items to you at Mabelvale Elementary School. Kathleen will obtain an invoice for JCI from LRSD for the Teacher Training component. I Part II Igniting Creative Energy Challenge Competition A. National ICE Challenge Johnson Controls will support Mabelvale Elementary School in their participation in the National Energy Foundation's \"ICE Challenge.\" (Igniting Creative Energy). This is an annual competition sponsored and funded through an educational grant by Johnson Controls, Inc. with additional support from the United States Energy Association and administered by National Energy Foundation. The ICE Challenge was developed to increase awareness among students of the growing energy crisis which has brought the impact of our energy choices closer to home. The Igniting Creative Energy Challenge asks students to use their creative talents to communicate their energy ideas and actions. The Challenge is an educational competition designed to encourage students to learn more about energy and the environment. Student entries should reflect the theme \"Igniting Creative Energy\" (ICE) and demonstrate an understanding of what an individual, family or group can do to make a difference in their home or community. Students can express their ideas in the form of documented science projects, stories, books, artwork, photographs, music, video or website projects, or via any other format. Page 2 of4 Johnson Controls, Inc. Mabelvale Elementary School QZAB Contribution Plan 8/12/2005 Each year four national grand prize winners are chosen. In past years, competition winners have received trips for themselves and a parent or guardian to the Olympics in Salt Lake City and to Hawaii. Entries are due in February of each year and winners announced mid-to-late March. Winners also participate in the National Energy Efficiency Forum in Washington D.C., held during June, where they share their Challenge entries and ideas with government and energy leaders. B. Mabe/vale ICE Challenge Johnson Controls' Little Rock Office employees will conduct a competition for Mabelvale Elementary Students in an adaptation of the national competition offering Mabelvale students additional opportunities for prizes and recognition. A total of six prizes will be awarded to Mabelvale ICE Challenge winners. One student from each grade level, (K through 5), who's work best exemplifies the Challenge criteria, will receive a $50 savings bond. Johnson Controls will present an overview of the competition and timetable for entries to Mabelvale Staff in October 2005. Entries will be due in January 2006. Winning submissions will be announced in early February and all entries will be forwarded on to compete in the national ICE Challenge competition. Kick-Off for ICE Challenge. Dari Scott with the National Energy Foundation in Utah will assist Johnson Controls, Inc. in the Mabelvale Elementary School Kick-Off for the ICE challenge. We will work with you and Ms. Cargill on an appropriate date in early October to host the contest Kick-Off at Mabelvale. Estimated Value of Contribution in Goods and Services for Part II of the contribution: Goods/Services Cost Per Item Total ICE Challenge Kick-Off One-Time School-Wide Assembly $1,000.00 Awards for Winnders 6 Total Savings Bonds (@ $50.00 ea. $300.00 JCI \u0026amp; NEF Volunteer Time* 2 JCI - 1 NEF 3 Total @ 12 hours ea. $648.00 (@$18.00/hour * Part II Total $1,948.00 Please Note: $18.00 per hour is the estimated VIPs rate for the 2005/2006 school year. We will use the actual rate to calculate the total volunteer contribution at the end of the 2005/2006 school year. I 2005/2006 - Estimated Contribution Total for Plan Parts I \u0026amp; II - $5,668.00 At the conclusion of the 2005/2006 school year, Johnson Controls shall provide a letter to LRSD and Mabelvale Elementary School certifying the actual amount contributed for the 2005/2006 school year. Page 3 of4 Johnson Controls, Inc. Mabelvale Elementary School QZAB Contribution Plan 8/12/2005 ~ .C\u0026gt;. . 0 c:: ~ :I: .zm.. Understanding that the needs of the school are dynamic and may vary from year to year, in all future years, Johnson Controls will work with the Principal ofMabelvale Elementary School to develop a contribution plan for that school year that will best meet the challenges and mission of the school. Each year, we will document the current year's plan in August and provide a letter certifying the actual contribution made for that in June. Mr. Smith , we at Johnson Controls are looking forward to our partner relationship with the students and staff ofMabelvale Elementary School. We appreciate the opportunity to work with your school in this capacity and look forward to assisting you and Ms. Cargill to measurably improve your student's performance in Math! Sincerely, Melanie A. Hayes Account Executive Johnson Controls, Inc. Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 537-2741 direct ( 501) 231-4869 cell (501) 224-4216 fax cc: Ms. Kathleen Cargill, Mabelvale Elementary School If you are in agreement, with the proposed plan, please indicate your acceptance by signing in the space below. Darian Smith, Principal, Mabelvale Elementary School ______ ,2005 Date Page4 of4 Johnson Controls, Inc. Mabelvale Elementary School QZAB Contribution Plan 8/12/2005 HORACE MANN ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement ~FROM: DATE: RE: James Fullerton, Principal August9,2005 Donation to Horace Mann Arts/Science Magnet Middle School Dr. Stephanie F. Gardner, 13201 Ridgehaven Road, Little Rock, AR 72211, has generously donated $300.00 for the general support of Horace Mann Arts/Science Magnet Middle School. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. 1000 East Roosevelt Road  Phone (501) 447-3100  Fax (501) 447-3101  Little Rock , Arkansas 72206 :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- .\u0026gt; \u0026lt; .c...n. rnc O ccn mz Zc, ....\n:a :Cm ~~ 2!!\n:a rz - ~ \u0026gt; ~ 0 \u0026lt;= ~\nr: m .z... . PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Lillie Carter, Principal b DATE: August 10, 2005 RE: Donation The Hillcrest Residents Association in honor of Mr. Robin Borne', retiring board member wishes to make a cash donation to Pulaski Heights Elementary in the amount of $500.00. These funds will be used to purchase school supplies for needy families during the 2005-06 school year. It is recommended that this generous donation be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the board. c: Dr. Sadie Mitchell Associate Superintendent RECE~VEO AUG 15 2o05 319 North Pine Street  Phone 447-5900  Fax 447-5901  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Sep - 02 - 05 08 : 51A tRil PULASKI HEIGH1$ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ~ 001..01~ TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Darral Paraclis, Director of Procurement Lillie Qlrter f'rincipal /v August30,l005 Donation The Pulaski Heights ~.T.J\\\u0026amp; llas generously donated a wrought iron fence to th~ school. It is absolutely beautiful and enhances the appealJ:lnce of our playground on the Colonial Court and P\nne Street sides. The value of this donation is $21,000 JO. It is recommended that is cHonation be approved in accordance with the poli~ of the board. P . 02 ~ 1 a Nr, rt h P ino \"trc,r, t  f\"'hl'H'\\~ ,147.r.\nQI) ( .  1\n1x 447-5901  Little Rock. Ark:insas 72205 WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  DATE: August 11, 2005 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Scott Morgan, Principal SUBJECT: Donation Beth Hill of#2 Shepherd Hills Court, Little Rock, AR 72223-1977, very graciously donated a student violin valued at $200.00 for students at Western Hills Elementary School. It is my recommendation that this contribution be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District.\n~..\n~ ~. ~:\n, ' .. ~\\ . -~ !\n,.'. ..  .. 4901 Western Hills  Phone (501) 447-6900  Fax (501) 447-6901  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 ADULT EDUCATION CENTER 4800 WEST 26m STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 447-1850  FAX: 447-1851 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: ~ulette H. Martin, Coordinator DATE: August 25, 2005 SUBJECT: Donation Ms. Renita Thompson, personnel manager of Wal-Mart Store #126 at 700 South Bowman Road, has generously donated a $750 Literacy grant to the Little Rock Adult Education Center to purchase basic literacy textbooks/materials. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. RECE!.VEQ AUG 2 6 2005 'A.n I11divid11a!Approach to a World of Knowledge\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: September 22, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: July and August 2005 Financial Reports BACKGROUND: Financial reporting is designed to keep the Board of Directors up-to-date regarding the District's current financial condition. Financial reports are submitted monthly to the Board for review and approval. RATIONALE: July and August 2005 financial reports will not be submitted this month due primarily to the annual report submission to the ADE. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: No action at this time. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen Chief Financial Officer ,\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;. .\u0026gt; \u0026lt; U...). ,(\") c::: O CU\u0026gt; mz Zc, \"\"\"\n:o :Cm ~f\n: \u0026lt;!!\n:o zr - ~  ~ 0 C: !:1 31: mz ....\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":3,"next_page":4,"prev_page":2,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":24,"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}}]}}