{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1777","title":"Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2004-03-02/2004-03-16"],"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","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School integration","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Teachers","Education--Evaluation","School discipline","Discrimination in school discipline","Student activities","Transportation","School improvement programs","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel."],"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/1777"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["82 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt of Appeals, ruling; District Court, letter-order; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 02-3867EA, 03-l 147EA Little Rock School District, Appellee, V. * * * * * * * RECEIVED f.;_'.J -J 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Alexa Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong; * On Appeal from the United Khayyam Davis; Alvin Hudson, Tatia * States District Court Hudson, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; * for the Eastern District Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua; Sarah * of Arkansas. Facen; Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce Person; * Brian Taylor; Hilton Taylor; Parsha * Taylor; Robert Willingham; and * Tonya Willingham, * * Appellants. * Submitted: September 11, 2003 Filed: March 2, 2004 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. ----- - -------- - I ' I I I ! I This case consolidates two appeals, both arising from the Little Rock School District's request for unitary status. First, the Joshua Intervenors 1 appeal from the District Court's2 denial of their Motion for Recusal of District Judge and Vacating of Orders, Rulings, and Judgments. We review a district court's denial of recusal for abuse of discretion. See In re Hale, 980 F.2d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Walker, 920 F.2d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 1990). We conclude that Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Henry Woods at a much earlier stage of the case, and on far different issues, did not involve the same \"matter in controversy\" for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2); thus, we affirm the denial of the Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Recusal. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting the Little Rock School District (LRSD) partial unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors assert: ( 1) that the District Court erred by not requiring and considering additional reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM); and (2) that the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was erroneous. We hold that the District Court did not err by failing to require new written reports from the ODM, and that the District Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous; thus, we affirm the grant of partial unitary status. Because the facts relevant to each issue on appeal are different, we address them separately. In Part I, we address the issue of disqualification. In Part II, we address whether the District Court should have required new written reports from the 1This group of school children and parents are, as a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case at its present juncture. The Little Rock School District, which actually initiated the case in 1982, is effectively the defendant for purposes of this appeal. 2The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- - ODM. Finally, in Part III, we address whether the District Court erred in finding that LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan in most respects. I. This litigation began in 1982 and has been in and out of this Court and the District Court several times - it is complex to say the least. We briefly highlight the events relevant to the issue of the disqualification of Judge Wilson. In 1987, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors sought to disqualify Judge Henry Woods,3 who was then presiding over the case. The parties asserted as grounds for disqualification that during Judge Woods's private law practice, one of his partners had represented parties who participated as amici curiae in a related case, and that Judge Woods's impartiality was called into question by his comments at a meeting with students. Judge Wilson, then in private practice, represented Judge Woods for the limited purpose of the mandamus proceedings, defending Judge Woods's decision not to recuse himself. 4 In the current proceeding, begun by LRSD's motion that it be released from court supervision, the Joshua Intervenors sought the recusal of Judge Wilson under 28 U.S .C.  455(b)(2), which requires a judge to disqualify himself \"where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy.\" After Judge Wilson entered an order on September 13, 2002, granting LRSD partial unitary status, the 3The Little Rock School District sought a writ of mandamus asking this Court to disqualify Judge Woods, and the Joshua Intervenors appealed a judgment entered by Judge Woods, asserting, among other things, that the judge should be disqualified. 4This Court found that Judge Woods was not disqualified. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F .2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 833 F.2d 112 (8th Cir. 1987). -3- 4t Intervenors filed a Motion for a Hearing Regarding the Relevance of28 U.S.C.  455 to the Present Proceedings. Judge Wilson denied this motion on October 29, 2002. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2002 WL 31465311 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Thereafter, on November 25, 2002, the Joshua Intervenors moved for disqualification of Judge Wilson. Judge Wilson denied this motion because, among other reasons, he had never served, in his view, as a lawyer in the \"matter in controversy.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 4:82CV00866 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 20, 2002). The Joshua Intervenors appeal. We must determine whether Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding in 1987 involved the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present questions before us for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2). Because the mandamus proceeding did not touch upon the merits of the case, we conclude that it was not a part of the same \"matter in controversy.\" The Joshua Intervenors contend that Judge Wilson's participation was part of the same matter in controversy because it was part of a single case. The language chosen by Congress, \"matter in controversy,\" is not defined by the statute. However, Congress easily could have substituted the word \"case\" for the words \"matter in controversy,\" but did not do so. This deliberate choice by Congress demonstrates an intent that the words \"matter in controversy\" mean something other than what we commonly refer to as a \"case.\" In fact, Congress used the words \"proceeding,\" \"case in controversy,\" and \"subject matter in controversy\" in various other subsections of  455(b) to describe situations where a judge must disqualify himself. Thus, we must assume that Congress ascribed a particular meaning to the words \"matter in controversy,\" and we must try to discern that meaning. We note that Judge Wilson represented Judge Woods at the mandamus proceedings, which were given a separate docket number from the rest of the case in this Court. This circumstance, though relevant, is not enough in itself to enable us -4- - to conclude that the disqualification proceeding was not the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present appeal. As we have indicated, the phrase \"matter in controversy\" must mean something other than the word \"case,\" and so we do not rely on this technical distinction. Instead, we look to the substance of the issues argued and decided in the two proceedings. In Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), we discussed, but did not decide, whether a matter in controversy could extend beyond a single case. Even if a matter in controversy could be more extensive than a single case, we concluded that the facts before us did not support such a conclusion because the cases involved, \"to a large extent, different issues and different remedies.\" Id. at 1302. We think this reasoning is useful in determining whether a matter in controversy may be less extensive than a case. Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods was restricted solely to the issue ofrecusal and did not go to the merits of the case. Judge Wilson was involved in the case solely for the mandamus proceedings and, in the course of his representation, never addressed the merits of the case or expressed any opinion about them. The issues before Judge Wilson in the present matter are wholly unrelated to his prior representation of Judge Woods. Although the case law is slim in this area, we find support for our position in In re Apex Oil Co., 981 F.2d 302 (8th Cir. 1992). In Apex Oil. Judge Loken found his recusal unnecessary where he and his former law firm were previously involved with plaintiffs' claim for damages from an oil spill and where, later, his law firm filed claims on behalf of plaintiffs in Apex Oil's bankruptcy proceedings. Id. at 304-05. The question was whether the plaintiffs' claim for damages constituted the same matter in controversy as the later claims in bankruptcy when both resulted from the same oil spill. Id. at 303. Although acknowledging that bankruptcy proceedings are atypical because they are conducted under an umbrella proceeding, Judge Loken -5- - ------ - - - --- --- ----------------- - concluded that the cases were not \"sufficiently related\" so as to constitute the same matter in controversy. Id. at 304. Applying this analysis to our situation, we conclude that there is not a sufficient relationship between the recusal proceedings with respect to Judge Woods and the issues now before us on the merits to make them the same \"matter in controversy.\" Nor do we think that any impartial observer could reasonably think that Judge Wilson's impartiality should be called into question. Not only was his prior representation of Judge Woods wholly distinct; the issues before the Judge in the current proceeding involved the current version of the parties' agreement to settle the underlying case, an agreement that was never before Judge Woods, and that was not even in existence until long after he voluntarily relinquished the case. II. As we have noted, this appeal arises from an interdistrict desegregation case filed by LRSD in 1982. As part of that case, the parties agreed to a settlement plan in 1989. However, as time passed, portions of that plan proved unworkable, and the parties agreed to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. This plan was approved by the District Court and this Court. On March 15, 2001, LRSD asked the District Court to declare it unitary under  11 of the Revised Plan. On July 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an opposition to this request. The opposition, App. of Appellants 185-86, made the following argument, among many others: The Joshua Intervenors believe further that the court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be -6- incomplete and not keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. This opposition was filed while the case was still before Chief Judge Wright (who had taken the case after Judge Woods had removed himself from it). She then conducted five and one-half days of evidentiary hearings, ending on November 20, 2001. On January 3, 2002, Chief Judge Wright withdrew from the case, and it was reassigned to Judge Wilson. He held three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22, 23 , and 24, 2002. The Joshua Intervenors' second major argument on appeal is that the District Court erred in making findings and entering judgment without directing ODM to prepare additional monitoring reports on LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. The Joshua Intervenors point out that the ODM was created in the first place at the direction of this Court. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1388 (8th Cir. 1990). The District Court had before it some relevant materials from the ODM: a report on LRSD's preparations for implementation of the Revised Plan, filed August 11, 1999, and a report of disciplinary sanctions in the Little Rock School District, filed on June 14, 2000. As to the first report, the Court observed that it \"indicated that, overall, LRSD was doing a satisfactory job of implementing the Revised Plan.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1048 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The District Court did not view the second report as having much value. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court should have had the ODM prepare an additional report or reports before making any findings . They point out that \"ODM had gained considerable expertise, preparing at least 49 reports.\" Brief for Appellants 39. -7- In response, LRSD argues that this point was not properly raised in the District Court. Certainly it is true that the Court never entered a written order expressly disposing of the request that additional monitoring reports be prepared. Before the case was transferred to Judge Wilson, however, Chief Judge Wright effectively denied the Intervenors' request, saying: And of course, you are free, Mr. Walker, to call the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as witnesses, as well, I mean, those people as witnesses to the extent you think they have knowledge on the matters at issue. And furthermore, and I talked information with Ms. Marshall [the head of ODM] about this, I don't mind Ms. Marshall telling you, sharing with you the information that she has, but if she does that I want her to share it with everyone else too. Tr. of June 29,2001 , 27-28. The Joshua Intervenors, in response to this invitation or otherwise, did not call anybody from the ODM as a witness. As we have noted, the request that additional monitoring reports be required was not the subject of a separate motion, but rather a matter mentioned, almost in passing, in a pleading filed by the Joshua Intervenors. App. of Appellants 185-86. As far as we can tell, the request was never renewed on the record, either in writing or in open Court, during the days of evidentiary hearings conducted by Judge Wilson, or in any other manner. We nevertheless assume for present purposes that the point is properly before us, and we hold that it is without merit. The ODM, as the Joshua Intervenors point out, was created at the direction of this Court, at the time of our initial approval of the settlement agreement, but the ODM was to be under the supervision of the District Court and to act as an arm of that Court in ensuring that the settlement agreement was followed. It was and remains the job of the District Court, in its discretion, to determine how the ODM should be used. A choice to rely on the existing materials prepared by the ODM, and to eschew the preparation of -8- ---- - - - - ------------~ additional reports, is certainly not an abuse of discretion. Two further points are important. First, the Joshua Intervenors could have, but did not, call someone from the ODM to testify. Second, no offer of proof was made. We do not know what OD M's position would have been if it had been asked. In this situation, it is simply impossible to say that the decision not to request the production of additional papers had any effect on the outcome of this case. III. The Revised Plan \"supersede[s] and extinguish[es] all prior agreements and orders\" in the case, with limited exceptions. App. of Appellants 87. Unlike the previous settlement agreement, the Revised Plan contains a specific procedure by which LRSD can attain unitary status. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding the LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. Ifno party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. App. of Appellants 110. Although not required by  11 of the Revised Plan, one year before the final report required by  11 was due, LRSD filed an interim report to demonstrate its progress toward compliance. App. of Appellee 71. On March 15, 2001 , as required by the Revised Plan, LRSD filed its final report, which supplemented and updated the -9- information provided in the interim report. App. of Appellee 245 . The Joshua Intervenors filed objections to this report on June 25, 2001 , challenging LRSD's substantial compliance with various sections of the Revised Plan. App. of Appellants 185. After holding evidentiary hearings on the Joshua Intervenors' objections, the District Court issued an order granting LRSD partial unitary status. See Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1086. The District Court denied LRSD unitary status under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, requiring LRSD to assess annually the academic programs promulgated under 2. 7. Id. at 1081-82. LRSD has not cross-appealed the District Court's ruling on  2. 7 .1, and it is not before us. This issue remains pending in the District Court. On appeal, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court erred in granting partial unitary status to LRSD. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors challenge the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the following sections: (1)  2.1, Good Faith; (2)  2.5-2.5.4, Student Discipline; (3)  2.6, Extracurricular Activities; and (4)  2.6-2.6.2, Advanced Placement Classes. We review the District Court's findings of fact for clear error. See Nash Finch Co. v. Rubloff Hastings, L.L.C., 341 F.3d 846, 850 (8th Cir. 2003). Thus, we must affirm unless the findings are, in our opinion, clearly erroneous, which means that we must have a \"definite and firm conviction\" that the District Court was mistaken. Ibid. If \"there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.\" Id. at 851 ( quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 US. 564, 574 (1985)). We also note that the Joshua Intervenors bear the burden of proof. Under 11 of the Revised Plan, \"[a]ny party who challenges the Little Rock School District's compliance bears the burden of proof.\" App. of Appellants 110. Section 11 of the -10- - Revised Plan also compelled the District Court to enter an order granting unitary status to LRSD unless the Joshua Intervenors met this burden. Ibid. We hold that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that the Joshua Intervenors had not met their burden with respect to the four subject-matter areas on appeal. Thus, we affirm. A. The Joshua Intervenors appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under 2.1 of the Revised Plan, which provides: LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. App. of Appellants 88. This section places an independent duty on LRSD to exercise its \"best efforts\" and to act in \"good faith\" in attempting to remedy the effects of discrimination. The Joshua Intervenors argue that LRSD did not act in good faith. As evidence, they allege that Central High School is still functionally segregated, although the building itself has been integrated. See Brief for Appellants 44-46. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the advanced-placement program segregates students into different classrooms, which are the functional equivalent of different schools. Ibid. Moreover, they assert that the teachers are assigned to advanced-placement courses in a racially segregated manner-white teachers teaching advanced-placement classes and African-American teachers teaching regular -11- -------- - classes. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also suggest that segregation seeps outside of the classroom and into extracurricular activities. Ibid. The obligation of good faith under 2.1 of the Revised Plan is separate from, and independent of, other affirmative obligations undertaken by LRSD pursuant to  2 of the Revised Plan. Thus, it is possible for LRSD to have acted in good faith, meeting its obligation under  2.1 , even though it did not meet other affirmative obligations imposed by the Revised Plan. After the Revised Plan was adopted, the Little Rock School Board enacted fifteen different policies related to its obligation of good faith and took steps to ensure that all administrators and teachers were aware of these new policies. LRSD also hired Dr. Terrence Roberts, Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 615-16, and Dr. Steven Ross, Tr. of July 23, 2002, at 539, as desegregation experts. Dr. Roberts testified that he had been actively involved in reviewing policies and procedures. Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 619-20. He also testified that he had developed training programs for teachers and other staff members. Ibid. Dr. Roberts testified that he told the Board that LRSD had directed much energy and effort toward meeting all the criteria in the Revised Plan and that LRSD had the potential for being a model school district for the nation. Id. at 647. Dr. Roberts criticized LRSD for having a \"compliance mentality\" because some individuals were interested only in meeting the requirements of the Revised Plan. Id. at 630-31. However, as explained by the District Court, compliance was exactly the issue at hand. LRSD was under constant scrutiny and had to be very careful that it met its obligations. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1045. Under 8.2 of the Revised Plan, a detailed procedure for addressing compliance issues was established whereby the parties would attempt to solve compliance issues before submitting them to the District Court for resolution. The Board paid the Joshua Intervenors to monitor LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Joshua Intervenors raised only five compliance issues, which -12- ---------- - ----------- ~ - were all resolved without resorting to the District Court. App. of Appellee 415. None of the issues raised in opposition to the final report was previously raised by the Joshua Intervenors. The District Court found that the purpose of the dispute mechanism under 8.2 was to avoid any surprises when LRSD filed the final report, and that LRSD reasonably relied on the Joshua Intervenors to raise any problems in a timely fashion. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. The District Court also found that the interim report placed the Joshua Intervenors on notice of all the problems, but they did not respond. Ibid. Although  11 does not require that any objections be previously raised under 8.2, the District Court found that Intervenors' failure to raise these issues was a factor to consider in deciding whether LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan. Id. at 1043-44. For the reasons stated above, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.1 of the Revised Plan. B. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.5-2.5.4, relating to student discipline. Although  2.5.1-2.5.4 impose specific obligations with regard to discipline, the Joshua Intervenors assert in particular that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.5, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. App. of Appellants 90. This section requires LRSD to create and implement programs and policies designed to eliminate discriminatory practices from student -13- ___________ _ ___ __________ _. discipline. It does not require, however, that LRSD in fact absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court improperly found that LRSD had substantially complied with  2.5 because the Court misconstrued the meaning of the words \"to ensure.\" Brief for Appellants 40. Interpretation of the Revised Plan is a question of law, which we review de novo, and we hold that the District Court did not err in construing the obligation imposed by 2.5. The Joshua Intervenors argue that \"to ensure\" means to make sure that racial discrimination does not occur. Ibid. If \"to ensure\" were the only operative phrase in the provision, the argument might be well taken. But 2.5 does not require LRSD to ensure anything. It merely requires that LRSD \"implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure .. .. \" (Emphasis ours.) The thrust of the provision is that certain programs with the purpose of ensuring that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline be instituted. This does not mean that the programs must be perfectly efficacious. In addition, the object is to eradicate discrimination, which is not necessarily the same thing as disparity. Racial disparity may exist without discrimination. Discrimination, of course, can cause disparity, but it is not the only possible cause. Disparity in discipline is a nation-wide problem. The District Court cited something called \"total suspension index.\" The total suspension index demonstrates disparity in discipline and is calculated by dividing the percentage of AfricanAmerican students expelled or suspended by the percentage of African-American students in the population, and comparing this number with that for white students. The District Court found that LRSD's suspension index was between 1.25 - 1.31 for the years 1997-2001. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1054. In other words, to take 1997 as an example, African-American students were 1.25 times as likely, so to speak, to be disciplined or suspended than white students. The national -14- -------- - ---- --- ----------~ index for 1998 was 2.24, and the Arkansas index was 2.16. The District Court specifically found that the Joshua Intervenors did not meet their burden of proving that disproportionate discipline imposed on African-American students was the result of discrimination. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1057. This finding is not clearly erroneous. LRSD enacted several policies to implement its obligations regarding student discipline and created a Compliance Plan, which outlined how LRSD planned to implement the Revised Plan and who bore responsibility for such implementation. Under the Compliance Plan, Junious Babbs was responsible for monitoring student discipline. An ombudsman, James Washington, was appointed pursuant to 2.5.3 to ensure that students were treated fairly throughout the discipline process. The ombudsman was charged with shepherding students through the discipline process, including making students aware of the rules, acting as an advocate for students involved in the disciplinary process, and investigating parental and student complaints of discrimination. The interim and final reports issued by LRSD focused on the decrease in overall suspensions and expulsions, due in part to programs developed by LRSD, such as behavior modification programs and alternative learning centers. App. of Appellee 85-87, 273-74. Although the reduction in suspensions for African-American students was not so large as that of white students, the District Court found that the proportion of suspensions received by African-American students remained the same. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1051. Neither the interim report nor the final report focused on the fact that racial disparity existed among the students who received suspensions or expulsions, and the District Court found that LR.SD could have sorted the data in such a way as to give a more meaningful analysis. Id. at 1051-52. However, the District Court found that the Joshua Intervenors had access to the raw data and never raised the issue. Id. at 1052. -15- ------ - - - More specifically, the District Court found that the reports did not mislead the Joshua Intervenors. Ibid. The ODM produced a Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, which showed that African-American students received a disproportionate number of suspensions and expulsions. However, the District Court specificaHy found that this report was not intended to address the effectiveness of any programs that were instituted to address fairness in discipline. Id. at 1052-53. The District Court also noted that the report suggested that factors outside of the schools might affect which students receive discipline, such as home environment, family values, and whether the home is a single-parent home. Id. at 1052. The report did not contain a specific analysis of the facts of each suspension or expulsion to help determine whether discrimination occurred. Id. at 1052-53. However, the report did conclude that the racial disparity meant that LRSD \"has certainly not eliminated nor even abated racial discrimination in suspensions . . .. \" Id. at 1053 ( quoting Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, June 14, 2000). The District Court rejected this conclusion as speculative because it was based on raw statistics. Ibid. Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent for Student Hearings, was responsible for monitoring compliance with the Student Handbook. She reviewed every long-term suspension or expulsion and all appeals from short-term suspensions. Tr. of Nov. 19, 2001, 36-37. If the procedures of the Student Handbook were not followed, Dr. Watson overturned the punishment and removed it from the records. Ibid. Although Dr. Watson acknowledged that African-American students were more frequently suspended than white students, she believed this was due to the fact that they more frequently engaged in conduct prohibited by the Student Handbook. Id. at 83-84. She also testified that she believed this was due primarily to socioeconomic factors. (Some of these factors may be caused by or related to racial discrimination, but they are not the fault of the present administration of LRSD.) The District Court -16- - specifically found that the testimony of all the administrators involved in the disciplinary process was credible. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1050. For these reasons, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.5 of the Revised Plan. C. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.6 and 2.6.3, relating to extracurricular activities. Although  2.6.3 imposes a specific obligation with regard to transportation for extracurricular activities, the Joshua Intervenors assert that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.6, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities . . .. App. of Appellants 90-91. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial discrimination occurred in extracurricular activities, evidenced by the fact that many extracurricular activities did not have a proportionate share of African-American participants. Brief for Appellants 46. Certain activities' participants, such as tennis, swimming, quiz bowl, mock trial, and cheer leading, were predominantly white. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that there were barriers to participation, including costs of participation and lack of transportation. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial disparities in extracurricular activities are the result of discrimination. However, as noted by the District Court, nothing in -17- - ------- - - - ------ ------~ -  2.6 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to impose quotas on extracurricular activities. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1058. LRSD undertook to promote the participation of African-American students and to eliminate barriers to participation. As we noted above with respect to 2.5, this provision does not make LRSD an insurer. It requires only that the District \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure,\" et cetera. (Emphasis ours.) The final report noted a marked increase m African-American students' participation in extracurricular activities following the enactment of the new policies. App. of Appellee 276-77. The final report also demonstrated that LRSD attempted to eliminate barriers to participation by having buses transport students to and from extracurricular activities. Id. at 278. Although the record does not establish which students took advantage of the extra buses, the final report stated that \"no extracurricular activity transportation request made by an eligible student has been denied.\" Ibid. As noted by the District Court, the Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proof on this issue, and they did not provide a single witness to testify that African-American students were unable to participate because of a lack of transportation. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1059. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that the costs of certain activities create a barrier to participation. Although there are costs associated with certain activities, Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, testified that each school had a discretionary fund which could be used to help students pay the costs of extracurricular activities. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 775-76. The District Court also found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no testimony that any student was denied an opportunity to participate because of costs. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1059-60. -18- The Joshua Intervenors asserted that certain schools, which were primarily African-American, did not have the same extracurricular activities as other schools, and that this violated LRSD's duty to promote participation. However, the District Court found that each school determined which extracurricular activities to offer on the basis of student interest, and if enough interest existed, each school offered a stipend to sponsors of those activ'ities. Id. at 1060. The District Court concluded that certain activities were missing at certain schools not because of discrimination but instead because of lack of student interest. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors presented several students' testimony to support their assertion that African-American students were not encouraged to participate or were prevented from participating in extracurricular activities. The District Court did not find this testimony impressive. Id. at 1061. Questions of credibility and inferences to be drawn from facts must generally be left to the trial court. The Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proving that LRSD was not implementing programs, policies, or procedures designed to promote participation and ensure there were no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities. We hold that the District Court did not err in determining that the Joshua Intervenors failed to meet this burden. D. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's order granting LRSD unitary status under 2.6-2.6.2, relating to advanced-placement classes and honors programs. While  2.6.1 and 2.6.2 impose specific duties on LRSD to provide training programs for teachers to identify and encourage qualified African-American students to participate in advanced-placement programs and to assist African-American students in being successful in advanced-placement -19- - programs, the Intervenors do not complain that these specific provisions were violated. Instead, they focus on 2.6, which imposes a more general duty: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in . . . advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. App. of Appellants 90-91. The phraseology of this provision is similar to others discussed above. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the District Court erred in finding no barriers to participation in advanced-placement courses. The low number of AfricanAmerican teachers assigned to advanced-placement courses, they say, is a barrier to participation. Brief for Appellants 43-44. The Joshua Intervenors rely primarily on the testimony of Dr. Michael Faucette, an English teacher at Central High School. Dr. Faucette testified that although there were eight African-American teachers and eight white teachers in Central High's English Department, African-American teachers taught only a few of the advanced-placement sections. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 176-80. Dr. Faucette, an African-American teacher, did not teach any of the advanced-placement sections. Id. at 177. The Little Rock School District Board created a regulation setting forth criteria to help teachers identify African-American students for participation in advanced-placement courses. Although this was one factor used in identifying students for participation in advanced-placement courses, enrollment was still open to any student who showed the proper level of motivation and commitment. App. of Appellee 279. Teachers were then required to monitor performance and behavior to ensure that students placed in those courses would remain there. -20- LRSD studied methods to increase enrollment in advanced-placement courses and determined that pre-advanced-placement courses were necessary to prepare students better and earlier. LRSD implemented pre-advanced-placement courses for sixth and seventh-grade students. These programs have been highly successful, and the District Court found that as a result of these programs, LRSD has added over 600 African-American students to its advanced-placement courses for juniors and seniors. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. LRSD has also implemented the SMART Program, a summer program designed to teach algebra to students to prepare them for algebra in the eighth grade. App. of Appellee 112. The District Court found that during the term of the Revised Plan, at least 95% of the students attending the SMART Program were African-American. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. Evaluations of the SMART Program determined that it was a success. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 678. LRSD also instituted a \"Teachers of Color\" program to increase the number of African-American advanced-placement teachers. Id. at 671 . The principal at each middle school and high school determined who would be assigned to teach each class. However, the principals were constrained by the collective- bargaining agreement, which required consideration of a teacher's experience and seniority. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 90. An advanced-placement teacher also needed to be qualified through the state. Although Dr. Faucette testified about the racial composition of advanced-placement teachers in Central High School's English Department, he did now know about other advanced-placement sections at Central High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1065. The District Court found Dr. Faucette's testimony unreliable. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also point to racial disparity in the Hall High School University Studies program, a program developed in conjunction with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock that provided an opportunity for students to earn college -21- credit for classes taken at Hall High School. Admission requirements were developed by the University of Arkansas. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 727-28. In order to receive college credit for the courses, students were required to pay tuition of approximately $150 per course. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 114. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the tuition payments created a barrier to participation for African-American students. Brief for Appellants 42-43. The District Court found that during the 1999-2000 school year, 58% of the students participating in Hall High School's University Studies Program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 71 % of all students at Hall High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1066. During 2000-2001, only 35% of the students in the University Studies program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 72% of all students at Hall High School. Ibid. However, the Court found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no evidence that any student was denied admission to the University Studies Program because of inability to pay. Ibid. Testimony also indicates that the school solicited a donation to cover the cost for at least one African-American student who wished to participate but was unable to pay. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 802. For these reasons, we hold that the District Court did not err in finding that LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under  2.6 of the Revised Plan. * * * * * * The judgment is affirmed. It goes without saying, but we say it anyway, that LRSD remains fully subject to the Constitution and all other applicable laws, and that these obligations are enforceable by appropriate legal action. -22- I I I I I I I I I I I - HEANEY, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in every aspect of the majority's opinion except insofar as it holds that the LRSD has implemented \"programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline,\" as required by section 2.5 of the Revised Plan. In my view, the LRSD has failed to meet this obligation. It is true that the LRSD has implemented several programs with regard to student discipline: the LRSD provided every student, parent, teacher, and administrator with a copy of the Student Handbook; the LRSD trained students, teachers, and administrators on provisions in the Handbook; the LRSD created the position of Ombudsman to investigate student complaints of race-based mistreatment in student discipline; Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent who was responsible for implementing section 2.5 of the Revised Plan, reviewed every longterm suspension and expulsion, and any short-term suspensions that were appealed; Dr. Watson prepared and reviewed quarterly Discipline Management Reports from each school, used these reports to identify problems, and met with the schools' administrators to discuss solutions; the LRSD established alternative learning environments to allow students with behavioral problems to remain in school; the LRSD offered training in classroom management and effective discipline; and the LRSD followed a progressive discipline approach by imposing lesser sanctions before suspending students. It is also true that the LRSD has reduced the total number of disciplinary sanctions of students during the time of the Revised Plan from 5 ,3 12 total sanctions in 1998, to 5,080 total sanctions in 2001.5 During that same period, however, the 5 All 1998 statistics are from the LRSD' s 1998-1999 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX679) and the 2001 statistics are from the LRSD's -23- ----- - - - -------------- - number ofblack students receiving disciplinary sanctions actually increased. During the 1998-99 school year, there were 4,470 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 842 disciplinary sanctions of white students. Put another way, in the first year of the Revised Plan, 65% of the student population in the LRSD was black, while 84% of the disciplinary sanctions were ofblack students. By 2001, the year the LRSD sought unitary status, the disparity was even greater. In the 2000-01 school year, there were 4,534 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 546 disciplinary sanctions of white students. In other words, black students consisted of 68% of the student population, but accounted for 89% of the disciplinary sanctions. Therefore, from 1998 to 2001, disciplinary sanctions ofblack students increased from 84% to 89%. It is undisputed that the programs instituted by the LRSD to address disciplinary issues have had no positive impact on the racial disparity of student discipline in the district. If you compare the discipline statistics in the individual high schools for the same period they track in very similar ways with almost all of the schools experiencing an increase in disparity. It is worth noting, however, that Parkview High School, the most integrated high school in the district, has the lowest racial disparity in student discipline in the district. In 1998-99, Parkview's student population was 51 % black and the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students was 49%. In 2000-01, Parkview' s black student population was still 51 %, but the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students rose to 66%. Even at 66%, however, Parkview still had the lowest disparity in student discipline in the district that year. I agree that the Revised Plan does not require the LRSD to absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The majority and the district court, however, rely heavily on the fact that section 2.5 requires the LRSD to implement programs 2000-2001 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX681). -24-  - ------ --- - - ----- - ------ \"designed to ensure\" that there is no racial discrimination in student discipline. The implication is that because the LRSD implemented programs which would effect student discipline, the actual impact of those programs does not matter. I disagree. It is not enough for the LRSD to list the programs it implemented to address the disparity in student discipline, when the result of those programs was an increase in the racial disparity in student discipline. The mere implementation of programs, no matter how many or how impressive sounding, that have virtually no impact on the racial disparity in student discipline is not enough to meet the district's obligations under the Revised Plan. This lack of impact on the disparity in discipline is really no surprise when you review the testimony of Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson testified that: she was never instructed that there needed to be a reduction in the racial impact of suspensions in the district; she never prepared a monitoring report with regard to disparities in discipline; she did not prepare any reports which track whether certain teachers or administrators have a pattern of disciplinary actions based on race; nor did she recommend any programs to address the continued disparate impact of discipline. (Nov. 19, 2001, Unitary Status Hr' g Tr. at 25-163 .) Dr. Watson also testified that the percentage of black students being suspended did not decrease, that disparate patterns of discipline still exist based on race, that there are no plans to reduce the disparate impact of student discipline in the district, and that the LRSD is not even looking at student discipline based on race. (Id.) The majority, and the district court, seem to take solace in the fact that racial disparity in student discipline is a national problem. According to the district court, in 1998, the national \"total suspension index\" was 2.24 and the Arkansas \"total suspension index\" was 2.16, whereas the LRSD's \"total suspension index\" remained constant at 1.26 from 1997-2000. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp. 2d 988, 1054 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The majority and the district court consider the fact that the LRSD' s index is lower than that of the nation -25- ------- - - - - -- ~ - and the state significant, and the fact that the LRSD' s index did not change over the period of the Revised Plan insignificant. I disagree. The Revised Plan said nothing about the LRSD's racial disparity in student discipline in comparison to the state or the nation. The Revised Plan did, however, require the LRSD to implement programs designed to ensure that the racial disparity in student discipline in the district would decrease. This, they failed to do. The majority and the district court also assert that Joshua did not meet its burden in proving that the racial disparity in student discipline was the result of discrimination. This was not Joshua's burden. According to section 11 of the Revised Plan, Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD failed to comply with its obligations as set forth in the plan. Joshua met this burden by showing that the programs the LRSD implemented to address the racial disparity in discipline were ineffective. As I read the Revised Plan, it was the LRSD's obligation to determine whether the continued disparity in discipline was the result of racial discrimination or merely socioeconomic factors as suggested by Dr. Watson. Here again, the LRSD failed to meet its obligation and rested merely on the fact that it implemented programs. Programs that, in the end, had no effect on the racial disparity in student discipline. It is true that Joshua could have done more to raise concerns about the failure of the LRSD's programs earlier, but this does not remove all responsibility from the LRSD. The statistics compiled and reports filed by the LRSD lack valuable data. I have found no useful statistics on recidivism among students to determine how many students, and of what race, are receiving multiple disciplinary sanctions. The record does not contain statistics that separate offenses involving the discretionary judgment of staff from objective offenses. The record lacks any reports which show whether there is a correlation between the race of the teacher administering the discipline and the race of the student receiving it, or whether certain teachers have a higher rate of discipline than others. Dr. Watson testified that she was able to access some of this -26- --------- --- - - ----------~ information and that she knew which schools had high rates of disciplinary sanctions and which teachers issued more suspensions than others, but I cannot agree that her personal, undocumented knowledge was sufficient to meet the court's mandate that the district implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with respect to student discipline. Absent the necessary records, there is no way the district court, or this court, can reach an informed conclusion as to whether blacks are disciplined more frequently for legitimate reasons or because they are judged by different standards than white students, at least by some teachers. I would remand this case to the district court on the disciplinary issue, along with the issue of student achievement retained by the district court, to require the district to comply with our original mandate. -27- March 9, 2004 LETTER-ORDER Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Froachell 11800 Pleasant !Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. John Walker Mr. Samuel Jones, Ill 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 172 . is Hansen Mr. Stephen W. Jones 1 Ce r Street, Suite 1200 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 L le Rock, AR 72201 little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Dear Counsel: 4:82CV00866 Q As you know the September 11 , 20 emorandum Order requires that the LRSD file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with the obligc1tions under  2. 7. 1 on or before the 15th of this month. Then, Joshua, or any other party, has thirty days {until April 15, 2004) within which to file objections to LRSD report. This mis:;ive is simply to notify all counsel that a request for any extension will likely be denied. If there are objections, they will be heard on April 26 and 27, 2004. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Cordially, Wm. A. Wilson, Jr. Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk March 5, 2004 ------ - - --- --------- --- RECEIVED 4t MAR 11 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAlVSAS Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 DATE: J .. I ) .. otj FAX NO.: There are Z-pages, including this Cover Sheet, bein1~ sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: A;~~~ Office of Judge Wm. ll W~Jr. U. S. District Coun 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Direct Phone Numbers: Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk Janet Pulliarn, Law Clerk (odd case numbers) Caf'oline Curry, (even case numbers) Macy Johnson, Courtroom Deputy Ch.-ista Newburg, Court Reporter 604-5141 604-5142 604-5148 604-5144 604-5145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.1,ETAL. RECEIVED {i,,, h'trWJt-lf/t1 {/) h /J.o/ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAR 1 ' 2004 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER u.fo1\\kif J?uRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 12004 JAM5S W McCORMACK, CLERK ~y: -----D=-=E=p....,_C ~LE_ A _K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. I have received a copy of Mr. Walker's March 10, 2004 letter to Ms. Ann S. Marshall. A copy of the letter is attached to this Order. The letter appears to be an anticipatory objection to a report that has not been filed; and a request for \"facilitation\" by Ms. Marshall as the Director of the ODM. ,, .. . 2. When the LRSD report is filed, in the next few days, if Joshua perceives deficiencies in it, I would anticipate that, at that time, appropriate objections would be made, which might or might not include the points mentioned in the March 10 letter. 3. I note parenthetically that the meeting in Ms. Marshall's office, referenced in the first paragraph of the March 10 letter, does not give a date of the meeting, and does not mention what compliance issues were discussed, nor does it identify the \"numerous areas of disagreement.\" Any objections filed after the LRSD report is in existence should be shot through with specificity and precision. \"'.;.,?.' 6 '\\~'\u0026lt;{).1-t \u0026lt; -~j 1  .. 4. Any suggestion of \"facilitating\" at this point, if there is such a suggestion to be read into the letter, is late -- far too late. I am going to take the LRSD report, the objections, if any, by Joshua, and decide the issues presented on April 27, or soon thereafter. 5. Consistent with the specific directions given to the ODM, I would expect that office to file a report on the progress under 2.7.1. soon, so that the parties will have ample time to study it, and determine whether they want to rely on it at the April 26 - 27 hearing, or want to object to it or parts of it. 6. As I think can be discerned from the above, I expect reports and objections from the parties and the ODM to be timely filed , so that we can wrap the matter up during the April hearing. To this end, I invite your keen attention to my letter dated March 9, 2004. I point out that this letter contains directives, not goals or suggestions. IT IS SO ORDERED this / [71f day of March, 2004. WM. R. WILSON, JR. / i / I . I ,I.e JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATI'ORNEY kr LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 _FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK, AllKANsAS 72210 PHONE: {501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Now that we have the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our beliefis that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work 'hand in glove' to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the District's obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the District's representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose offollowup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004, I received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation; and 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSD's program evaluation. 1 We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to ''No Child Left Behind\" mandates or State accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its compliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the District's use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Court's Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the District's intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5th grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the 'surprising' notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed African American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 2 5) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the African American students during 2002-2003 in 4th grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4th graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesley's data. I read that the Court's Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use ofthis data, i.e., \"LRSD now has over three years of testing data ..... \" 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the District's ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the. participation of African American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address African American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the District's tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving African American performance. I 0) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of 4th or 8th grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA).  12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3 The foregoing list is merely suggestive; it is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wtlson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the District's compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you ldndly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. JWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel Sincerely, ,.. / ,,. -- / _ -,  I , --\": /_.,,  ,:1,: - . i ? / // c . ~ V\"'--'\"'--c/r .. \u0026gt;-i,-v L-\\... ((__, \\ ,, . ~f-  I \\ ,__.,, fohn W. Walker  4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 :; 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception of Revised Plan  2. 7. 1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD' s Board of Directors (\"Board\") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003 . At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph \"D\" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; (2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; (3) maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; and ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 plan. To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-RI when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results - of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District 's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any \"questions or concerns\" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Boardapproved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy; that the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations; and that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Banlc Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HERSCHEL H. Fa.lDAY (lf7219'4) WIWAM K. Stn\"TON, P.A. BYJ.ON M. EISEMA)(, JL. P.A. ,o~ D. BELL r .A. J~ UTTI.Y, P.A. PU S. UI.SER.Y, P.A. O AVIS. JL. P.A. JAM . LARX.. JL, P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LA,IJ.Y W. BUIX.S, P.A. A. WYCKl.lPP NISBET, JR.., P.A. JA.Mf.S EDWAJtD HAJt.11S, P.A. J. PKIWP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SKEPHEltD 1.USSEU 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WIWAM THOMAS BAXTER. f\".A. IJCHAJlD D. TA YLOll. P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HUUT, JL, P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUUAY, P.A. CHRJSTOPHER KELLER.. P.A. LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERTS. SHAPER.. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MAO.EV, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL 111. P.A. UVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WtU.IAM A. WADDELL JJL, P.A. SCOTT J. LA}ICA.STER.. P.A. I.OBERT B. BEACH. JR.., P.A. J. LEE Bl.OWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAUR.. Ul.. P.A. HAJUt.Y A. LIOKT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PR.ICE C. GARDNER.. P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WIUON. P.A. JEFPR.EY H. MOOR.E, P.A. DAVID M. GR.AF, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP WNW.frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703,.C811 TELEPHONE 47$-.895-2011 FAX .C7$-.H521'7 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 170.7822198 FAX 170.782, 2911 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJlLA Gl.JN'NELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOKN C. FDIDLEY. Jk., P.A. JOHANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHIUSTOPKER LAWSON, P.A. FRANC. HICK.MAH. P.A. BETTY J. DEMOkY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMJTtl P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DA.NIEL L. HEJUUNGTOH, P.A. MAI.VIN L CHILDEJt.S K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. COI.HWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. K.A.JtN'EY KELLY MUI.PHY MCQUEDI JOSEPH P. MCUY ALEXANDR.A A. IPR.AH JAY T. TAYLOR MA.Jl TIN A. KASTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. OUX.E JOSEPH G. HlCHOU ROBEJ.T T. SMITH I.YAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTifY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR LU.ENS. HALBERT SAi.AH M. COTTON PHILIP 8 . MONTGOMERY C.IJSTEH S. RJGGIHS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY WITCH.AM SLOAN lKAYYAM M. EDDJ'NGS JOKN F. PEISUJCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BR.ANDON J. ttA.R.RJSON orCOUNsu D.S. a..u..r. WIWAMLTEUY WlWAM L PATTON. JR.. tl T. LARZELU.E. P.A. JOHN C. EOfOLS. P.A. A.D. MCAUJSTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501J70.JS2l FAX 50124'5$41 f  ndleyOf c . net Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. EXHIBIT A I All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... \", which are to be subjected to \"comprehensive program evaluation . .. \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ \"scaffolding\" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-Amen.can students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division of Instruction's \"Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools,\" a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was \"inadequate.\" Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation \"completed\" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-RI. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-RI. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will - --- - - - ------ - ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation Surveys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the \"team\" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of\"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all ofJoshua's concerns. Ifany party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementary Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,;Literacy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ~  EXH 18 IT I B - ---- - ------ - - --- - I I I I I I I I I I I Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data.  Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was:  Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools.  Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review).  Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum.  School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level.  A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a \"coach\" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD).  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly \"coaches\" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum.  Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The \"Lesson Study\" and \"Study Group\" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. 2002-03      The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results of this analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the \"big ideas\" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers.  Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items.  Program modifications based on this data were:  Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students.  Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric.  Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items.  4th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given \"School Improvement\" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status.  A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings .  One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel-author of Highly - -------- --- --- Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003 , preschool conference.  Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students.  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns' s materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials.  Three elementary schools on School hnprovement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools.  Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals.  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum.  Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02              Item analyses of 6th , 8th , Algebra Land Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02 Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12 District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiving trainings Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations; Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR.) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: o Strategies for Teaching Geometry Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and :frameworks; The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra The agendas for horizontal team meetings (each grade/subject level 6th gradeCalculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom. Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 2002-03  Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities;  Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high schools; - - --- - ------ ----- - -    -  : ..   Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6th grade - Calculus;  Continued to provide professional development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator  Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD;  Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics;  Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers  Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course; 2003-04  Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I- Calculus teachers;  Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom- used the TI-Navigator system;  Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th  Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus;  Continued end-of-quarter tests;  6th -8th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks; Marcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing program was the weak component of the literacy instructional program. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include \"best practices.\" The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. Twelve schools chose to participate in the project to begin in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following:   Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan. Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ...  EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development:  Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students.  Provided a diverse collection of books to low perfonning schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using it to make program modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content area reading and writing. In addition to the professional development being offered on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 - The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification; first grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests; and the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation; first grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test; and second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of - \"Writing On Demand\" and \"Constructed Response\" . Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2  hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas:  Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. ---- - - - - - - --------- 4 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACT AAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principa,I in session devoted to best practices for improvement of Ii teracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, taking turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with teachers (approximately 75) from all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 1. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and focus on optimum results were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ~  EXHIBIT I F mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification of literacy program in terms of test preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status of lowest achieving students. Summer '02- ' 03 . (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lo:west performing high schools , based on ACT AAP.) 6. Teachers met during swnmer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending document. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculum: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement of lower-achieving students. . September '03 . 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03 . 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03. - ---- - ---------- ---- 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03 . 7. SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness of test preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03 . 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instruction based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation ofreading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05 . 11 . All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going 1. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress . Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content. 7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) 10. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004. 11. Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Prograi Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops  Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January,2004  Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools  Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004  Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE March 16, 2004 RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the State's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel which we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 March 16, 2004 MAH Enclosures ~~-~  MARK A. HAGEMEIER r Assistant Attorney General - - - - _ _ ___________ ___ __. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 . OfflCE DF ~ nrm fdDN!fOfl:Ji'J:G PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through their attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. Chief Deputy Attorney General Dennis Hansen is no longer actively participating in day-to-day litigation at the Attorney General's office. 2. This matter has been reassigned to Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier, who now represents the Arkansas Department of Education and should be substituted as counsel of record. 3. Defendant requests that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark A. Hagemeier. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Mark A. Hagemeier be substituted as their counsel of record. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this _J_.b_ day of March 2004, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Ann Brown Marshall  ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 - - - - - - - ------------------~    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1064","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":["2004-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","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/1064"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda RECEIVED MAR 2 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting MARCH2004 \"D (/J! --,m c::c cc:: ~ ~ ..... r-ril J ~:l O,,,,m,, J~ Z=E Om m r-n 0 I: m \u0026gt;~  \"D \"c:':0,,, \"D ..... :\"'!(! n:,\n, =Im \u0026gt;n :::!8 Oz ~~ z \"' I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING March 25, 2004 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests B. Student Performance - Baseline Elementary Choir Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: IV. A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Baseline Elementary School - Eleanor Cox Southwest Produce - Kay Moore Metropolitan Careet \u0026amp; Technical Center - Mike Peterson Pulaski Technical College - Larry Lewallen Williams Traditional Magnet School - Mary Menking \u0026amp; Anne Pattillo AARP - Maria Diaz C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. First Tee Golf \u0026amp; Life Skills Program - Tony Hourston E. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association 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 n-,:, ,). l.,.\n,m:..0. ,..._ -, 31: Oz o\u0026gt; e:~ m-,,\n:o C: -z\non o,...- c\u0026lt;5 r-z nu, \u0026gt; F= n a,\n.,:.. m\u0026gt; ~~\nom ,..\n:o u, u,\nz om :1:C C: nn =I\u0026gt; ,:\n-\u0026lt; mi5 zz u, Regular Board Meeting March 25, 2004 Page2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Regular Meeting - 02-26-04 Special Meeting - 03-11-04 B. Personnel Changes C. Ratification of PN Agreement* D. Salary Adjustments, 2003-04 school year* E. Student Calendar - 2004-05* VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: A. Submission of 2004 Carol M. White P. E. Program Proposal VII. SCHOOL SERVICES: A. Naming of Facilities - - Mabelvale Magnet Middle School VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report/ Annual Audit Report IX. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions X. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XI. ADJOURNMENT * Requires Suspension of the Rules I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME STUDENT PERFORMANCE 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS D. FIRSTTEE PRESENTATION E. LR CTA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 March 25, 2004 Board of Education Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education ~J Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships 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. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Baseline Elementary School and Southwest Produce Metropolitan Career - Technical Center and Pulaski Technical College Williams Traditional Magnet School and AARP ~ .n..\"..' a, C: C: 0 g!\nll m\"\"' ....  C:\"' ~!!5  Z -\u0026lt;Ii: mm .z.. . !=' n 0 z !!l ::a C: n... . lz5 ::a m ~ !'\"  C: 0 :::\n0 ill ~ ~ ~ BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Partnership Agreement between Baseline Elementary and Soutwest Produce Southwest Produce is willing to: Make food/ice donations for special events Make food donations to help needy families, if needed Sponsor one or more students for Job Shadowing Kay Moore will mentor a female student and will visit with said student at least once a month at Baseline Be willing for students to make a fieldtrip to the store in the line of academic study or career education Participate in our annual community service project by donating or getting food items at cost Display student work in the business Baseline Elementary is willing to: Provide a calendar of events and invite employees to appropriate school functions Provide appropriate tokens of appreciation for partnership Help with a special project, such as a clean-up day or other 3623 Baseline Road  Phone (501) 447-3700 Fax (501) 447-3701  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Partnership Between Pulaski Technical College and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize Pulaski Technical College as a partner in education under the Career Links articulation agreement an advertise this agreement on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize Pulaski Technical College as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with Pulaski Technical College in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify qualified students who meet the the requirements outlined in the Career Links agreement and recommend the for this program. 5. Arrange field trips for students and/or parents to tour Pulaski Technical College coordinated through the Tech/Prep Coordinator. 6. Provide a display for Pulaski Technical College to recruit potential students and parents to review during Open House, Parent or Advisory Board Day and Job Fair. Pulaski Technical College will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on the Advisory Council to Metropolitan Career and Technical Center's various programs in order to provide guidance and strategic planning support regarding the enhancement of the school's curriculum, recruitment policies and the marketing of programs. 2. Provide technical credit toward a degree area for students at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center who meet the career links qualifications. 3. Provide an opportunity for field trips and visiting the campus. 4. Provide assistance with the annual Skills USA Competition in Hot Springs 5. Provide assistance with Open House at Metropolitan Career and Technical center. !=' (') 0 z !!l\na ~... cz5 fl:l ~ !'T1 \u0026gt; C: C ~ ill\na m c8 ~ WILLIAMS TRADITIONAL MAGNET SCHOOL A CHOICE FOR EXCELLENCE AARP Arkansas and Williams Traditional Magnet School Partnership Establishment The AARP Foundation leads positive social change to help people 50 and over age with independence, dignity and purpose. The Arkansas State Office and Information Center are both located in Little Rock. All AARP chapters are non-government, non-partisan, non-profit community service organizations that are open to all local AARP members. The AARP offers many programs, services, and many other subjects of interest to their members and their families. There are numerous employees who have a wide range of interests, talents, experiences, and ideas, and possibly will be willing to share these for the benefit of students at Williams Magnet School. Williams Traditional Magnet School is a tri-district magnet school operating in Pulaski County as a part of the LRSD. There is a staff of approximately 40 and a student enrollment of approximately 460. Despite all of the help afforded by the three school districts whose children attend, the school is always in need of additional resources in connection with the education provided to students. The staff at Williams Magnet School completed a school needs assessment to determine needed services and resources for the 2003-04 school year. The Partnership Council will use this information to match resources and needs throughout the school year. Activities will be coordinated through the AARP team leader and the Williams Magnet School team leader. The Partnership Council will attend an initial conference, and will then meet as the need arises to assess the effectiveness of the Partnership. Communication will be open and constant. *Proposed plan of activities for the 2003-04 school year: AARP Grandparent's Day Activities Student incentives/awards for Grandparent's Day Grandparent seminars/classes Provide educational resources Assembly guests Wjljiams Magnet School Student/reacher participation in AARP programs Promote ongoing recognition and appreciation Send monthly newsletters Art work Participate in contests Choir performance 7301 Evergreen Street  Phone (501) 447-7100  Fax (501) 447-7101 Little Rock , Arkansas 72207 DATE: TO: FROM: '.\n4.n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" March 25, 2004 Board of Directors Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Office~ Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman,\nj\nSUBJECT: March 2004 Construction Report - Bond Projects Please note that I am showing that the construction projects at Mabelvale Magnet Middle, Mann Magnet Middle and Williams Magnet Elementary are still under construction. In reality, these projects are complete except for some details that have not been completed. As an example, the area north of the replacement school at Mann is free of the portable classrooms and a parking lot is now under construction. Work on landscaping, drainage and drives at Mabelvale are nearing completion. There is still some odds and ends type work at Williams. All three (3) projects should be completed by the April 22nd Board meeting. The work for asbestos abatement and microbial remediation of Mitchell Elementary will be bid on April ?1h. When a contract is awarded, the contractor will have 60 calendar days from the time the Notice To Proceed is issued to complete the work. The drawings for renovating the building will be completed this summer. If you have any questions, please call me at 447-1146. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !..J.,' m\n%J ~ zz m rn ~ i!5 m en !.\".,' z ~ ~ m mE .z... . :-r, ..... mn ::c C: iB m~ CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 25, 2004 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name I Proiect Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Baseline Renovation $953,520 Jul-04 Brady Addition/renovation --- ~ 73,62_1 __ Aug-04 Central Renovation - Interior -- $10,200,266 - AJ:!_g-05 --- -- ~nbar Renovation/addition $6,149,023-- -- Dec-04 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 May-04 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851.~- - Mar-04 I-Partial Replacement -- ----,- Mann $11 ,500,000 May-04 McClellan Classroom Addition ~. 155,62_2 __ Jul-04 Parkview -- Addition $2,121,226 - Jun-04 f- - --- Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1 ,193,259 Aug_:_Qi ~ski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,0-41 ___ Aug-04 Southwest Addition t $2,000,00-0 -- Aug-04 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation - Addition/Renovation - Phase II I $3,679,000 __ Jun-04 Wakefield Rebuild --- ---- $5,300,000 Jul-04 -- -- -- Williams Renovation $2,106,4~ Mar-04 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - SPRING / SUMMER W04 Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I !::st. L\nompIeuon Date Central Reflecting Pond 50000 38203 Central HVAC Renovation - Band Area - --\n-- $225,000 ~ ug-04 Mitchell Building Remediation --- $165,000 - May-04 ~ -- --+--- Mitchell Renovation $2,377,493 Auo-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name I Proiect Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Booker Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown -- ~ 8,525 _ Booker Roof Unknown - --- Booker ADA Rest rooms TBD Unknown - Carver Media Center Expansion Unknown -Un-kn-own Chicot Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown -- -Chi-cot Sound Attenuation \u0026amp; Fire Alarm ___J13, 134--+-- Unknown --- -- --- floverdale Elementary Addition Unknown U-nk-no-wn Dodd Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD 1 -- Unkn-own Fair Park Addition Unknown Unknown - --- Remodel - $1,400,000 - Forest Heights Unknown --- --- GarJand Remodel Unknown Unknown ~yer Springs Roof Repair $161 ,752 Unknown -- --- Gibbs Addition Unknown Unknown -- - --- --- Henderson Lockers $80,876 Unknown Mablevale Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD-- Unknown McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown --- - --- -- Meadowcliff Addition Unknown Unknown -- Pulaski Hgts._MS _ Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Unknown Renovation -- - Rightsell -- -- -- --- $2,494,00Q_ 38930 ~hington Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $640,0~ Aug-05 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade --- TBD Unknown - TB~ --- Western Hills ADA Rest rooms Un-kno-wn Woodruff Parkinq addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD MARCH 25, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I t::st. 1,.\nompIe11on Date Administration Asbestos abatement - $380,495 Mar-03 Administration Fresh air system_ $55,000 Aug-03 -- - Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Aug-03 - Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,1 60 Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting -- I ~2,000 Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Badgett Fire alarm I $18,250 Aug-02 --- Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Dec-02 Bale Energy monitoring system I Mar-02 Bale Partial roof replacement ' $269,587 Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement -- -- -- $10,900 Feb-02 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 I Mar-02 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,5[3 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 May-01 Carver Parking lot $111 ,742 Aug-03 Central Parking Student parking $174,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 Aug-03 Central  Purchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 I Dec-02 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,ooo I Oct-01 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Aug-01 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Aug-01 ---- -- Clove-rda-le- El-em. -- Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Jul-01 $189,743 I -- Cloverdale MS ~rgy efficient lighting Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Nov-02 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 I Aug-01 Dodd 1 Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Jul-01 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC I $215,570 I Aug-02 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Facility Services Fire alarm I $12,000 I Aug-03 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 I Apr-02 - I Fair Park - Energy efficient lighting I $90,162 Aug-01 Fair Park .Asbestos abatement-ceiling I $59,310 Aug-01 J. A. Fair -- Energy efficient lighting I $277,594 Apr-01 -J. A. Fair Press box I $10,784 Nov-00 -J. A-. Fair - Security cameras I $12,500 Jun-01 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System I $14,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs I $391,871 Aug-03 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC ! $485,258 I Nov-03 Forest Park Diagonal parking I $111,742 Aug-03 Forest Park - 'Energy efficient lighting I $119,788 I May-01 Fulbright - Energy efficient lighting I $134,463 Jun-01 Fulbrig_b,!_ ~ergy monitoring system installation I $11,950 Aug-01 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot I $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbright Roof repairs I $200,000 Oct-02 Franklin i Renovation I $2,511,736 Mar-03 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Apr-01 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation : $11,770 Jul-01 2 '.Tl .... m n % C: ~ m !JI ~ m\n,:, is z z ,m... n ~ z G) m en CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 25, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facilitv Name I I I Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date 1-H..,.a.-cll_ ________ __.._M,...a~j_or_r_e_nov.,.a._ti_on_\u0026amp;_a_ddition $8,637,709 Sep-03 ,_H_a_ll ________ A_s_b_e_st_os abatement $168,222 Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting__ -----,- $42,931 Jul-01 1-H_a_ll ________ Energy efficient lighting _ _ $296,707 Apr-01 1-H..,.a.-cll_ ________l_n fra_s_tr_u_cture improvements $93,657 Aug-01 Hall Intercom ----,------==-~------ _ F_eb-_01 Hall Security cameras ____ $10,600 Jun-01 ,_H_e_n_d_e_r-s~o~n~~~~~~~~~~~~-=-E~n~e-=r-gy~e- f-fi1cientlighting __-_ -_- _:-_ $193,6_7_9__ Jul-01 Henderson Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 1-c.H.,.e._n_d,-ers_on _____+ -A- s~b-e-st'-0-'--s' -abatement Phase I $500\n0~ Aug-01 Henderson - -- Asbestos abatement Phase2 $250,00-_0+_ --~-g--~0-2 , IRC Energy efficient lighting ___ ___ $109,136 Jul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatement ____ $43,639 Oct-01 Jefferson ==--Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm -- ___ $1]30~0-00___ Nov-02 Laidlaw Parking lot ___ $269,588 Jul-01 Mabelvale Elem. - - Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 ~g-01 Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units --- ~00,0~(J...0.,___ Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement _____ --+-- $107,000 Aug-02 'Energy efficient lighting___ ---,-- $106,598 - ~02 Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers $134,7~ Aug-01 1_-a_~n_n_ _______~ A--sJ\np:_\nh-a'---l_t w.ac.lk_ -s'--- ___ -----The total $1_ 8 million f--- Dec-01 Mann _Walkway canopies ---.jis what has been Dec-01 Mann  Boiler replacement used so far on the __ Oct-01 Mann Fencing projects listed __ Sep-01 Mann _ Partial demolition/portable classroo~ completed for Mann. Aug-01 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 _Ju_l-_0_3 _McClellan __ Irrigation System $14,750  Jul-03 McClellan Security cameras $36,30_0===-=---J-un_-_0_1, McClellan __ Energy efficient lighting ____ $303,614 May-01 McClella_n_ - _ Stadium stands repair ___ _ -~- $235,000 Aug-01 McClellan Intercom __ $46,0_0_0__ Feb-02 McDermott __ Energy efficient lighting --- , $79~.4,...1.,..1,,.-+--_ Feb-01 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units I $476,000 Aug-02 Meadow_c_liff------+~F-ire-'---a--,l.a..-rm---'---'----------\"----'--.$.,..1-6~,-1-7--5-----J--u~I--0-1I -----------+------- -------------~------- Meadowcliff Meado_w_c.l,,i.f-f -- Metroe9I~ Metropol~ Metropolitan Mitchell --- -- Mitchell --- Mitchell Oakhurst Asbestos abatement ! $253,412 Aug-02 Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Dec-02 Replace cooling tower -----~ $37,203 Dec-00 Replace shop vent system __ ~0.000 May-01 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting -- ---,- - $103,642 1 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation __ $16.~ Jul-01 ! Asbestos abatement $13,000 Jul-01 HVAC renovation , $237,2ll._L Aug-01 ,_O_tte_r C_re_e_k___ _ __ Energy monitoring system installation $10,6_9_5__ May-01 Otter Creek ---~E_nergy efficient lighting 1 $81,828 Apr-01 Otter Creek Asbestos abatement 1 $10,000 Aug-02 Otter Creek --- ~Parking lot I $138,029 . Aug-02 _Otte_r Creek ____ 6 classroom addition 1 $888,778 __ O_c_t-_0_2 IP arking Improvements I __$c -c1,_4-2-~,5..4..,~1_ ___A_ ,.u.~g~-0,--3,-1 HVAC controls I $210,000 Jun-02 Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Roof replacement I $273,877 Sep-01 Parkview 1Exteriorlights 1 $10,784 Nov-00 Parkview ---\nHVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls -~- $301,938 Aug-01 Locker replacement ____ $12_0,~000~--- Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting , - ~15,000 Jun-01 Parkview Parkview 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 25, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Proiect Descriotion I Cost I Est. Completion Date Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move plat ground $17,000 Dec-02 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting I $84,898 Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting i $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC I $539,175 Aug-01 Rockefeller Parking addition I $111 ,742 Aug-02 Romine Ast\n\u0026gt;estos abatement I $10,000 Apr-02 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $3,534,675 Mar-03 Security/Transportation Bus cameras I $22,500 -- Jun-01 Southwest Asbestos abatement I $28,138 Aug-00 Southwest New roof I $690,000 -- Oct-03 Southwe-st -- Energy efficient lighting --- $168,719 Jan-02 -- Southwest - Drainage / street widening $250,000 Aug-03 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation I ~ 4,830 Aug-02 Student Assignment ~ alarm-- --- ~ --$- 9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Dec-01 - Technology Upgrade I Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Nov-02 Terry 'Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Feb-01 Terry I Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Aug-02 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Sep-02 Wakefield Security cameras I $8,000  Jun-01 Wakefield - -- Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Feb-01 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Nov-02 Washington - -- Security cameras $7,900 Jun-01 Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Apr-01 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Jul-01 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Aug-01 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Aug-01 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Watson - Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Aug-02 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191,946 Aug-02 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Dec-01 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Jul-01 Williams -- 'Parking expansions I $183,717 Dec-03 Williams - Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Jun-01 Wilson Renovation/expansion I $1,263,876 Feb-04 -Wilson - Parking Expansion $110,000 Aug-03 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 Auo-02 4 .?.,' m ~ !S z z ,m.. n $\nz C) m \"' 0.., z ~ ill m 31: zm ..... !'\" \u0026gt; C 0 ~ ~ \"' ill c8 ::!l :,-, ..... Ill :::c .C. , ~ m Date: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR.KANSAS March 25, 2004 To: Board of Directors @ From: Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - March This is the fifty-third communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, two middle schools and one elementary school to resolve financial issues in their activity 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) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. 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 ewspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. !II \"0 m\no is z z m rn $= z C) m \"' fl \"0 z ~ ~ m\ni:: m z -\u0026lt; Audit Report - March 2004 Page 2 of2 Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of uts \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. 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 infom1ation 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) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. c) Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. d) Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. e) Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. f) Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. g) Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. h) Reviewing leave accountability system. a) Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. b) Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. c) Participating in planning for Day of Caring (April 17, 2004). 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 501-44 7-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: March 25, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Information Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Technology Report  Technology training projects are continuing. UALR Cyberteacher summer program applicants have been selected and will participate for 6 weeks in June and July. District-wide professional development for teachers will take place on May 3 and will emphasize technology integration.  E-rate applications for 2004-2005 were all filed on or before the deadline of February 4. LRSD filed for approximately $1. 7 million in discounts on telecommunications services, LAN electronics, and video systems. We currently have outstanding applications for 3 different years for which we have received no notification. To provide an update to the Board of Directors on the status of technology projects To continue to implement the approved technology plan NIA NIA Lucy Neal - Instructional John Ruffins - Technical February 26, 2004 - March 25, 2004 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. !J:l \"ti m\n,::, is z z ,m... (\") ~ z c\n, m U\u0026gt; !\"' \"ti z ~ ~ m ~ zm ..... !=' ~ s\n:\n,::, -\u0026lt;  l: C: 5!l ~ zm ..... U\u0026gt; !\" 5!l C: C zm ..... (\") j!: zm ~ DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 25, 2004 Board of Education ~everly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes 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) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. r.,\u0026gt;, z ~ ~ m\ns:: .zm.. . !\" ~ = C mz... . n .\u0026gt;.... mz ~\nc Personnel Changes Page 2 March 25, 2004 NAME Cheatham, Mary Jane Reason: Retired Wold, Donald Reason: Contract Ended Andrews, Ashley Beggs, Melinda Brown, Carleton Brown, V erlyn POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Math II 8-21-73 6-21 SOUTHWEST 3-3-04 TCH925 1-6-03 66-13 CURR/INSTR. 3-1-04 ADN12 New Certified Emplovees Elem ill 2-16-04 1-01 BALE TCH925 English 1-20-04 4-19 CENTRAL TCH925 English 1-20-04 4-01 CENTRAL TCH925 Tutor 1-10 1-10 FAJRPARK TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 54700.00 52248.00 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated 25554.23 annual 11845.45 prorated 30553.00 annual 14162.59 prorated 34714.00 annual 11752.14 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 March 25, 2004 NAME Cain, Mary Carter, Arrel Crossley, Demetria Dyer, Julie Farrar, Neoma Green, Michele Harder, Melanie POSITION SCHOOL ElemV GEYER SPRINGS Spec. Ed. ALC Math TCH925 Elem IV STEPHENS Elem III CHICOT Elem IV BALE Physical Science FAIR START DATE END DATE 1-20-04 2-9-04 2-13-04 1-22-04 2-16-04 2-23-04 1-20-04 SALARY CLASS 1-04 TCH925 1-06 SPE925 1-04 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 2-03 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 28588.00 annual 13251.73 prorated 30630.00 annual 11964.84 prorated 29409.00 annual 10875.20 prorated 29609.00 annual 13416.58 prorated 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated 26546.00 annual 8986.93 prorated 14447.00 annual 6696.79 prorated \u0026gt; ~~ \u0026gt;' !\n~ Z::c ~..,,,8.... !JI: en 31::m 31::\na:I en~ Cm a, en ~ ~ r\u0026gt; \"D z \u0026gt; C)\na:, m m\nI: .zm.. . !=' en \u0026gt; \u0026gt;\na:, -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; ~ C: e..n.. m31:: z... . en 'e.\".n.. C: C .mz.. . (\") ,\u0026gt;.... mz ~\na:, Personnel Changes Page 4 March 25, 2004 NAME Harrison, Kenneth Home, Wanda King, Carmelita Kuhn, Scarlett Larry,Betty Lockhart, Kelly POSITION SCHOOL Geometry HALL Special Ed HENDERSON English FAIR Elem ill STEPHENS Typing START DATE END DATE 1-22-04 2-17-04 2-23-04 1-26-04 2-5-04 MABELV ALE MID. Algebra 2-16-04 PUL. HGTS. MID. SALARY CLASS 4-18 TCH925 1-04 SPE925 4-06 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 46889.00 annual 21246.53 prorated 28588.00 annual 10273.81 prorated 35633.00 annual 12063.25 prorated 29609.00 annual 14033.43 prorated 19095.62 annual 7658.14 prorated 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 March 25, 2004 NAME McDaniel, Yvonne Miller, Owyla Muhammad, Khaleelah Neumeier, Cynthia Olivares, Lizete Parr, Patricia Smith, Michelle POSITION SCHOOL Elem ill CLOVERDALE EL. Special Ed MANN Elem IV STEPHENS Elem II MCDERMOTT Spanish CENTRAL ElemV FAIR.PARK Elem II MCDERMOT START DATE END DATE 1-14-04 3-2-04 1-14-04 1-5-04 1-6-04 2-9-04 1-5-04 SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 1-03 SPE925 1-02 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 4-14 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 annual 12719.96 prorated 28359.00 annual 8714.48 prorated 27056.00 annual 13809.83 prorated 31651.00 annual 16320.05 prorated 27567.00 annual 14070.66 prorated 42805.00 annual 16720.70 prorated 26546.00 annual 13687.78 prorated  ~~  ' !\n~ Z::,: ~8 'TII'\"\" !I:\"'\n1:m ~~ Cm CD v, ~ !.,\",' z  C) ~ m !I: mz --\n!=' ~ s\n:\na -\u0026lt;  0 \u0026lt;- C: \"--'\n!I: mz --\n\"' rn \"--'\nC: 0 mz --\n0 ,.... m z 0 \na Personnel Changes Page 6 March 25, 2004 NAME Treat, Heather Watkins, Cindy Williams, Frank Wise, Marshalette Withers, Aaron ONE NONE POSITION SCHOOL Elem I CHICOT Spanish DUNBAR Music START DATE END DATE 2-2-04 1-14-04 1-20-04 MABELV ALE EL. English 1-12-04 HENDERSON Music 1-5-04 ROMINE Certified Promotion Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 1-16 TCH925 6-08 TCH925 4-04 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 annual 11060.83 prorated 40839.00 annual 19568.69 prorated 39461.00 annual 19524.97 prorated 32595.00 annual 15957.57 prorated 28588.00 annual 14398.52 prorated Personnel Changes Page 7 March 25, 2004 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Em(?lovees Bradford, Ollie Instr. Aide 8-24-81 1-10 Reason: Retired BALE 3-1-04 INA925 Carter, Danny Instr. Aide 2-10-97 2-01 Reason: None Given WASHINGTON 3-12-04 INA925 Graham, Linda Child Nutrition 1-7-04 3-01 Reason: Personal BALE 2-16-04 FSH550 Holloway, Jack Labor Driver 5-25-01 40-04 Reason: None Given FACILITY SERV. 3-9-04 MAINT. Holmes, Gloria Care 12-23-02 3-07 Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 CARE Homer, Bobbie Instr. Aide 9-7-93 1-04 Reaspn: Deceased BALE 2-25-04 INA185 Johnson, Eloyce Care 9-3-02 1-07 Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 CARE Lambert, Danielle Care 10-6-03 2-01 Reason: None Given CARE 2-13-04 CARE Lee, Charlotte Care 5-1-00 1-11 Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 CARE Miles, Janet Care 9-9-02 3-07 Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 14067.00 15916.00 8130.00 18384.00 7.68 12163.00 6.97 6.97 7.53 7.68 \u0026gt; ~~ \u0026gt;\" ~~ Z::c ~..,,8.. 31: en 31:m ~~ Cm CD en ~\nc -\u0026lt; p z\"0 \u0026gt; C)\nc m m :I: zm --\u0026lt; ~ en \u0026gt; \u0026gt;\nc -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; c0. .. C: en --\u0026lt; 31: zm e--n\u0026lt; !\" en --\u0026lt; C: 0 zm --\u0026lt; n ,\u0026gt;.... mz C \u0026gt;\nc Personnel Changes Page 8 March 25, 2004 NAME Ray, Dwight Reason: Personal Ricks, Anjanette Reason: None Given Ridgel, Richard Reason: None Given Simmons, Lakisha Reason: None Given Smittie, Carol Reason: None Given Todd, Freeman Reason: None Given Warren, Alfred Reason: None Given Watson, Izora Reason: None Given White, Gloria Reason: Deceased Whittington, Sherkeyer Reason: None Given Williams, Henrietta Reason: None Given POSITION SCHOOL Custodian FOREST PARK Care CARE Custodian None Given Care CARE Care CARE Care CARE Instr. Aide STEPHENS Child Nutrition MANN Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 9-6-04 1-30-04 3-17-03 1-21-04 1-6-03 1-15-04 10-6-03 1-20-04 12-8-03 1-20-04 11-17-03 2-2-04 9-10-03 2-27-04 8-12-03 2-23-04 8-19-03 CHILD NUTRITION 2-23-04 Care 12-2-02 CARE 1-21-04 Custodian 12-15-97 BASELINE 2-24-04 SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS925 1-05 CARE 1-02 CUS12 1-03 CARE 1-14 CARE 1-03 CARE 1-04 INA925 3-01 FSH550 2-01 FSMEAL 3-17 CARE 1-07 CUS!2 ANNUAL SALARY 10329.00 6.68 13955.00 6.43 7.93 6.43 12163.00 8130.00 11593.00 9.15 16736.00 Personnel Changes Page 9 March 25, 2004 NAME Williams, Carla Reason: None Given Wilson, Carolyn Reason: Personal Belcher, Aretha Carlock, Phillip Davis, Reshaunda Frizzell, Jennifer Gardner, Gayle POSITION SCHOOL Care CARE Instr. Aide PUL. HGTS. MID. START DATE END DATE 9-2-03 1-20-04 8-31-87 2-18-04 SALARY CLASS 2-05 CARE 1-05 INA185 New Non-Certified Employees Clerical 3-3-04 39-12 SOUTHWEST CLKl0 Instr. Aide 2-18-04 1-06 MABELV ALE MID. INA925 Custodian 2-26-04 1-01 HALL CUS925 Instr. Aide 2-28-04 1-07 ROCKEFELLER INA12 Media Clerical 3-3-04 31-16 PARKVIEW CLK925 ANNUAL SALARY 7.22 12481.00 23304.00 annual 7117.48 prorated 12798.00 annual 4565.77 prorated 5313.00 annual 1732.50 prorated 16931.00 annual 6051.93 prorated 20676.00 annual 6378.77 prorated \u0026gt; ~~ \u0026gt;  !\n!ll Z::i:: .~....8... !11:en 31:m 31:::C en~ Cm CD en ~ ~ f..l, z ~ :m:c m I: zm ..... !::\u0026gt; ~ s\n: ::c -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; c0.. .. C: e...n.. ll: mz ..... en !'\" .e..n.. C: 0 mz ..... n ,\u0026gt;... mz 0 :\u0026gt;:c Personnel Changes Page 10 March 25, 2004 NAME Germany, Lisa Howard, Vince Hyder, Keyonna Johnson, Loma Lenzie, Diann Nichols, Sherrie POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 2-2-04 CLOVERDALE MID. Custodian 2-26-04 HALL Custodian 2-24-04 FOREST PARK Clerical 3-9-04 FAIR Instr. Aide 3-8-04 FOREST HGTS. Instr. Aide 2-23-04 MITCHELL SALARY CLASS 3-01 FSH550 1-01 CUS925 1-01 CUS925 44-11 CLK12 1-06 INA925 1-05 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 8130.00 annual 3465.25 prorated 5313.00 annual 1732.50 prorated 5164.50 annual 1740.21 prorated 26256.00 annual 9049.94 prorated 13166.00 annual 3771.88 prorated 12481.00 annual 4790.01 prorated Personnel Changes Page 11 March 25, 2004 NAME McIntosh, Felicia Patterson, Gary Peaster, Pearlie Swagerty, Gail POSITION SCHOOL Secretary FEDERAL PROG. Instr. Aide ROCKEFELLER Child Nutrition BASELINE Child Nutrition FULBRIGHT START DATE END DATE 3-15-04 2-2-04 1-30-04 2-9-04 Non-Certified Promotion SALARY CLASS 49-09 AN12 1-07 INA12 7-01 FSH650 3-01 FSH550 Lucas, Chester Regular Security to District Wide Security Robertson, Andrew Regular Security to School Based Supervisor Non-Certified Transfer NONE ANNUAL SALARY 28716.00 annual 9042.48 prorated 16931.00 annual 7348.77 prorated 9606.00 annual 4146.85 prorated 8130.00 annual 3243.11 prorated .,_ z~ - '= ~ Z::c .~.,,8.. S:\u0026lt;n s:m s:\na \"'~ Cm ID \u0026lt;n ~ f) .., z ~ ~ m ms: z --\n~ \"\u0026gt;' \na -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; c~:: \"--'\ns: zm --\n\"' !\" ~c:: C zm --\n(\"') ~ mz ~ :x, '..1/:l.n Individual Approach to a World ef Knowledge\" March 25, 2004 To: LRSD Board of Directors From: Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared by:trieverly Williams, Director of Human Resources RE: Ratification of Professional egotiated Agreement between the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association and the LRSD Board of Directors On Friday, March 12, 2004, all components of the Negotiations were concluded as the Executive Director ofLRCTA and the ChiefNegotiator for the LRSD Board of Directors signed the attached tentative agreement. Several other articles were also signed off on with regard to language. I will be glad to answer any questions with regard to negotiations at the special board meeting. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 !'\" ~ C C m z --\u0026lt; n ,\u0026gt;... mz ~\n,:, Tentative Agreement Signed with LRCTA and the Board on 3-12-04 1) Salary: a. 2.875% for the 2003-04 school year retroactive to the first of the contract. b. 10% for the 2004-05 school year c. There is no guarantee in this package that additional funds allocated to LRSD because of Act 59 and/or changes in the Lakeview Court Settlement will be added to the teacher salary schedule. 2) Article 10: a) Insurance: 1. $253 for the 2003-04 school year for the remaining pay periods in the year. 2. Up to $260 for the 2004-05 school year. 3. Employees currently receiving the $550 in lieu :\u0026gt;fhealth insurance will not receive the stipend for the 2004-05 school year. They will be given an opportunity to enroll in a health insurance program during open enrollment in the fall. 3) Attendance Incentive: (professional leave and personal leave days are not part of this agreement.) Employees on sabbatical leave, educational leave, leave without pay or taken off payroll for any reason do not qualify for the perfect attendance bonus money outlined in the package proposal ($300, $300, $700). l. Employees who use none of their sick leave days during the first semester will receive a $300 stipend at the end of that semester. 2. Employees who use none of their sick days during the second semester will receive a $300 stipend at the end of that semester. 3. Employees who use none of their sick days during the entire school year will receive an additional perfect attendance stipend of $700. (Total of$1300 for one year of perfect attendance.) 4) Effective for the 2004-05 school year, teachers awarded National Board Certification will receive an annual stipend of$3000. 5) The language tentatively agreed to on March 12, 2004, on Articles 4, 6, 9 and 21 must be agreed to. 6) Two workdays and two record days will be used for staff development. Two record days will be  day in length. 7) Current Contract Language will be used with regard to period pay. ~n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" March 25, 2004 To: LRSD Board of Directors From: Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared by:~everly Williams, Director of Human Resources RE: Salary Adjustments for all other Employee Groups for 2003-04 The Administration is making the following recommendations for all other employee groups for the 2003-04 school year: A) B) The same salary raise as negotiated for teachers of 2.875% for 2003-04 retroactive to July I, 2003 The same insurance benefit of $253 per month on health insurance for the 2003- 04 school year beginning with the April I, 2004, pay period. C) All employees currently receiving the $550 in lieu of health insurance will not receive the stipend for the 2004-05 school year. They will be given an opportunity to enroll in a health insurance program during open enrollment in the fall. The Administration will be making recommendations with regard to future negotiations and salaries for the 2004-05 school year for all remaining employee groups at a later date. 810 \\'(/ Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001\n,\u0026gt;s \"Cl . m\u0026gt; C) 0 ~~ .z..,i Zen \"tlm \"0'\"~'\ngm en en ~ \u0026gt; ,~.\n.: i !,\n~ Z\n:c .~., 8,- !sI:: men se:n\"\u0026lt;' ,- \u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; -m a:, en ~ !..J,l z ~ C') ,\u0026gt;- en z\u0026gt; z C ~ \u0026gt; C C =l !\" !':l C 0 .zm.. . C') ,\u0026gt;.... zm ~ \"' '54n Individual Approach to a World efKnowledge\" March 25, 2004 To: LRSD Board of Directors From: .  ir. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared by:~everly Williams, Director of Human Resources RE: Calendar for 2004-05 The attached calendar for the 2004-05 school year is recommended for your approval. I will be glad to answer any questions regarding the calendar at the special board meeting. 810 W farkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 .!%.,1 z ~ n ,\u0026gt;.... en \u0026gt;z z C: ,\u0026gt;.... ~ C :::. MONTH JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY '05 FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE Legend M T 2 3 I 2 3 4 I I 2 3 * [] WV LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT CALENDAR 2004-2005 w TH F M T w TH F M T w I 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 SD SD SD SD SD WD 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 H I 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 SD 1 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 SD SD 3 4 5 8 9 10 II 12 15 16 17 I 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 [87] -R H 5 6 7 10 II 12 13 14 17 18 19 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 II 14 15 16 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 II 14 15 16 sv I 4 5 6 7 8 II 12 13 4 5 6 9 10 II 12 13 16 17 18 [1781 # R I 2 3 T 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 1st Day Students H Holiday End Quarter SD Staff Development TH 15 1*9 16 14 18 16 20 17 17 14 19 16 Winter Vacation R Reoord Days (one-half day) F M 16 19 20 23 17 20 15 18 19 22 WV 17 20 21 24 PC 18 21 18 21 15 18 20 23 17 20 sv Spring Vacation TCD Total Contract Days (9.25 teachers) PC Parent Conference WD Non-student Work Day ST DA' Student Days # Last Day Students T w 20 21 24 25 21 22 19 20 H 23 24 WV WV 21 22 25 26 22 23 22 23 19 20 24 25 21 22 For Board Approval # 2 ST TH F M T w TH F DAY :-, I) TCD 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 26 27 30 31 9 0 I 5 15 PC 23 24 27 28 29 30 20 1 1 0 21 [43] SD 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 19 0 0 2 21 H H 25 26 29 30 17 3 0 2 19 WV H WV WV WV WV WV 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 13 10 0 0 13 27 28 31 19 I 0.5 0 19.5 24 25 28 19 0 I 0 20 [134] SD sv sv sv SV 24 25 28 29 30 31 18 4 0 I 19 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 20 I 0 0 20 H 26 27 30 31 21 I 0 0 21 23 24 27 28 29 30 3 0 0.5 0 3.5 TOTALS 178 21 4 10 192 STUDENTS DO NOT ATTEND ON THE DAYS SHADED ABOVE I 1st Quarter = 43 student days 2nd Quarter = 44 student days 3rd Quarter = 4 7 student days 4th Quarter= 44 student days TOTAL = 178 STUDENT DAYS Student Galendar2004-05 4th Oran 3/22/2004 Date: To: From: Prepared By: Subject: Summary: Objectives: Population: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 25, 2004 Board of Education Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Margo Bushmiaer, Coordinator of Health Services \u0026amp; Chair of District Coordinated School Health Committee Mary Paal, Director of Safe Schools/Healthy Students Grant Annette Scogin, Assistant Director of Athletics Submission of 2004 Carol M. White Physical Education Program Proposal The U. S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, has published the draft guidelines for the 2004 application for grants under the Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP). We are currently in the process of preparing for submission of a Physical Education Program proposal and seek Board support and approval. The focus of this grant will be to expand and improve the physical education program in Little Rock School District elementary schools by: 1. hiring a Coordinator of Elementary Physical Education to assure implementation of the Arkansas Department of Education Physical Education Standards. 2. providing equipment to enable students to participate actively in physical education activities\nand 3. provide staff and teacher training and education in order to make progress toward meeting State Standards for physical education. 4. implement the \"Nifty Nutrition Education\" program with elementary students. All students and staff in Elementary Schools. Duration: Three-year period: July 2004 - June 2007 Projected Request: $ 627,000.00 over the three-year period .?.,l z \u0026gt;z C')\n,\n\nVI \u0026gt;z z C: ,\u0026gt;- ~ C =I March 25, 2004 Page2 Other Agencies: Arkansas Parks and Recreation Extension Services of Arkansas University of Arkansas at Little Rock University of Central Arkansas Recommendations: We recommend approval for submission of the 2004 PEP proposal\nprovide support by adoption of the PEP resolution Attachments: None TO: FROM: SUBJECT: '54n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" March 25, 2004 Board of Directors Morris L Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent aming of Facilities - Mabelvale Magnet Middle School The faculty, staff, parents, and students of Mabelvale Magnet Middle School have submitted a request to name the library in honor of Mr. Carl Martin, a lifetime resident of Mabelvale who serves as the local historian for Mabelvale students. The request and supporting documents are submitted in accordance with Policy FF: aming of Facilities. The administration recommends approval. 810 \\'C l\\Iarkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 .!J.,l z \u0026gt;z 0 ,\u0026gt;- \"' \u0026gt;z z C: \u0026gt;,- ~ C =I Adopted: May 27, 1999 Cross Reference: Naming and Renaming Facilities Form NAMING AND RENAMING FACILITIES Mabe/vale Magnet Middle School I propose that the 10811 Mabe/vale West Roa~ Mabe/vale/ AR 72103 be named the \"Carl Martin Librarv// I. Biographical Data: Carl Martin, a lifetime resident of Mabelvale, has served as the local historian for Mabelvale students. His great-grandparents settled this area in 1826 when they bought 1,300 acres of land. (See attached Biographical Data) II. The Nominee's significant contribution is his donation of \"local history\" to Mabelvale students. As a 93-year member of this community, Mr. Martin is well-known and very respected by the people of the community. He loves our students and enjoys sharing his \"stories\" with them. He has worked for many years to preserve the history of the Little Rock area. He plans to donate two columns from the old Little Rock Carnegie Library to our school. (See attached Significant Contribution) 111. I believe the facility should be named for this person because of the Martin families ties to the community and to the school. Carl Martin has spent a lifetime dedicated to the preservation of the history of the \"Mabelvale Community\". (Date) This form should be submitted by persons nominating names for new facilities to the LRSD Board of Education for consideration according to Board policy FF. 4 Background History on \"The Martin Projecr' During the 2001-2002 school year, our Builders Club met to discuss various service projects for our club. At this same time, Ms. Kathey Farley was looking for a project for the East Lab to research. Locating and recording data from an area cemetery was a project that intrigued Ms. Farley. After brainstorming with many teachers, Ms. Farley contacted Joyce Swinney, a teacher and longtime area resident, who told her about Mr. Clif Morehart, the caretaker of the Martin Cemetery. As Mr. Morehart visited our school to tutor reading students for Ms. Beckie Jones's English classes, we were able to visit with him frequently about Mabelvale's history. Ms. Farley asked Mr. Morehart to speak to her East Lab classes about the cemetery and the community. We shared information with Ms. Farley about a research project on Mabelvale that we had completed with some classes several years ago. As Ms. Pam Wallace and I worked on an Arkansas Heritage \"Living History\" grant, the pieces started falling into place. We decided to work with Ms. Farley's East Classes on a special project to interview Mr. Carl Martin, whose family had lived in this area for over 150 years. Ms. Farley's East Lab students and the Builders Club students could work on a living history project. However, the project was \"too large\" for our time constraints. Even though we didn't get the Arkansas Heritage grant, Ms. Wallace and I felt that the \"living history\" project was important. Mrs. Farley's East students took pictures and started transcribing the interviews. Throughout the year, we visited Mr. Martin, got to know his wife, Lorene, and fell in love with both of them. Our students were amazing-they were so interested in learning about Mr. Martin's rooster, the Little Rock City Jail keys, and the Andrew Carnegie columns. We learned about the town of Mabelvale, and even about the red clay that the school is built on. It didn't matter what topic we asked about, Mr. Martin had an answer. He was versed on everything. He loved our kids, and they felt it. After each visit, he always hugged them as if he had known :tiem forever. Some of our sixth graders visited Mr. Martin, and the next year they started asking us if they could go back to see him. On September 25, 2003, representatives of the Builder's Club presented a plaque to Mr. Martin to thank him for his years of service to Mabelvale schools. When we gave him the plaque, he was very touched. We were also very touched and amazed at what an impression this project has had on our students. After spending the past three school years on this project, we knew that it was only fitting to honor our local historian with a unique gift since our school sits in the middle of the Martin\" homestead. The community of Mabelvale has a \"rich heritage\" and closeness. To honor the Martin Family and this community, we are requesting permission to name the Mabe/vale Magnet Middle School Library the \"Carl Martin Library\". When the new library is finished, we plan to have an Open House to dedicate the facility as the Carl Martin Library. We will have a portrait of Mr. Martin to display in an area of the library with other items collected from the community. Mr. Martin has agreed to donate two columns from the old Carnegie Library to our school. We plan to have a plaque placed on them to tell of their historical significance to the state. We will invite the community to the Open House and dedication of the Library. We will ask our Partners-In-Education to assist us with the celebration. .!%.,' z ~ 0 ,\u0026gt;- ,e,n. zz ,C,.: ,- ~ C =I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: March 25, 2004 Board of Education FROM: ~Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: Schoo I/Department Booker Arts Magnet Elementary School J.A. Fair Magnet High School Forest Park Elementary School Forest Park Elementary School Forest Park Elementary School Item G.E refrigerator, valued at $200.00, for use in the teacher's lounge 156 backboards, valued at $1,000.00, for use by students in all-school science fair Mr. Jeffrey Carson Mr. David Rainey of SmurfitStone Container Corporation New iron fencing at east, Forest Park PT A north and part of the west playground perimeters valued at $19,850.00 Stonework surrounding Forest Park PT A both play equipment areas at east and west sides valued at $17,867.00 Multipondo play Forest Park PT A equipment and installation valued at $2,798.35 !.X.,I z \u0026gt; ~ ,\u0026gt;.... \"' \u0026gt;z z C: -,:. \u0026gt; C: C =i Board of Education March 25, 2004 Page2 School/Department Gibbs Elementary Magnet School Jefferson Elementary School Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Rightsell Academy Item Donor $2,500.00 check to be Ms. Susan M. Wixon applied toward the installation of a sprinkler system Six (6) DVD players Jefferson PTA and one (1) DVDNCR combo player. The estimated value of all donated items is $775.00. Four (4) iMac computers Mr. Patrick R. Carrington w/separate components, four (4) Epson color printers and miscellaneous computer supplies to Parkview's Journalism Department. The total value of all donated items is $3,035 .00. 15 Dell P2/300 computers Acxiom Corporation w/separate components. The estimated value of all donated items is $1,000.00. It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. To: From: Subject: Date: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Cheryl A. Carson, Principal, Booker Arts Magnet School Donation of Property March 2, 2004 Jeffrey Carson wishes to donate a G.E. refrigerator, model number TBX18TAZGRWH, for use in the Teacher's Lounge at Booker Arts Magnet School. The refrigerator is valued at $200.00. Mr. Carson's address is 4115 Ridge Road, North Little Rock, AR, 72116. I respectfully request that this donation be accepted in accordance with Little Rock School District policy. .!.I,I z ~ n \u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt;z z C .\u0026gt;.... \u0026gt; C C ::::\nTO: FROM: DATE: RE: J. A. Fair Magnet High School Science \u0026amp; Technology Systems 13420 David O. Dodd Roaa Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Telephone (501) 447-1700 Fax (501) 447-1701 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement e:\\\\_,. Cassandra Norman, Principal February 5, 2004 Donation to J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Mr. Davin Rainey, Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., P. 0 . Box 4790, Little Rock, Arkansas 72214, has generously donated 156 backboards with a value of $1 ,000 for use by our students in our all school science fair. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. A School of the Little Rock School District TO: \u0026lt;'1rf ,FROM: vv-DATE: RE: Darral Paradis, Director Theresa Ketcher, Principal of Forest Park School February 5, 2004 Donations These donations have been made to Forest Park School. See attachment It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. /pl .!J.,I z ~ n \u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt;z z C ,\u0026gt;- \u0026gt; C C =l December 1, 2003 Theresa Ketcher, Principal Forest Park Elementary 16 N. Tyler Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Mrs. Ketcher, The Forest Park PT A is pleased to list the following items donated for playground improvements during the 2002-2003 school year: New iron fencing at east, north and part of the west playground perimeters valued at $19,850.00. Stonework surrounding both play equipment areas at east and west sides, $17,867.00. Multipondo play equipment and installation, $2798.35. The precast caps installed on the stonework surrounds were donated by Arkansas Precast and are valued at $22,000.00. (This donation was approved in the Feb. 2003 Board meeting.) Forest Park continues to provide a great learning environment and we appreciate the opportunity to contribute to our school in this way. Sincerely, / /21,\n// t\n.~ /\nV ----- e.. l ('0f/, '\" L Ellen Yearyl,Past Prtsident, PT A (2002-2003) GIBBS MAGNET SCHOOL TO: FROM: DATE: I \\ T E 12 \\ .\\ T I O \\ .\\ I. HDI [6 Mr. Darrall Paradis, Director of Procurement Jfl'Felicia Hobbs, Principal February 27, 2004 SUBJECT: Donation Ms Susan M. Wixon very graciously donated a check in the amount of$2,500.00 to Gibbs Magnet School. The donation goes toward the installation of a sprinkler system here at Gibbs. We sincerely appreciate this donation. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. FH:kt ' .. 11 15 West 1 6'\" Street Phone 447-4900  Little Rock . Arkansas 72202 /.~ /'' ,~1'.\\,  ,.,, \\ JEFFERSON E LEMENTARY SCHOOL February 27, 2004 To: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management From: f.f Roberta Mannon, Principal Jefferson Elementary School Subject: Donation The following donation has been made to Jefferson Elementary School: Six DVD players and one DVDNCR combo player - total value approximately $775.00. The Jefferson PTA donated these items. Mailing address for the PTA is Jefferson School. It is recommended that this donation be accepted in accordance with LRSD Board policies. 2600 N. McKinley Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 - Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2501 BARROW ROAD Date: To: From: Subject: PHONE 228-3000 February 10, 2004 Darral Paradis, Director LRSD Procurement Department Dr. Linda Brown, Principal '/fr Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Computer Equipment Donation Ll'ITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 Mr. Patrick R. Carrington recently donated several items of computer equipment to Parkview' s Journalism Department. Please reference the attached list. We, at Parkview, would like to say a very hearty Thank You to Mr.Carrigan! Your support is appreciated more than we can express. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. .. ,!l,:l z \u0026gt;z 0 ,... u,\n:\nzz C: ,\u0026gt;... \u0026gt; C: C =l DONATION(S) TO PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL Judith Murray Class: Journalism _________ _ January 22, 2004 from Patrick R. Carrington/ 26 Talais Drive/ LR/ Ar./ 72223 501.821.0114 MacOvation, Inc. 1 . ) iMac ( completely functional) (iMac A) Revision A-233 mHz / Serial # XA8464N5EUL / RAM 128 MB 4 GB HD/ Video Mem 6MB / Backside L2 cache 512K internal modem v.90 56K MacOS10.3.2 (Panther) / MacOS9.2.2 Microsoft Office for MacOS9 AND MacOSX (Word, Powerpoint, Excel) Wordperfect (MacOS9) by Corel MaclinkPlusDeluxe VALUE: $550 2.) Plastic riser platform for iMac: Revision A VALUE: $ 35 3.) Computer Skins: iMac \u0026amp; Keyboard Designer Covers X3 VALUE: $12 X 5 = $60 4.) iMac (ethernet disabled by lightening strike) (iMac B) Revision C-350 mHz / Serial # YMO35ASV-JWQ-ff09 / RAM 640 MB 7 GB HD/ Video Mem 6MB / Backside L2 cache 512K internal modem v.90 56K MacOS10.3.2 (Panther) / MacOS9.2.2 Microsoft Office for MacOS9 AND MacOSX (Word, Powerpoint, Excel) Wordperfect (MacOS9) by Corel I MaclinkPlusDeluxe Stuffit Expander 8.0.2 VALUE: $650 5.) Epson Color 740i Printer Serial # BUY1389723 Includes USB cable \u0026amp; printer cartridges VALUE: $120 6.) iMac (completely functional) (iMac C) Revision C-350 mHz / Serial # YM0320Z9JWQ / RAM 640 MB 7 GB HD/ Video Mem 6MB / Backside L2 cache 512K internal modem v.90 56K MacOS10.3.2 (Panther) / MacOS9.2.2 Microsoft Office for MacOS9 AND MacOSX 0fvord, Powerpoint, Excel) Wordperfect (MacOS9) by Corel MaclinkPlusDeluxe VALUE: $650 7.) Epson Black Printer Cartridge for Epson 7 40 S020189 VALUE: $25 8.) Epson Color Photo 850 Printer w/ new black ink cartridge. Serial# AZN1123175 Model P930-A VALUE: $150 9.) Epson Color Stylus 820 Printer Serial# EKEK038614 Model P330-A VALUE: $125 1 O.) Epson 740i Stylus Color Printer Serial# BUY1137914 VALUE: $120 11.) iMac (completely functional) (iMac D) Revision A-233 mHz /Serial# XA834FJUDFN / RAM 288 MB 4 GB HD/ Video Mem 6MB / Backside L2 cache 512K internal modem v.90 56K MacOS10.3.2 (Panther) / MacOS9.2.2 Microsoft Office for MacOS9 AND MacOSX (Word, Powerpoint, Excel) Wordperfect (MacOS9) by Corel MaclinkPlusDeluxe VALUE: $550 Total Value of Donation: $3,035.00 !..II, z ~ C'l \u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt;z z C \u0026gt;,.... \u0026gt; C 0 =I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Eunice M. Thrasher, Principal  i Rightsell Academy February 17, 2004 Donation The donor listed below has generously donated 15-P2-300 Dell workstations and 15 \"13\" monitors. The estimated value is $1000.00. Acxiom 301 Industrial Blvd Conway, AR 72032 Contact Person: Jerry Adams (501) 342-2480 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 you consideration. Date: To: From: Through: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 25, 2004 Board of Education Mark Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services Don Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Annual Audit Report You have received under separate cover a copy of the annual audit of the District's financial condition as prepared by Thomas \u0026amp; Thomas, Certified Public Accountants. As required by Arkansas law, the board must take action to approve the audit prior to submission to the state. The administration recommends approval of the audit at this time. bjg Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1086 Fu: (501) 447-1158 DATE: March 25, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY,Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes  Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending February 29, 2004. To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial condition. NIA NIA Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District NI A  Needed Staff NI A  Comments None  Recommendation Approval of the February 2004 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. -- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2003 AND FEBRUARY 29, 2004 -- APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2002/03 02/28/03 COLLECTED 2003/04 02/29/04 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 57 ,147,781 97.61% 57,547,800 55,681 ,497 96.76% ~DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 8,432,483 105.41% 10,100,000 10,264,896 101 .63% 4 0% PULLBACK 29,400,000 29,600,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 205,072 109.66% 210,000 ~DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 174,515 45.33% 180,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 337,232 249.80% 150,000 206,062 137.37% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 235,596 69.29% 380,000 239,896 63.13% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 119,016 43.28% 200,000 106,666 53.33% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 175,342 109.59% 240,000 178,086 74.20% TOTAL 97,432,000 66,827,036 68.59% 98,607,800 66,6TT,103 67.62% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 17,215 71 .73% 21 ,000 11 ,594 55.21% TOTAL 24,000 17,215 71.73% 21,000 11,594 55.21% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 35,239,580 64.23% 53,226,139 34,286,616 64.42% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 4,566,701 60.17% 8,300,000 4,048,584 48.78% VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 833,381 62.19% 1,400,000 828,403 59.17% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 757,851 44.58% 1,675,000 821,175 49.03% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 205,407 75.14% 273,358 202,301 74.01% TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% 3,875,562 1,243,841 32.09% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 1,804,317 55.26% 3,900,000 1,842,110 47.23% ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 377,991 37.57% 920,337 403,283 43.82% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 658,607 100.00% 560,545 267,486 47.72% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% 285,245 285,245 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 64,573 9.93% 360,000 236,541 65.71% TOTAL 75,441,106 47,246,763 62.63% 74,776,187 44,465,585 59.46% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 175,922 15.62% 1,350,000 135,093 10.01% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 554,813 33.33% 1,632,430 544,143 33.33% TOTAL 3,410,671 730,735 21.42% 3,752,430 679,236 18.10% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 114,821,750 65.13% 177,157,418 111,833,518 63.13% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 10,731 ,261 42.66% 24,075,790 12,036,503 49.99% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 2,082,476 52.32% 4,000,000 2,427,292 60.68% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 10,408,214 41 .52% 24,689,351 10,464,842 42.39% TOTAL 54,198,923 23,221,951 42.85% 52,765,141 24,928,637 47.24% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 138,043,700 59.89% 229,922,559 136,762,155 59.48% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2003 AND FEBRUARY 29, 2004 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2002/03 02/28/03 EXPENDED 2003/04 02/29/04 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 59,903,522 59.39% 100,684,982 55,047,173 54.67% BENEFITS 24,838,361 15,085,593 60.74% 26,483,772 14,377,965 54.29% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 11,960,581 60.42% 19,719,297 11,745,812 59.57% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 4,756,586 56.98% 8,185,459 5,873,557 71 .76% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 860,152 53.19% 1,575,580 707,894 44.93% OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 2,918,81 1 34.30% 8,384,567 2,982,417 35.57% DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 12,213,572 99.97% 12,098,342 12,191,763 100.77% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176,189,538 107,698,817 61.13% 177,131,999 102,926,581 58.11% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,1 48,726 10,208,019 39.04% 26,056,193 10,284,905 39.47% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 1,976,084 49.65% 4,000,000 2,563,705 64.09% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 13,302,996 53.07% 24,689,351 12,438,947 50.38% TOTAL 55,194,668 25,487,100 46.18% 54,745,544 25,287,557 46.19% TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 133,185,917 57.56% 231,877,543 128,214,138 55.29% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 4,857,782 (1,954,984) 8,548,016 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,645,440 3,558,580 3,558,580 OPERATING 8,557,652 8,557,652 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 (619,709) 1,578,177 3,199,660 OPERATING 8,675,891 15,680,583 9,052,274 17,933,792 TOTAL 9,325,586 15,060,875 10,630,451 21,133,452 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2004 pROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 02-29-04 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,219.02 77,219.02 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 110,501 .92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110,501.92 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 87,000.00 68,753.26 51,049.11 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 246,791 .00 10,880,842.34 6,516,266.11 1,464,227.95 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 7,963.49 25,000.00 9,310.48 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 7,679.00 22,190.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 2,108,630.36 2,381,883.52 408,932.43 2,086,394.22 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31,306,506.59 166,300.00 13,032,781 .41 8,695,556.31 9,744,468.87 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 949,213.61 59.53 1,385,746.10 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 2,608,721.36 27,329,116.63 15,645,814.38 14,763,387.29 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 1,000.00 445,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 (2,608,721.36} 19,465,877.87 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 917,779.02 8,206,555.91 SUBTOTAL 31,107,082.11 918,779.02 (2,608,721.36} 0.00 0.00 29,417,139.77 GRAND TOTAL  ~~z laa ~z ~la zz~ a2 ~ ~z a~~ mi a l:i ~:i aa aa ~m 11~a~a PROJECT ALLOCATIONS PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 02-29-04 1 ADMINISTRATION 673,846.55 NEW WORK PROJECTS 35,565,851 .80 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,883,405.13 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 13,342,240.87 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51 ,655,707.04 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 11 ,735,611 .78 UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 20,759,698.84 I TOTAL I 138,882,176.18\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2004 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE I 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 THRU 02-29-04 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 149,597.63 68,753.26 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11 ,671 ,442.11 10,880,842.34 113,930.47 109,609.73 7,963.49 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661.38 I 7,679.oo I 791 ,385.63\n4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 2,381 ,883.52 I 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 13,032,781.41 I 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 4,500,374.61 949,213.61 I 5,852,669.42 I 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 27,329,116.63 I I ENDING ENCUMBERED ALLOCATION THRU 02-29-04 SUBTOTAL 02-29-04 0.00 622,797.44 51 ,049.11 6,516,266.11 34,101 ,623.85 1,464,227.95 25,000.00 256,503.69 9,310.48 0.00 4,861 ,214.57 22,190.56 408,932.43 : 11 ,255,846.65 2,086,394.22 8,695,556.31 41 ,911 ,238.17 9,744,468.87 59.53 10,349,865.68 1,385,746. 10 20,759,698.84 I 15,645,814.38 I 103,359,090.05 I 35,523,086.13 Mnorov Ix , s~~l~l/3H x S)fH\\IW3M ~NISOl:\u0026gt; 'XI Fund Operating Operating Operating Operating Total Food Service Activity Fund Total Bond Account Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Total Deseg Plan Scholarship Total Rockefeller Scholarship Total Risk Management Loss Fund I ' Purchase ' Date 02-26-04 ' 01-15-04 ' 02-13-04 ' I 12-19-03 I 02-19-04 I 02-17-04 I I I 09-08-03 01-16-04 01-16-04 01-30-04 11-18-03 05-15-03 01-16-04 05-15-03 12-01-03 09-15-03 02-23-04 12-05-03 01-15-04 02-17-04 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2004 I I I Maturity l I Institution I interest Rate j Type Principal I I I Date ' I I TFN Bank of America ' 0.810% Repo I 5,585,000.00 I 03-15-04 Twin City Bank 1.350% CD 5,004 ,986.08 I ' ' 03-15-04 Twin City Bank l 1.350% CD 5,010,334.44 I 03-01-04 Twin City Bank 1.400% CD I 9,600,000.00 I 25,200,320.52 I I I I TFN Bank of America 0.720% Repo 945,000.00 I I I I I 945,000.00 I TFN I Bank of America I 0.780% Repo I 1,200,000.00 I I I I I 1,200,000.00 i I ' 03-08-04 I Regions I 1.094% CD I 400,000.00 I 07-14-04 Metropolitan 1.930% CD 1,000,934.31 I I 07-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.400% CD 5,231,393.21 01-31-05 ' Bancorp South 1.850% CD I I I 2,100,244.72 04-15-04 I Bank of the Ozarks I 1.300% I CD I 6,000,000.00 08-16-04 USBANK 1.420% I CD 11,000,000.00 06-10-04 Bank of America I 0.910% I Treasury Bills 5,365,126.36 05-14-04 I Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% CD I 9,000,000.00 05-03-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD I 3,060,648.33 03-15-04 ' Bank of the Ozarks 1.430% CD 10,221,001.82 TFN Bank of America 0.810% Repo I 7,000,000.00 I 60,379,348.75 I 06-15-04 Bank of America 1.020% Treasury Bills 668,325.28 I I I 668,325.28 i I I 06-10-04 Bank of America 0.910% I Treasury Bills 252,059.89 I 252,059.89 TFN I Bank of America 0.250% Repo 400,000.00 I ' 400,000.00\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1091","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":["2004-02"],"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--Economic aspects","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/1091"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nI. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER I ROLL CALL C :=z i:i: w ~ c::, I- \u0026gt; c::::, LLCz\u0026gt; C'-1 =::s ~ -  LL1::z: -~ w \" ~ c::, C\\1 ::~ 0 == ~ co LL.I LU a: ~ w ~ ~ a: (fl LU c:a  ?---1 ~ C) ~ C ~ ~CJ) ~ ~ ~ Q.) ~ ~  \"\".'1 ~ II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS WELCOME 9() S ~ Q.) ~ .... ~ ~ ~ Q.) -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION C. PUBLIC ED FOUNDATION REPORT  \\ ' ' . \\ \\ \\ \\ I . ' \\ '. \\  . \\ \\ \\' ' . \\ \\ . \\. \\ .. . ., .\u0026lt;.\\\\ \\ .. \\ .. . . D. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS E. LRCTA/F.JOSHUA ~ ~ ~ Q: ~ I le 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 REGULAR MEETING February 12, 2004 5:30 p.m. 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Bale Elementary School - Twin City Bank - Baseline Elementary School - Southwest Produce - Williams Magnet School - AARP-C. Public Education Foundation of Little Rock - John A. Riggs, IV D. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) E. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association F. 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 Demonstration Regular Board Meeting February 26, 2004 Page2 V. VI. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Regular Meeting - 01-22-04 Special Meeting - 02-12-04 B. Extension of PN Agreement C. Personnel Changes SCHOOL SERVICES: A. Naming of Facilities: Mann Magnet Middle School Auditorium B. Resolution to 4G: Attendance Rubric C. School Improvement Report: An Overview VII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Land Sale - Forest Heights Middle School B. Lease: Miles Memorial Church C. Resolution Authorizing Refinance/Consolidation of Outstanding Debt D. Construction Budget Revision - Mitchell and Rightsell E. Donations of Property F. Financial Report VIII. CLOSING REMARKS: IX. X. Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions EMPLOYEE HEARINGS ADJOURNMENT I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER I ROLL CALL U. PROCEDURAL MATTERS WELCOME Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION C. PUBLIC ED FOUNDATION REPORT 0. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS E. LRCTA/F.JOSHUA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 February 26, 2004 Board of Education Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education)~ Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships 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. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Bale Elementary School and Twin City Bank-University Branch Baseline Elementary School and Southwest Produce Williams Traditional Magnet School and AARP Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank- University Branch and Bale Elementary School Twin City Bank- University Branch 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 students and listen to students read  Job shadowing  Provide speakers for topics such as economics, saving money, etc.  Provide refreshments for staff functions Bale Elementary commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide artwork for display in bank lobby  Provide choir to perform on holidays and special occasions-grand opening  Acknowledged Twin City Bank - University Branch as a Partner in Education  Invite the bank to school events  Work with the bank on community service projects BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Partnership Agreement between Baseline Elementary and Soutwest Produce Southwest Produce is willing to: Make food/ice donations for special events Make food donations to help needy families, if needed Sponsor one or more students for Job Shadowing Kay Moore will mentor a female student and will visit with said student at least once a month at Baseline Be willing for students to make a fieldtrip to the store in the line of academic study or career education Participate in our annual community service project by donating or getting food items at cost Display student work in the business Baseline Elementary is willing to: Provide a calendar of events and invite employees to appropriate school functions Provide appropriate tokens of appreciation for partnership Help with a special project, such as a clean-up day or other 3623 Baseline Road  Phone (501) 447-3700  Fax (501) 447-3701 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 !\" \u0026gt; C: C ~ ::0 en fll c3 ~ WILLIAMS TRADITIONAL MAGNET SCHOOL A CHOICE FOR EXCELLENCE AARP Arkansas and Williams Traditional Magnet School Partnership Establishment The AARP Foundation leads positive social change to help people 50 and over age with independence, dignity and purpose. The Arkansas State Office and Information Center are both located in Little Rock. All AARP chapters are non-government, non-partisan, non-profit community service organizations that are open to all local AARP members. The AARP offers many programs, services, and many other subjects of interest to their members and their families. There are numerous employees who have a wide range of interests, talents, experiences, and ideas, and possibly will be willing to share these for the benefit of students at Williams Magnet School. Williams Traditional Magnet School is a tri-district magnet school operating in Pulaski County as a part of the LR.SD. There is a staff of approximately 40 and a student enrollment of approximately 460. Despite all of the help afforded by the three school districts whose children attend, the school is always in need of additional resources in connection with the education provided to students. The staff at Williams Magnet School completed a school needs assessment to determine needed services and resources for the 2003-04 school year. The Partnership Council will use this information to match resources and needs throughout the school year. Activities will be coordinated through the AARP team leader and the Williams Magnet School team leader. The Partnership Council will attend an initial conference, and will then meet as the need arises to assess the effectiveness of the Partnership. Communication will be open and constant. *Proposed plan of activities for the 2003-04 school year: AARP Grandparent's Day Activities Student incentives/awards for Grandparent's Day Grandparent seminars/classes Provide educational resources Assembly guests 7301 E:vergreen Street  Phone (501) 447-7100 Williams Magnet School Student/Teacher participation in AARP programs Promote ongoing recognition and appreciation Send monthly newsletters Art work Participate in contests Choir performance Fax (501) 447-7101  Little Rock , Arl\u0026lt;ansas 72207 '.54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: February 26, 2004 Board of Directors ~nald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Bill Goodman~ February 2004 Construction Report - Bond Projects The remodeling of Central High School is being performed in construction phases. Portable classrooms have permitted construction to be done during normal working hours in the areas of the building that are vacated by staff and students. This method and the cooperation of Central' s staff have allowed the contractor to accelerate the construction schedule. The completion date has been changed to the summer of 2005 as opposed to the original completion date of December 2005. All of the portable classrooms at Mann Magnet Middle School were sold at a public auction earlier this month. All of the portable classrooms will be removed by the end of this month. This will allow the contractor to build the new parking lot north of the replacement school. All construction will be completed by May 1st . The above is all good news. The bad news is that the construction of the new media center at Dunbar Magnet Middle School has had several unexpected delays. Instead of being ready for occupancy this summer, it will be completed in December 2004. If you have any questions, please call me at 447-1146. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.1rsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 rn  c:: C ~ 6l ~ ~ .'..\". mn ::c C ~ z ~ ! \u0026lt;z5 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 26, 2004 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Baseline Renovation $953,520 Jul-O4 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Aug_:Qi Central Renovation  Interior $10,200,266 Aug-O5 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161 ,950 Dec-O4 J. A. Fair 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music room addition $3,155,640 May-O4 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mar-O4 Mann Partial Replacement $11 ,500,000 May-O4 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Jul-O4 Parkview Addition $2,121 ,226 Jun-O4 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1 ,193,259 . Aug-O4 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Aug-O4 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Aug-O4 Tech Ctr I Metro Renovation 'Addition/Renovation Phase II $3,679,000 Jun-O4 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Jul-O4 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Mar-O4 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - WINTER/ SPRING 2004 Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I tst. Completion Date Mitchell Renovation $750,000 I Aug-O5 Rightsell I Renovation $660,000 Aug-O6 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. completion Date Booke-r --- Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown --Roof-- --- ----- -Boo-ker -- $48,525 I Unknown ADA Rest rooms -- Booker TBD Unknown Carver Media Center Expansion Unknown Unknown Chicot -- Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Chicot Sound Attenuation \u0026amp; Fire Alarm $50,783 Un-known Cloverdale Elementary Addition Unknown Unknown Dodd Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown Fair Park 1Additior, Unknown I Unknown Forest Heights _ !Remodel $1,400,000 Unknown Garland Remodel Unknown 1 Unknown Geyer Springs Roof Repair $161 ,752 . Unknown Gibbs - Addition Unknown Unknown - --- Henderson Lockers $80,876 Unknown -- -Mab-levale- -- Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown McD-ermot-t --Fire Alarm Upgrade TB~ Unknown Meadowcliff --- Addition Unknown  Unknown -- --- Pulask_!_!igts. MS_ - - ~ rgy monitoring system installation Unknown Unknown Washington Fire Alarm Upgrade -- T~ Unknown --- Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $640,000 Unknown -- Western Hills _ __ire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown - - Western Hills ADA Rest rooms TBD Unknown Woodruff Parking addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 26, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Administration Administration Administration Administration Annex Alternative Learning Ctr. Alternative Learning Ctr. Badg._ett ______ _ Badgett Bale Project Description Asbestos abatement Fresh airs stem Fire alarm Energy monitoring system installation Energy monitoring system installation Energy efficient lighting Partial asbestos abatement Fire alarm Classroom addition/renovation E nergy monitoring system Partial roof replacement HVAC Bale Bale Bale Booker --------'- ------- Booker Energy efficient lighting . Energy monitoring system installation Booker A sbestos abatement Booker Brady Brady Carver -------- -- -- Fire alarm  Energy efficient lighting --------Asbestos abatement - -- ------ Carver ----- Central Parking Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central Central Central Central Central Cloverdale Elem. Cloverdale MS Cloverdale MS Dodd Dodd Dodd Facilities Service Facility Services Fair Park- -- - Fair Park Fair Park J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park __ _ fulbright Fulbright Fulbright --===-Fulbright Fulbrigh.!_ __ _ Franklin Gibbs GibbS - - - - - - Energy monitoring system installation Parking lot S tudent parking Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair A thletic Field lmprovemen-t - Irrigation System P urchase land for school Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations -Ceiling and wall repair -Fire Alarm System De- s-ig-n-/1-ns- tallation -,-FroniTanding tile repair - Energy efficient lighting  Energy efficient lighting _ Major renovation \u0026amp; addition Energy efficient lighting - Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile ~ Replace roof top HVAC J nterior renovation Fire alarm . HVAC renovation/fire alarm ~Energy efficient lighting Asbestos abatement-ceiling _Energy efficient lighting Press box Security cameras Athletic Field Improvement I rrigation System Roof repair_s __ _ Replace window units w\"lcentral HVAC Diagonal parking __ _ 1Energy efficient lighting Energyefficient lighting 7EnergyITlonitorfi,g._s_y~st\"- e-m_i_n-stallation - Re lace roof top HVAC units Parking lot ______ _ Roof repairs R enovation Energy efficient lig,h_tin~g,__ _ Energ monitoring s stem installation --~$=3-8:..0::.!,.4.:.c9::..5:c,-___M ar-03 $55,000 Aug-03 $32,350 ~g-03 May-02 ~ t-01 Dec-01 $15,160 $82,000 $237,237 $18,250 $2,244,524 - Jul-01 $269,587 ---.-. --$664,587- -=----$170,295 $23,710 -- $10,900 $34,501 ----$80,5~ + $345,072 - - $14,4~ .._ - $111~742 $174,000 $265,000 $38,000 $1~ 500 Unknown $2,000,000 .,_ $24,000 $80,876- $22,470 - $132,678 $189,743 $1 ,393,822 $90,665~ $156,299- $215:570 $84,672 $12,00~ $315,956 $90,162~ $59,310 $277,594 $10,784 - $12,500 $38,000- $14,000 $391 ,871 $485,258 ~ 11 ,7~ --- ~ 788- $134.463 $11,950 $107,835 $140,000 - $200,000 $2,511 ,7~ - $76,447- $11 ,770 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 Aug-03 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Nov-03 Aug-03 ~y-01 Jun-01 Aug-0_!_ Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 2 f\u0026gt; ril ,0 ~ z m rn ::z:: ~ Cl m \"' :n .... ~ ::z:: C m ~ ~ ! 15 z CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD FEBRUARY 26, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I I I Est. Completion Proiect Description Cost Date Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Sep-03 Hall Asbestos abatement I $168,2221 Aug-01 Hall I Energy efficient lighting I $42,931 Jul-01 Hall I Energy efficient lighting I $296,707 Apr-01 Hall Infrastructure improvements I $93,657 Aug-01 Hall Intercom I Feb-01 Hall Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 i--H:-..,..e._n--d-,,e....rs_o_n ______ ,,E,,...n_e,..r..g,.,_y,'-ef_fi1ci_en_t_l~ig_ht~ing'---------'--'---$-'--1-9'-3'..,,6_7_9_ ____J_ u_l-01---1 Henderson Roof replacement gy,~m_ ______, ___$_ 107~,8_35 ____M_ ay~-_0.1,.. Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 1 Aug-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Aug-02 IRC IEnergy 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 1 Jul-01 Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Aug-01 Mabelvale Elem. 'Replace HVAC units $300,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement $107,000 ' Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting --'$-_1.0:..6_,,.5.:..9.:..8\n_\n,_ ___D_ e_c-,..0..-21 Mabelvale MS-------,R- e-n-o'\"v''a-t_e_b_le_a_c_h\"e\"\"r_s_,,___ ________- _ -__$ 1_3_4~,7 _9_3_ ___A_ u~g~-01_, ~ann Asphalt walks 'The total $1_ 8 million If---___D, ,...ec_-c0c1----1 Mann Walkway canopies is what has been Dec-01 Mann Boiler repla_c_e_m_e_n_t _______ __, used so far on the l~ ___ O_c_t-01_. Mann Fencing projects listed 1f---___ Se_,p_-01---1 ,-Ma-nn- --- Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Aug-01 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000  Jul-03 1 M_c_C_le_lla_n=-~----____ l_rr~ig~a_tio_n_ System $14,750 Jul-03 McClellan Security cameras $36,300 1 Jun-01 _M_c_Cle_lla_n _______ E_n_ergy efficient lighting $303,614 May-01 McClellan Stadium stands repair $~23_5_,,,0....0,...0._ ___- A=cu-=g--:0:-=1-1 McClellan Intercom $46,000 Feb-02 I_M_c_D_e_rm_ ott _____. ...,,E__n_ergy efficient lighting 1 $79,411 1 Feb-01 McD_erm6tt Replace roof top HVAC units , $476,000 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Fire alarm ! $16,175 1 Jul-01 Meadowcliff ______A_ s_b_e-st_o_s_a-bat_em_e-n-t -------1~---$--2'-5-3-'-\",4--1.2.:.._,__ __A_ u_g_-0--21 Mead_ow_c_liff - ----,-E-n-ge_r_g_y_effi-1c-ie_nt l-ig-h-ti-ng------~,----$-88-',-29_7_ I ----D-e=c--0-21 Metropolit~ I Replace cooling tower i $37,203 ' Dec-00 Metropolitan Replace shop vent system I $20,000 May-01 1 _M_e_tr_o_politan_ ______E_ n_e_r,g=y monitoring system installation ____$_1 7_,,_145_ ____A_ u=g-_0_1, Mitchell Energy efficient lighting $103,642 I Apr-01 ~itchell __-_ 'Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Jul-01 Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek- Otter Creek ~~~t~:n~~:::~ent $~!\n:~-~-~----A-Ju~_I:~- ~-\u0026lt; Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 May-01 __ _ Energy ~ ff~ient lighting ---=-~_ ____$8_ 1_,,82_8__ Apr-01 - -----A-sb-es=tos- a-ba-te-m-en-t ------------,--$1,0~,000- -----A~ug-0~2 Parking lot $138,029 1 Aug-02 --- - -----~6 c-las-sr-oom- -add-itio-n -----------~$88-8,-778- 1- ---O-ct\u0026lt;-02 Otter Creek , Parking Improvements 1 $142,541 1 Aug-03 Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 I Jun-02 Parkview Roof replacement $273,877 1 Sep-01 Parkview Parkview Exterior lights , $10,784 1 Nov-00 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301 ,938 Aug-0'1 Parkview Locker replacement $120,000 , Aug-01 Parkview 1 Energy efficient liohting $315,000 Jun-01 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 26, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facilitv Name I Proiect Descriotion I Cost I Est. Completion Date Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 I Jun-02 Procurement Fire alarm I $25,000 Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem I Move playground $17,000 Dec-02 Rightsell I Energy efficient lighting $84,898 I Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller Replace roof too HVAC $539,175 I Aug-01 Rockefeller I Parking addition $111,742 I Aug-02 Romine I Asbestos abatement $10,000 . Apr-02 Romine 'Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Mar-03 SecurityfTransportation Bus cameras $22,500 I Jun-01 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Aug-00 Southwest INew roof $690,000 Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 I Jan-02 Southwest Drainage I street widening I $250,000 I Aug-03 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Aug-02 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Dec-01 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Nov-02 Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Feb-01 Terry I Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Aug-02 Terry 1 Media Center addition I $704,932 I Sep-02 Wakefield I Security cameras I $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 I Feb-01 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement I $200,000 Nov-02 Washington 1 Security cameras I $7,900 I Jun-01 Washington I Energy efficient lighting I I $165,281 Apr-01 Watson Energy monitoring system installation I $8,530 Jul-01 Watson Asbestos abatement I $182,241 Aug-01 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 I Aug-01 Watson ,Asbestos abatement I $10,000 Aug-02 Watson I Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $800,000 - Aug-02 Western Hills IAsbestos abatement I $191 ,946 I Aug-02 Western Hills I Intercom I $1,100 I Dec-01 Western Hills 1 Energy efficient lighting $106,000 I Jul-01 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Dec-03 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 . Jun-01 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1 ,263,876 Feb-04 Wilson Parking Expansion I $110,000 Aug-03 Woodruff Renovation I $246,419 I Aug-02 4 !I' -a z I ii: m .z.. . r\u0026gt; ril ~ z z m h ::c ~ Cl m en .=..\". m ('\") ::c C m ~ z !!l ! lz5 Date: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 26, 2004 To: Board of Directors From~andy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - February This is the fifty-second communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, two middle schools and one elementary school to resolve financial issues in their activity 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) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology Training a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. 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. !II \",zt. i c\n') ::,c, m m ii: m :!:i r, ~ ~ z m h ::c ~ c\n') m CII Audit Report - February 2004 Page 2 of 2 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) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. c) Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. d) Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. e) Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. f) Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. g) Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. h) Reviewing leave accountability system. a) Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. b) Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. c) Participating in planning for Day of Caring (April 17, 2004). 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. '54n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" Date: February 26, 2004 To: Board of Education F rorn: ( Beverly Williams, Director ofH uman Resources Through: Morris L. Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent Re: Agreement regarding extension of the PN contract for all employee groups Attached is an agreement, which was reached on January 27, 2004, between the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association and the District with regard to an extension of the present written negotiated Agreements. On going negotiations will continue. I am requesting the Board approval. 810 W/. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 !\"\u0026gt; -a m ~ z m h ::c ~ C') m en\n,,, :s ~~ !\n::c ~8 o.., ren ..,m \u0026gt;\no n-:nS ~ m en .!.l.l Cl \u0026gt; ,,. :z ~ :z ,C,.: LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION January 27, 2004 AGREEMENT BETWEEN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION I. The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association agree to extend their written negotiated agreements for the following employee groups: Teachers\nBus Drivers, Aides, and Monitors\nCustodians: Security Officers\nand Paraprofessionals. II. This extension is effective from January 30, 2004 until March 7, 2004 for all Agreements. All provisions and benefits of the contracts will remain in full force and automatically continue. On going negotiations will continue. ~?fit Grainger Ledbetter Chief Negotiator, LRCTA Date: ~/_- --\"-P_,_2----=--!)::.....i'----- 1500 West 4th Street Li ttle Roel~, AR 72201  5011372-3519 1-\\=.A/l'f=.1-. Affiliate DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 26, 2004 Board of Education Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes 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) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. !D Personnel Changes Page 2 February 26, 2004 NAME Igwe, Carrie Reason: Leaving City Forenro, Dan Reason: Retired Purifoy, Jimmy Reason: Deceased Thompson, Peggy Reason: Retired Wamble, Faustine Reason: Retired Andrews, Ashley Beggs, Melinda POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Spec. Ed 9-2-86 2-17 MABELV ALE EL. 2-4-04 SPE925 Computer Tech 8-19-03 5-20 DUNBAR 5-31-04 TCHlO General Music 11-13-78 6-21 WATSON 12-18-03 TCH925 English 8-27-74 6-21 FAIR 2-13-04 TCH925 Elem IV 8-16-93 5-18 WILLIAMS 1-2-04 TCH925 . New Certified Employees Elem III 2-16-04 1-01 BALE TCH925 English 1-20-04 4-19 CENTRAL TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 43667.00 50788.00 53213.00 53213.00 48267.00 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated 25554.23 annual 11845.45 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 February 26, 2004 NAME Brown, Carleton Cain, Mary Carter, Arre! Charles, Glenroy Dyer, Julie Farrar, Neoma Harder, Melanie POSITION SCHOOL English CENTRAL ElemV GEYER SPRINGS Spec. Ed. ALC Algebra I FAIR Elem IV STEPHENS Elem ill CHICOT Physical Science FAIR START DATE END DATE 1-20-04 1-20-04 2-9-04 1-20-04 1-22-04 2-16-04 1-20-04 SALARY CLASS 4-01 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 1-06 SPE925 6-13 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 2-03 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 30553.00 annual 14162.59 prorated 28588.00 annual 13251.73 prorated 30630.00 annual 11964.84 prorated 44566.00 annual 20658.20 prorated 29609.00 annual 13416.58 prorated 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated 14447.00 annual 6696.79 prorated\ni m C\nii-!!? ~~ cr(l !~ m u, !II ,... ~ u, m \u0026gt; C) ~ m I:: .mz.. .\n,,:s ~ ~ l!.::r:: ~8 0,... .., u, ..,m ~ ~ -n 3~ m u, .!Z.! Cl ~\nz ,C.: z c-: IT Personnel Changes Page 4 February 26, 2004 NAME Harrison, Kenneth Kuhn, Scarlett Larry,Betty Lockhart, Kelly McDaniel, Yvonne Muhammad, Khaleelah POSITION SCHOOL Geometry HALL Elem III STEPHENS Typing MABELV ALE MID. Algebra PUL. HGTS. MID. Elem III CLOVERDALE EL. Elem IV STEPHENS START DATE END DATE 1-22-04 1-26-04 2-5-04 2-16-04 1-14-04 1-14-04 SALARY CLASS 4-18 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 46889.00 annual 21246.53 prorated 29609.00 annual 14033.43 prorated 19095.62 annual 7658.14 prorated 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated 26546.00 annual 12719.96 prorated 27056.00 annual 13809.83 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 February 26, 2004 NAME eumeier, Cynthia Olivares, Lizete Smith, Michelle Treat, Heather Watkins, Cindy Williams, Frank Wise, Marshalette POSITION SCHOOL Elem Il MCDERMOTT Spanish CENTRAL Elem Il MCDERMOT Elem I CHICOT Spanish DUNBAR Music START DATE END DATE 1-5-04 1-6-04 1-5-04 2-2-04 1-14-04 1-20-04 MABELV ALE EL. English 1-12-04 HENDERSON SALARY CLASS 1-07 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-16 TCH925 6-08 TCH925 4-04 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 31651.00 annual 16320.05 prorated 27567.00 annual 14070.66 prorated 26546.00 annual 13687.78 prorated 26546.00 annual 11060.83 prorated 40839.00 annual 19568.69 prorated 39461.00 annual 19524.97 prorated 32595.00 annual 15957.57 prorated ~ a, C:\n\u0026gt; S!? ~~ cgi !~ m (I) !I' ~ (I) m \u0026gt; C, i!ll m :I: .mz. . ~:s ~~ !. :z: ~8 or- -.,u, ..,m \u0026gt;\na !:? ~ m m (I) !.l.l Cl ?\n: z C,. z C': rr Personnel Changes Page 6 February 26, 2004 NAME Hobbs, Anthony NONE POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE Certified Promotion Day Coor. ROMINE 1-5-04 Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS ADC105 61-17 Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Alexander, Deborah Care 8-26-97 CARE Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 3-17 Anderson, Leamon Child Nut. 11-13-03 FSH4 Reason: Accepted Another CHILD NUT. 1-30-04 1-01 Position Austin, Sharon Instr. Aide 8-21-00 1NA925 Reason: None Given FAJRPARK 1-5-04 1-03 Barnes, Connie Child Nut. 9-29-03 FSH550 Reason: Personal FULBRIGHT 1-21-04 3-01 ANNUAL SALARY 50712.00 annual 28166.95 prorated 9.15 per hr 7121.00 11635.00 8130.00 Personnel Changes Page 7 February 26, 2004 NAME Bates, Betty Reason: Retired Boykin, Lalicia Reason: None Given Britton, Erica POSITION SCHOOL Secretary FAIR Custodian HALL Instr. Aide Reason: Returning to School GIBBS Burton, Jennifer Care Reason: None Given CARE Canady, Aquanetta Care Reason: None Given CARE Clegg, Shirleta Care Reason: None Given CARE Davis, Eleanor Care Reason: None Given CARE Doyne, Pamela Care Reason: None Given CARE Fairchild, Hattie Child Nutrition Reason: None Given WILLIAMS Fisher, Lisa Secretary Reason: Personal SOUTHWEST Goodman, Phyllis Care Reason: None Given , CARE START DATE END DATE 6-15-87 2-27-04 7-29-99 1-30-04 9-9-03 2-3-04 1-18-00 1-21-04 9-9-02 1-21-04 1-22-02 1-21-04 8-18-03 1-21-04 2-4-02 1-21-04 8-26-91 12-1-03 9-29-03 2-5-04 10-25-03 1-20-04 SALARY CLASS 44-20 CLK12 1-01 CUS925 1-03 INA925 1-05 CARE 3-07 CARE 4-01 CARE 1-03 CARE 3-03 CARE 5-13 FSH6 39-12 CLKlO 1-07 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 33396.00 10329.00 11635.00 6.68 7.68 6.25 6.43 7.12 9274.00 22656.00 6.97 ~ a, C: il\"Sz!? ~e 0~ !~ m en !ZI ,... ~ en m \u0026gt; C\u0026gt; Rl m I:: mz - il\"s ~~ l!!!\n::c zo C\u0026gt;O 0 ,- .., en ..,m \u0026gt;\no C') :S\n=~ :3 en m en .!Z.I Cl ~\n: z C )\u0026gt; z rrr. Personnel Changes Page 8 February 26, 2004 NAME Handy, Rosilyn Reason: None Given Harris, Fayette Reason: None Given Harvell, Lola Reason: None Given Hussian, Lateesha Reason: None Given Johnson, J arnes Reason: Terminated Johnson, Nikol POSITION SCHOOL Care CARE Child Nutrition CENTRAL Care CARE Custodian DUNBAR Instr. Aide ALC Instr. Aide START DATE END DATE 9-10-01 1-21-04 10-2-03 2-26-04 9-29-03 1-20-04 8-21-79 1-5-04 8-14-03 2-12-04 1-13-00 Reason: Returning To School MITCHELL 1-16-04 Jones, Ruthie Child Nutrition 8-4-97 Reason: Health OTTERCREEK 12-18-03 Kennedy, Jarvis Custodian 8-8-03 Reason: None Given CENTRAL 2-2-04 Knight, Cynthia Child Nutrition 1-16-03 Reason: Accepted Another CLOVERDALE MID.1-8-04 Position Lee, Roy Custodian 4-22-91 Reason: Retired TERRY 12-5-03 Martin, Fred Custodian 8-13-01 Reason: Health MEADOW CLIFF 1-30-04 SALARY CLASS 1-05 CARE 3-01 FSH550 3-08 CARE 1-03 CUS925 1-10 INA925 1-07 INA185 1-06 FSH5 1-01 CUS928 3-02 FSH550 1-11 CUS928 1-11 CUS925 ANNUAL SALARY 6.68 8130.00 7.82 11201.00 14067.00 13115.00 7532.00 10329.00 8158.00 14461.00 14461.00 Personnel Changes Page 9 February 26, 2004 NAME Turner, Lois Reason: Accepted Another Position Washington, Sydney Reason: None Given Williams, Angela Reason: Personal Williams, Charlotte Reason: Health Young, Cylde POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition CENTRAL Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 8-12-03 1-30-04 4-1-03 CHILD NUTRITION 12-9-03 Instr. Aide 11-4-03 ROMINE 12-31-03 Child Nutrition 9-22-03 HALL 12-15-03 Custodian 3-18-02 Reason: Returning to School MCDERMOTT  12-3-03 SALARY CLASS 3-12 FSH550 2-01 FSMEAL 1-10 INA925 3-01 FSH550 1-02 CUS12 New Non-Certified Employees Beard, Roberta Instr. Aide 1-20-04 1-10 FAIR PARK INA925 Blackmon, Ronald Security Officer 2-2-04 36-14 ALC SOFR9 Ervin, Christin Instr. Aide 2-3-04 1-01 GIBBS INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 8470.00 11593.00 14067.00 8130.00 13955.00 14067.00 annual 6615.29 prorated 15390.00 annual 6426.59 prorated 7086.59 annual 2949.55 prorated ~ a, C: ii\" 2z? ~i:! c~ ~ :0 m~ emn !I' ,.. ! en m \u0026gt; C, Fil m :mI: .z..\n,,:s ~~ !\n::c ~8 o.., re-n ..,m \u0026gt; :0 n:S r=~ ::! en emn !ll  Gl ~\n: z ,C. zr. rr Personnel Changes Page 10 February 26, 2004 NAME Finch, Felicia Fortenberry, Carolyn Ghant, atlyn Graham, Linda Gray, Cleola Hawkins, Derrick Higgins, Melissa POSITION SCHOOL Trainee CHILD NUT. Bus Driver TRANS. Care CA.RE Child Nutrition BALE Bus Driver TRANS. Instr. Aide KING Instr. Aides FRANKLIN START DATE END DATE 1-5-04 2-2-04 2-13-04 1-7-04 2-2-04 1-26-04 2-9-04 SALARY CLASS 2-01 FSMEAL 3-01 BUSDRV 3-05 CARE 3-01 FSH550 2-02 BUSDRV 1-10 INA925 1-10 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 11593.00 annual 6108.14 prorated 9540.00 annual 4073.26 prorated 7.40 8130.00 annual 4220.49 prorated 8956.00 annual 3823.91 prorated 14067.00 annual 6311.14 prorated 14067.00 annual 5550.76 prorated Personnel Changes Page 11 February 26, 2004 NAME Hooks, Marichal Johnson, Linda Johnson, Stephanie Jones, Mary Lyons,Peggy Mondy, Lisa Myers, Dale POSITION SCHOOL Bus Driver TRANS. Custodian FULBRIGHT Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Child Nutrition CLOVERDALE EL. Instr. Aide FAIR.PARK Security Officer CENTRAL Custodian WILLIAMS START DATE END DATE 2-2-04 1-19-04 1-28-04 12-1-03 1-20-04 2-6-04 1-21-04 SALARY CLASS 3-04 BUSDRV 1-01 CUS925 3-07 FSH550 3-01 FSH550 1-10 1NA925 36-10 SOFR9 1-01 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 11296.00 annual 4823.01 prorated 5164.50 annual 2441.91 prorated 8312.00 annual 3679.08 prorated 8130.00 annual 5020.16 prorated 14067.00 annual 6615.29 prorated 13657.00 annual 5402.77 prorated 13399.00 annual 6271.87 prorated ~ a, C:  en z ~~ C kl ~~ m~ m en !I' ,- e~n m i ~ m I:: .mz..\ni-s ~~ l!,\n::c ~8 0 ,- -.,en ..,m -~n~ 3 g: m en !Zl  Cl ~\n: z C: \"zr. M' Personnel Changes Page 12 February 26, 2004 NAME Relford, Yolanda Simpson, Sylvia Terry, Shirley Tidwell, Darrell Tribulak, Ashley Trussell, Kimo Turner, James POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide WASHINGTON Custodian START DATE END DATE 2-2-04 1-26-04 MABELV ALE MID. Bus Driver 2-2-04 TRANS. Child Nutrition 2-2-04 CHILDNUTR. Care 2-9-04 CARE Instr. Aide 1-27-04 CHICOT Security Officer 1-8-04 WOODRUFF SALARY CLASS 1-10 INA925 1-01 CUS925 3-02 BUSDRV 1-01 FSH4 2-02 CARE 1-10 INA925 36-11  SOFR9 ANNUAL SALARY 14067.00 annual 5930.95 prorated 5164.50 annual 2329.64 prorated 10118.00 annual 4320.04 prorated 7121.00 annual 2986.23 prorated 6.80 14067.00 annual 6235.10 prorated 14065.00 annual 7032.50 prorated Personnel Changes Page 13 February 26, 2004 NAME Urias, Oscar Weaver, Nellieann Williams, Wanda Williams, Yalanda NONE NONE POSITION SCHOOL Custodian START DATE END DATE 2-2-04 CLOVERDALE MID. Instr. Aide 1-14-04 STEPHE S Bus Driver 2-2-04 TRANS. Instr. Aide 1-12-04 CHICOT Non-Certified Promotion Non-Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS12 1-10 INA925 3-02 BUSDRV 1-10 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 13399.00 annual 6815.74 prorated 14067.00 annual 7451.71 prorated 10188.00 annual 4320.04 prorated 14067.00 annual 6995.48 prorated\ni a, C: ?-Sz!? ~\ncgi ~~ m~ m UI !D ,... !j'\n! UI m \u0026gt; C) ~ m :I: .mz.. . ?\"s ~~ !\n:c ~8 0,... -,, UI ..,m ~~ rn m UI ,,. 2 ~ c,,-.: Personnel Changes Page 14 February 26, 2004 NAME Moore, Erica Moore, Cristen POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE Sabbatical Leave SALARY CLASS ANNUAL SALARY Date of Hire 8-17-00 Length of Sabbatical 1 year (2004-2005) Date of Hire 8-12-99 Length of Sabbatical 1 year (2004-2005) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: February 26, 2004 To: Board of Education From: Morris L. Holmes, Ed. 0. Interim Superintendent Re: Naming of Facilities: Mann Magnet Middle School The faculty, staff, parents and students of Mann Magnet Middle School have submitted a request to name the school auditorium in honor of Mr. James L. Matthis. The request and supporting documents are submitted in accordance with Policy FF: Naming of Facilities. The administration recommends approval. bjg r\u0026gt; ill ~a -t- -1: ~~ ::a~ ~~ !i\nm C:\n,,se z ~~ C kl !~ m en IT z C ~ C': IT NAMING AND RENAMING F ACLITIES I propose that the Horace Mann Magnet Middle School Auditorium (Designation of building and/or other location) 1000 East Roosevelt Rd., Little Rock, AR 72206 (Address) Be named for James L. Matthis I. Biographical Data: Attached II. The Nominee's significant contribution is: Attached III. I believe the facility should be named for this person because: Attached (Signature) (Date) This form should be submitted by person nominating names for new facilities to the LRSD Board of Education for consideration according to Board policy FF. I. II. Biographical Data: Mr. James L. Matthis was born on January 23, 1939 in Jefferson, Texas. He received his early education in the Macedonia Schools in Jefferson, Texas. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Wiley College Marshall, Texas, and his Masters Degree from the University of Central Arkansas Conway, Arkansas. Additional course work was complete at UCA. Prior to beginning an exceptional professional career, he was a member of the Army Reserve and was stationed at Fort Smith, Arkansas. The Nominee's significant contribution is: Mr. Matthis began his professional career as a high school music teacher in Augusta, Arkansas. He shared his gifts in the education profession for forty years. He devoted the last thirty-six years of service in the Little Rock Public Schools beginning as a vocational coordinator at Horace Mann High School, Administrator-Opportunity Gateway School, ESAU Coordinator-Federal Programs and Assistant Principal-Mann Magnet Middle School. III. I believe the facility should be named for this person because: We the staff at Mann Magnet believe that the Mann Auditorium should be named James Matthis Auditorium for various reasons. Mr. Matthis taught music. The auditorium was part of the original Horace Mann r\u0026gt; ill\ngg\nor- -\u0026lt;- -o-\n=g ~o\n~ ~ ID C:\n\u0026gt;S!? z ii cf(l !~ m \"' IT z ~ r. IT High School during his tenure as a teacher. He was responsible for the smooth operation of the auditorium. He watched thousands of students walk across the stage. Mr. Matthis' most cherished responsibilities focused on helping students to become good scholars and citizens, supporting administrators, teachers, and support staff in accomplishing their assigned responsibilities and assisting parents in helping their students in school. For these reasons, we believe Mann's Auditorium should be named in honor of Mr. Matthis. TO: Board of Education SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 447-1130 FROM: Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services Dr. Lloyd Sain, Coordinator of Leadership Development THROUGH: Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent DATE: February 23, 2004 SUBJECT: Resolution to 4G: Attendance Rubric The District and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association {LRCTA) have completed their task as requested by the Board in proposing an alternative to the on-going discussion with Domain 4, item 4G (attendance and punctuality). On February 1th, we submitted for your review our recommendation and now solicit your direction on this matter. !='\nK:c, :::.o nz ::c U\u0026gt; m~\n'\"c' ~c: \"i!! ins C) z ~~ PJ8 ~m LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: February 26, 2004 To: From: Through: Board of Education Sadie Mitchell,~ciate Superintendent-School Services Lloyd Sain, Coordinator - Leadership Development Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Re: A School Improvement Report: An Overview of the Schools and Their School Improvement Progress, Grants, and Initiatives The above named report is being provided under separate cover. We will be available to review the findings and respond to any questions you might have. Please feel free to contact us if we can provide any additional information. bjg !\" 8 ~ lz5 en !=' ll:n ::.o nz ::c en m-1 rr--\"C': ,\".\", C..'). i5 0 :CZ -I a, enc: ~8 r-m MEMORANDUM I FACILITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE DATE: TO: SUBJ: February 9, 2004 Dr. Morris, L. Homes, Interim Superintendent r. Do Stewart, Chief Financial Officer ~ton, Director of Facility Services nformation: Land Sale - Forest Heights Middle School The Little Rock School District has received a viable offer from a company known as Mangan Properties, LLC, of Little Rock, for the purchase of the property immediately west of Forest Heights Middle School for the sum of $200,000. This $200,000 figure includes the Little Rock School District's realtor's fee of 9%. The property was professionally appraised in December of 2003 at $188,000. It is the intention of Mangan Properties to construct a dental office at this location that will present a single-story office building with associated parking. The building will tie-in well with the neighborhood and the adjoining buildings, and I believe that it will make an excellent neighbor to our school property and not interfere with the operations of the school. The details of the sale of the property are such that there will be a vision screen from the school looking toward this property. The Offer and Acceptance that you signed has been forwarded to Rector Phillips Morse for notification to Mangan Properties. DE:cg !\" 8 ~ iz5 en !=' !I:(\") =I 0 nz % en m--1 r-\n:c r- C: go(\")\n:c__, i\n~ ~~ mo r- C) r- m FOREST HEIGHTS PROPERTY March 24, 1983  J RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas, herein called \"District,\" is the owner of the following described lands located in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas: and\nA tract of land located in the NW SW Section 31, T-2-N, R-12-W, Pulaski County, Arkansas, more particularly described as: Beginning at a point on the South right-of-way line of Evergreen Drive, (formerly \"K\" Street), 30 ft. South of the centerline and 70 ft. East of the West line of said Section 31\nthence S 8g(ll6'10\"E along said South right-of-way line 275.0 ft. to a point\nthence South along a line, parallel with said West line of said Section 31, 450.06 ft. to a point\nthence NS916'10\"W and parallel with the South rightof- way line of Evergreen Drive, 295.0 ft. to a point on the East right-of-way line of North University Avenue, said point being 50 ft. East of the West line of said Section 31\nthence North along said East right-of-way line and 50 ft. East of and parallel with the West line of said Section 31, 230 ft. to a point\nthence East and continuing along said East rightof- way line, 5.0 ft. to a point\nthence North and continuing along said East right-of-way line, 55.0 ft. East and parallel with the West line of said Section 31, 205.0 ft. to a point\nthence Northeasterly along the arc of a 14.81 ft. (Deed 15.0 ft.) radius curve to the right, having a chord bearing and distance of N4521 '55\"E, 21.08 ft. to the point of beginning containing 131,609 sq. ft. or 3.0213 Acres more or less. WHEREAS, said lands are hereby found to be surpl~s to the needs of the District, and are accordingly no longer needed for school purposes and should be abandoned and sold\nand WHEREAS, in order to convey merchantable title to said lands free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, it is necessary to secure releases of said lands from the liens of several mortgages or deeds of ti-ust securing bonds issued by the District, and it will be necessary in order to secure such releases that the District place the proceeds of the sale in the Building Fund of the District to be used exclusively for either repairs or new construction of buildings and other facilities for school purposes . of the District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas: l. That the administration take the necessary measures to offer for sale the above described surplus lands which are no longer needed for school purposes. 2. That no offer be accepted except by resolution of this Board convened in a legal meeting. 3. That the proceeds, if any, from the sale of said lands be placed in the Building Fund of the District and will be used exclusively for either repairs or new construction of buildings and other facilities for school purposes. 4. That a certified copy of this Resolution be delivered to the several trustees of the mortgages and deeds of trust presently encumbering the above described property, this Board requesting that upon receipt of such certified Resolution said corporate trustees forthwith release, in recordable form, the above described lands from each of the separate mortgages and deeds of trust aforesaid, as same are applicable to each corporate trustee. ADOPTED: March 24, 1983 STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss COUNTY OF PULASKI) Subscribed and sworn to before me My Commission Expires 7/1/83 this 24th day of March, 1983. . c\n?:t,,na, )t' ~,,,., ,~ J Notary Pu ic - 8 z ~ lz5 Cl) :.n., z ~ 0 ,\n,Cl) ~n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" TO: Board of Education THROUGH: Dr. Morris L. Holmes I Superintendent of Schools FROM: SUBJECT: ease: Miles Memorial Church Title/Subject: Short Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcomes: Population/Location: Budget Amount/Source of Budget: Manager: Duration: Long Range/Continuation: Other Agencies Involved: Expectations of the District: Needed Staff: Comments: Recommendations: Attachment: Copy of proposed lease Request for leasing action. The Miles Memorial Christian Methodist Episcopal Church has requested to lease the parkin~ lot at the Procurement Office, 1800 East 61 St. Not applicable Not applicable Office/Procurement Office, 1800 East 6th St. Not applicable Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services One year beginning March 2004 and ending February 2005 Not applicable Miles Memorial CME Church Not applicable Not applicable The Miles Memorial CME Church, recently constructed across from Procurement, has requested the use of our parking lot during non-working hours to support their functions until their parking lot can be constructed. Their parking lot is expected to be completed within one year. It is recommended that this leasing action be approved. The Little Rock School District has entered into similar leases to support nonprofit organizations in our community. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 8 ! lz5 Cl) !=' :l:n =l 0 nz :Z:CII mr --\n\u0026lt;o r c: gon\no .... i5\n~~ fgo rr mC\u0026gt; LEASE AGREEMENT Lease made this ____ day of __________ _ , by and between Little Rock School District, as Lessor, and Miles Memorial CME Church of Little Rock, Arkansas, as Lessee. WINESSETH Lessor hereby leases to Lessee the entire premises described as follows : SEE EXHIBIT A A TT ACHED HERETO, m the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the term of one year beginning on ______________ , at yearly rental of twelve dollars ($12.00) payable in equal monthly installments, or a lump sum, at the office of the Lessor. This lease may be extended from year to year on the same terms and conditions by express agreement of the Lessor and the Lessee. CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND OTHER PROVISIONS I. In the event that the said premises shall be or become unsafe for the continuation of the Lessee's use thereof, or if Lessee be prevented by any present or future law or ordinance and/or by the authorities having jurisdiction in the premises from continuing use of said premises, this lease shall terminate at the option of the Lessee on sixty (60) days' notice, in writing, to the Lessor by registered mail addressed to the Lessor at the place of address listed herein or such other address as the Lessor may hereafter in writing specify\nand the Lessor agrees, thereupon, to return to the Lessee any rent paid in advance for the unexpired term. II. Lessor represents and warrants to be the owner of the premises described above and to have the authority to make this lease. III. Lessor reserves the right to terminate this lease by giving thirty (30) days' notice in writing by registered mail to Lessee. IV. The Lessee shall take good care of the leased premises and be responsible for any repairs necessitated by any act or negligence of the Lessee or the agents, employees, or visitors of the Lessee. V. The Lessee shall not do, or permit to be done, anything in or about the leased premises that interferes with the rights of other tenants of the Lessor or that conflicts with State or Municipal law or regulations of the Fire Department or Board of Health that creates a nuisance or that is dangerous to persons or property. VI. The Lessee shall not do, or permit to be done, anything in or about the leased premises that increases the fire hazard or that causes the premises to become uninsurable or results in increased rates for fire or extended insurance coverage. VII. The Lessee shall be allowed to make alterations or improvements to the leased premises with the prior written consent of Lessor. Such alternations shall be at the expense of the Lessee, subject to the other provisions of this lease, and shall become a part of the premises. The Lessor shall have the right to retain the premises as improved at the termination of said lease. VIII. Upon termination of this lease, the Lessee shall surrender possession of the leased premises to the Lessor in a condition as good as it was when the Lessee took possession, ordinary wear and tear, damage by fire, casualty, and the elements excepted. IX. This lease shall not be assigned or any part of the leased premises sublet to any agency, organization, entity or individual without prior written approval of the Lessor. Lessor retains the right to review the specific sublet documents, including terms, conditions, and financial agreements, before granting approval to sublet any or all of the premises covered under this lease. X. The Lessee shall hold the Lessor harmless from liability against all damages or injury to persons or property arising during the term of this lease and caused by any act or negligence of the Lessee or the agents, employees, or visitors of the Lessee. XI. No sign, picture, advertisement, or notice shall be affixed to any part of the leased premises except as approved by the Lessor\nand the Lessor may remove the same, if objectionable, with written notice to the Lessee and the removal to be at the Lessee's expense. Upon termination of this lease, the Lessee shall remove any such sign, picture, advertisement, or notice affixed to the leased premises and restore the place it occupied to the condition existing at the time of commencement of this lease. XII. This lease shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. It shall be governed by the laws of the State of Arkansas and is severable for interpretation purposes. 2 !\" 8 z s z U\u0026gt; XIII. The Lessor reserves the right to have first preference for the use of the leased premises. The Lessor and Lessee will work together to avoid conflicts in the use of the leased premises. The leased premises will be used by the Lessee for Sunday services only. Permission for uses of the leased premises by the Lessee at times other than as specified in this paragraph will be requested from the Lessor prior to their use. XIV. By entering into this agreement, the Lessor does not obligate itself, in any way, to meet any financial or contractual obligations by the Lessee in securing necessary permits for enhancement or modifications to the Lessee's property nor is the Lessor obligated to modify the leased premises to meet any conditions as expressed in any permits secured by the Lessee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this lease on the day and year first above mentioned. LESSOR: LESSEE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 By: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Miles Memorial CME Church By: Title: 3 Exhibit \"A\" The leased premises are described as the west parking lot bordering Bender Street at the Little Rock School District's Procurement and Materials Management Supply Center at1800 East 6th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. 4 8 z ~ iz5 en !=' l:o =I 0 oz :mc ..e.n, ,-,a ,... C: jloO :ID .... c:c' izo .... a, emnco: ,... C) r-m Memorandum Date: February 26, 2004 To: Little Rock School District Board of Directors From: ~arral Paradis, Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management Through: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools ~ald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Subject Request for Resolution authorizing the refinance/consolidation of the District's outstanding lease-purchase and post-dated warrant debt. Summary: The District has the following outstanding lease-purchase and post-dated warrant debt agreements in place: Company City First Bank Community Bank Community Bank Crews \u0026amp; Assoc. Stephens Inc. Yearly Due Date 10/15 1/05 1/15 1/15 1/15 Payment $70,177.36 $55,499.47 $47,054.75 $66,852.10 $65,568.10 Amount Outstanding $140,354.72 $166,498.41 $141,164.25 $267,408.40 $327,840.50 Interest Rate 5% 6.14% 6.45% 5.23% 4.5% The Procurement department issued an RFP (request for proposals) to consolidate and refinance the debt above to take advantage of current lower interest rates. Bank of America offered the best overall rate - 2.97%. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark has reviewed the master lease that consolidates the above agreements and prepared the attached resolution for your approval. Objective: To streamline paperwork and take advantage of savings from current lower interest rates by consolidating/refinancing debt. Expected Outcomes: Savings to the District of Approximately $52,000. New consolidated payment will be made on January 15 of each year. NO time extension was made to the term of original debt other than to coordinate this date. g ~ z \"' Board of Directors February 26, 2004 Page 2 Population/Location: IA Budget Amount/Source of Budget: Transportation Department - All of these funds were used to purchase school buses. The annual payments are being made from the LRSD Transportation Department budget. Manager: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management Duration: Last payment will be January 15, 2009. Long Range: NIA Other Agencies Involved: LRSD Transportation Department Expectations of District: NIA Needed Staff: NIA Comments: None Recommendation We request the Board of Education approve the resolution for the refinance/consolidation of the district's outstanding lease-purchase and post-dated warrant debt as detailed above. 2 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District (the \"District\") desires to consolidate/refinance various leases/existing debt related to the District's lease/purchase of various items of equipment utilized by the District in its day-to-day operations\nand WHEREAS, the District desires to accomplish the consolidation/refinance by entering into a Master Lease/Purchase Agreement with Banc of America Leasing \u0026amp; Capital, LLC. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors that Don Stewart, as Chief Financial Officer of the District, is authorized, on behalf of the District, to enter into, execute, and deliver that certain Master Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement (the \"Agreement\") with Banc of America Leasing \u0026amp; Capital, LLC, related to the District's lease and/or acquisition of certain equipment utilized by the District in its day-to-day operations (the general form of which Agreement is attached to the Resolution). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands as the Little Rock School District Board of Directors on this ___ day of February, 2004. !\" 8 ! cz5 en Date: To: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT February 26, 2004 Little Rock School District Board of Directors Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Subject: Construction Budget Revision- Mitchell and Rightsell Based on Facility Services and Dr. Stewarts' analysis regarding the scope of work needed at Mitchell and Rightsell, the recommendation is that the Board approve sufficient funds, making up the budget shortfalls in the amonts of $1.54 million for Mitchell and $1 .78 million for Rightsell. The Board received a report at the last board agenda meeting that sufficient funds are available in the Bond Funds. /dge cc: Dr. Don Stewart Chief Financial Officer 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 !\" 8 ! iz5 en Attachment: Related Information: - For the 2004-05 school year the projected enrollments from Student Assignment are: Mitchell: 228 Rightsell: 243 - For the beginning of the 2004-05 school year, the plan is to locate the Mitchell student body at the Badgett Elementary School site. - Mr. Eaton has speculated that Mitchell could be available for occupancy by the end of the Winter Holiday season, 2004. '.54.n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" DATE: February 26, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent ~M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer PREPARED B~uglas C. Eaton, Director, Facility Services SUBJECT: Construction Budget Revision - Mitchell and Rightsell Attached are Executive Summaries and Scopes of Work for the Mitchell and Rightsell Renovation Projects. The purpose of these documents is to assist the Board in determining if the District will proceed with these projects. As noted in the Executive Summaries, the budget shortfall for the Mitchell project is $1.54 million and for Rightsell the shortfall is $1.78 million. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 '\" i cz5 (II Mitchell Elementary School Executive Summary I. Purpose: The purpose of this summary is to provide information regarding a decision as to whether sufficient funding will be made available to repair Mitchell Elementary School. II. Problem: The problem before us is to decide whether Mitchell Elementary School should receive sufficient funding in order to enhance its overall appearance and structural integrity to the point where it can continue as an elementary school. ill. Facts bearing on the problem:  Age and Condition: Mitchell Elementary School is essentially a wood-frame building with a brick structural veneer and a plaster interior. It has wooden floors that have been overlaid with another layer of tile, and in many areas with carpeting. The building does not meet the current codes\nyet, in many areas, it is not deficient. It was designed for an operating capacity of 258 students plus academic and support staff. It sits on a lot of less than three acres in size and has a small parking lot and play area. It was expanded in the 1980s with the addition of three extra classrooms. Projects were completed in the 1970s and 80s that added air conditioning, upgraded code-deficient areas, such as plumbing and electric, and most recently has had energy-efficient lighting installed. The Building is structurally sound, yet it is beginning to show deterioration in a number of areas. In 1995 surveys were done for all buildings in the Little Rock School District. Needed renovations and repairs included substantial replacements of every building system, which when completed would still render the building inadequate for an elementary school of the 1990s. Beginning in 1998 the Little Rock School District began an initiative to re-summarize the needs of its facilities. The needs, at that time, totaled $950,000 and centered around environmental needs, structural needs, technology and electrical upgrades, ADA compliance, restroom renovations, and changes to the administrative and academic space. Specifically\nroof and structural repairs, waterproofing the facility, mold remediation,\" interior and exterior renovations of classrooms and administrative space, landscaping, bringing the building within ADA compliance, adding a classroom, and adding a heating-ventilation fresh-air return system, and making electrical upgrades to support all the aforementioned, plus technology that is required in our facilities.  Financial Considerations: The Little Rock School District has allocated $950,000 for any and all work to be accomplished at Mitchell Elementary School. As may be seen by the attached enclosure, this is not a sufficient level of funding due to all the work that is necessary to bring this facility inline so that a reasonable life can be expected for this capital investment. The funding shortfall is estimated at $1.54 million dollars.  Attendance Considerations: At this point in time it is anticipated that Mitchell could be impacted by the districts new attendance zone plan. Students presently attending Mitchell will be given the opportunity of choice which will allow them to attend schools in their attendance zone. A decrease in student population at this school would warrant an examinatjon of the per pupil cost for facility rehabilitation. IV. Courses of Action:  Re-examining the role of Mitchell Elementary school as an educational facility in LRSD: The possible decrease of student population coupled with the cost of repairs warrants a look at whether investing in Mitchell Elementary school is cost effective.  Reduce the scope of work to minimum essential: Decreasing the scope of work to accomplish minimum essential necessary to maintain the facility. This is predicated on a reduced occupancy.  Redefine the scope of work for non school facility: Should the facility cease to remain as a school, a reduced scope of work could be accomplished to maintain the facility and convert it to another LRSD purpose.  Do not accomplish the repairs: This course of action is only an option if LRSD decides not to retain the facility. And then, some expense will be incurred to preserve the facility for either retention or disposal. !\" 8 ! \u0026lt;z'5 en Scope of Work Mitchell Elementary School Mitchell Elementary School: a. Roof and Gutter replacement An examination needs to be made of the surface of all roofs of Mitchell Elementary School and the substructure of the roof along with the gutters and downspouts to determine extent of repairs necessary to ensure a safe and dry facility. Including within this should be an examination of the re-insulation of the attic space. b. Heating-Ventilation Unit Replacement It has been determined that the units in the building, installed in the late 1970s, have far outlived their usefulness. We desire that the scope of work include replacement of the air-handling units. We wish to retain much of the original system outside the building as well as the heating system and boiler inside the building. It is simply the air-handling units that we would like exchanged. c. A Fresh-Air System We would like an investigation and a scope of work to be done to provide a fresh-air system to all occupied space in the facility that will meet current ASHRE standards. It is our desire that this freshair system run independently of any heating or air-conditioning system. d. An Electrical Upgrade to Support Technology and any added Airconditioning or Fresh-air Systems The electrical upgrade to support technology will require us to delineate outlets in each classroom, but an estimated number of five to six per classroom will be needed. e. Interior Water Damage Those portions of the building that have been damaged due to infiltration of water from the exterior surface or from leaky pipes need to be repaired in the most efficient manner. g. Excessive Wear Due to Age Those areas of the building that have shown excessive wear or damage due to age and have caused plumbing leaks will be repaired as economically as possible. h. Administrative Renovation: It is our desire to modify the main lobby area to expand the administrative complex to provide for a new office for the principal and secretary. 1. ADA: We would like to try to adapt Mitchell Elementary School with a lift-system that allows students to get between the first and second floor. J. Waterproofing: We would like, upon the completion of all work at Mitchell Elementary School, for a waterproof coating to be applied to the exterior brick surface. k. Landscaping: We would like the rip-rap favade around the two sides of the school where it is presently located filled in with concrete to provide a permanent surface from the sidewalk up to the ground level of the school, eliminating all grass and growth in this area. 1. We would like the asphalt behind Mitchell Elementary School removed at the upper level and replaced with sod. m. Classroom addition: We would like a one-classroom addition ranging in size from 750 to 800 square feet. This would be a standard classroom with no water or restroom facilities. It would have cabinetry on one wall, at least a 12-foot-long chalkboard with 4-foot bulletin-board extensions on each end. There would be a coat rack, carpeted flooring, and wiring connected to the building's existing intercom and data systems. 2 !\" Rightsell Elementary School Executive Summary I. Purpose: The purpose of this summary is to provide information regarding a decision as to whether sufficient funding will be made available to repair Rightsell Elementary School. II. Problem: The problem before us is to decide whether Rightsell Elementary School should receive sufficient funding in order to enhance its overall appearance and structural integrity to the point where it can continue as an elementary school. ill. Facts bearing on the problem:  Age and Condition: Rightsell Elementary School is essentially a wood-frame building with a brick structural veneer and a plaster interior. It has wooden floors that have been overlaid with another layer of tile, and in many areas with carpeting. The building does not meet the current codes\nyet, in many areas, it is not deficient. It was designed for an operating capacity of 258 students plus academic and support staff. It sits on a lot of less than three acres in size and has a small parking lot and play area. It was expanded in the 1990s with the addition of one extra classroom. Projects were completed in the 1970s and 80s that added air conditioning, upgraded code-deficient areas, such as plumbing and electric, and most recently has had energy-efficient lighting installed. The Building is structurally sound, yet it is beginning to show deterioration in a number of areas. In 1995 surveys were done for all buildings in the Little Rock School District. Needed renovations and repairs included substantial replacements of every building system, which when completed would still render the building inadequate for an elementary school of the 1990s. Beginning in 1998 the Little Rock School District began an initiative to re-summarize the needs of its facilities. The needs, at that time, totaled $800,000 and centered around environmental needs, structural needs, technology and electrical upgrades, ADA compliance, restroom renovations, and changes to the administrative and academic space. Specifically\nroof and structural repairs, waterproofing the facility, mold remediation, landscaping, bringing the building within ADA compliance, adding a classroom, and adding a heating-ventilation fresh-air return system, and making electrical upgrades to support all the aforementio'ned, plus technology that is required in our facilities.  Financial Considerations: The Little Rock School District has allocated $800,000 for any and all work to be accomplished at Rightsell Elementary School. As may be seen by the attached enclosure, this is-not a sufficient level of funding due to all the work that is necessary to bring this facility inline so that a reasonable life can be expected for this capital investment. The funding shortfall is estimated at $1.78 million dollars.  Attendance Considerations: As of this writing is anticipated that Rightsell could be impacted by the districts new attendance zone plan. Students presently attending Rightsell will be given the opportunity of choice, which will allow them to attend schools in their attendance zone. A decrease in student population at this school would warrant an examination of the per pupil cost for facility rehabilitation IV. Courses of Action:  Re-examining the role of Rightsell Elementary school as an educational facility in LRSD: The possible decrease of student population coupled with the cost of repairs warrants a look at whether investing in Rightsell Elementary school is cost effective.  Reduce the scope of work to minimum essential: Decreasing the scope of work to accomplish minimum essential necessary to maintain the facility. This is predicated on a reduced occupancy.  Redefine the scope of work for non school facility: Should the facility cease to remain as a school, a reduced scope of work could be accomplished to maintain the facility and convert it to another LRSD purpose.  Do not accomplish the repairs: This course of action is only an option if LRSD decides not to retain the facility. And then, some expense will be incurred to preserve the facility for either retention or disposal. 8 ~ a z UI School: Scope of Work Rightsell Elementary School Rightsell Elementary School: a. The Fresh-Air Unit The fresh-air unit will be as specified on Mitchell, above. b. Electrical Upgrade The electrical upgrade will be as specified on Mitchell, above. c. Remediation ofHV AC Closets In this particular case, it was determined that the heatingventilation closets are going to have to be completely gutted and all fungi remediated to ensure a safe atmosphere. This, of course, will include the replacement of these units, in kind. d. HV AC Unit Replacement HV AC unit replacement will be as specified on Mitchell, above. It is our intent to save as much of the main system that provides heat to the building as possible and concentrate on the replacement of the air-handling units installed in the building in the late 1970s. e. Resealing of the Basement Walls I would like consideration given to excavating the entire building down to the footers to expose all basement walls and have these walls resealed to prevent water-infiltration. f. Interior Drainage Determine the extent of the interior drainage to determine whether the interior storm-water drainage-system can be abandoned and included within the design of \"g\" stated below. g. Determine the scope and cost for a gutter and downspout system to divert water from internal drains to an exterior drain system. 3 Included within this should be the necessary gutters and downspouts and the ceiling of the roof. Consideration should also be given to an analysis and replacement of the flat-roof portion of the school. h. Interior Repairs Those portions of the building that have been damaged because of water penetration shall be repaired in the most economical manner. 1. ADA: We would like a lift-system installed to enable students with disabilities to transverse the first and second floors. J. Classroom Addition: We would like one 750 to 800 square-foot classroom, with no water or restroom facilities, added to the facility. It would have built-in shelving or cabinetry on one side, black or dry-erase boards on one end, carpeted flooring, energy-efficient lighting, coat rack and shelves on one wall, and would be connected to the District's data and intercom system. k. Asbestos removal: To be removed commensurate with renovation work needed. Board report.doc 4 !\" 8 z ~ lz5 C/) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Junious Babbs SUBJECT: Mitchell and Rightsell Five (5) Year Projections DATE: February 12, 2004 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501) 447-2955 E-Mail: junious.babbs@lrsd.org In response to the request for Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary School five (5) year projections, the following information is being provided: Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary Five Year Plan This document is a projection of student numbers for two (2) Little Rock School District elementary schools over the period 2003-04 through 2008-09. Projections are based on a set of assumptions and conditions as they exist in February 2004. Assumptions and Conditions Projections completed for the schools were compiled by \"rolling up\" students currently- attending an elementary school and identifying future students using the average number of kindergarten students who have registered in each attendance zone for the school over the past four ( 4) years. In a case where the demographic in a school zone has changed due to unusual growth or other factors, an adjustment to the average figure would be used for the projection. The numbers for the \"roll up\" students assume an equal mobility rate across the district. As some students in the schools leave a school due to address changes, others will enter at a fairly equal rate. School projections include P4 classes in existence as of February 2004. Growth Assumptions about growth do not include a forecast of substantial numbers of students who do not currently attend LRSD returning to district schools. While that is a desirable condition, there is no data on which to base a projection regarding that occurrence. There are some schools where the projection based on the four-year average of kindergarten enrollment appears to be inconsistent with the recent history of enrollment growth in the school. In this case the projection was adjusted downward due to conditions in the particular school zone. Examples of schools where reductions occurred include both Mitchell and Rightsell, where students from outside the school attendance zone are now allowed to return to their attendance zone school. An additional variable not yet available (i.e. NCLB school choice opportunity) to enter or exit will be determined during a designated period of the school year. It will be important to note that P4 numbers may increase pending recent legislative action. School Enrollment Numbers Over the Past Five (5) Years School 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Average Mitchell 247 278 298 284 255 272 Ri!!htsell 269 264 268 298 292 278 !\" 8 ~ z Cl) :n ~ z \u0026gt;z ,0. ,Cl) PROJECTION WORKSHEET SCHOOL: Rightsell Elementary School Capacity: 296 GRADE 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 K 40 33 33 33 33 33 1 47 40 33 33 33 33 2 43 47 40 33 33 33 3 33 43 47 40 33 33 4 46 33 43 47 40 33 5 47 46 33 43 47 40 P4 36 36 36 36 36 36 TOTAL 292 278 265 265 255 241 Attending -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 Choice Schools Return to -25 -20 -12 -8 -6 Attendance Zone TOTAL 292 243 235 243 237 225 PROJECTION WORKSHEET SCHOOL: Mitchell Elementary School Capacity: 283 GRADE 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 K 40 36 36 36 36 36 1 41 40 36 36 36 36 2 34 41 40 36 36 36 3 39 34 41 40 36 36 4 44 39 34 41 40 36 5 39 44 39 34 41 40 P4 18 18 18 18 18 18 TOTAL 255 252 244 241 243 238 Attending -11 -10 -8 -7 -6 Choice Schools Return to -13 -13 -13 -13 -13 Attendance Zone TOTAL 255 228 221 220 223 219 2008 and Beyond Revisited stipulation magnet agreements (2008) among the State of Arkansas and the three (3) participating school districts (Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District) will have significant impact. Pending results may display variation in student enrollment numbers in each LRSD school. cc: Dr. Morris Holmes LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: February 26, 2004 TO: Board of Education FROM: ~al Pru-adis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: Schoo 1/DeQartment Item Donor Bale Elementary School One (1) Sylvania VCR/ Mr. Brian Minchew, DVD player, valued at parent of Bale student $100.00, and 9 Magna Doodle Deluxe Boards, valued at $15.00 each, to the special education self-contained classroom Central High School $300.00 cash to the Mr. Rush Harding, III Lady Panther basketball team Central High School $500.00 cash to the Mr. Ronald Crawford Lady Panther basketball team J.A. Fair Magnet Four ( 4) sections Mr. Woody Rigdon of High School of 6' concrete pipe, Hanson Pipe \u0026amp; Products, Inc. valued at $200.00, for use in outdoor classroom J.A. Fair Magnet Delivery services, Mr. Gary Gaul of High School . valued at $150.00, DUIT Construction Company of four (4) sections of concrete pipe for use in outdoor classroom ~ :i  :! 2 Gi ~ ?' \u0026gt; ~ c\n1: Irr :! Board of Education February 26, 2004 Page 2 School/Department J.A. Fair Magnet High School Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School Martin Luther King, Jr. lnterdistrict Magnet Elementary School Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Pulaski Heights Middle School Woodruff Elementary School 200 tons of rock fines, valued at $500.00, to be used on outdoor trails and greenhouse floor Mr. Haskell Dickinson of Granite Mountain Quarries A Hewlett-Packard copier, M.L. King PT A valued at $130.00, to the Health Services Department . at King $1,500.00 cash to be used Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Duane Jackson for student incentives and and Ms. Genevieve Jackson classroom \u0026amp; instructional materials for Pre-Kand kindergarten curriculum. Funds are to be distributed as follows:  to Ms. Julia Lloyd's class and  to Ms. Shacuna Jones' class. Paints, primers, sealers, reducers, thinners, fillers, tools, tapes, sand paper, polish pad, etc., valued at $21,675.30, to the Paint \u0026amp; Body Program $10,000.00 cash to the instructional program at Pulaski Heights to be allocated as follows: $4,000.00 for the library (1/2 for upper level AR books)\n$1,000.00 each for 7th grade English books, gth grade English books, gth grade science classes, Foreign Language Dept., \u0026amp; the Special Ed Dept. $500.00 each for Math Counts and the Quiz Bowl. Mr. Perry Gravitt, President Hackman Paint \u0026amp; Supply Co., Inc. Winthrop \u0026amp; Lisenne Rockefeller School supplies and uniforms valued at $350.00 Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. Board of Education February 26, 2004 Page 3 School/Department LRSD Athletic Dept. Mahlon Martin Professional Library 124 metal gym lockers, valued at $11,560.00, installed at Forest Heights Middle School \u0026amp; 14 large mirrors, valued at $3,500.00, to be placed in the weight room at Quigley Stadium Educational books valued at $3,500.00 Donor Mr. David Ensminger Arkansas Democrat-Gazette It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Manage From/I\u0026lt; Barbara Anderson, Principal of Bale Elementary School Date: January 15, 2004 Subject: Donation Mr. Brian Minchew, a parent of a student at Bale, wishes to donate a Sylvani1 VCR/DVD player valued at $100.00 to the special education self-contained classroom at Bale. Along with this, 9 Magna Doodle Deluxe Boards, one for each child, will be donated. They are valued at $15.00 each. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the pol\\ of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. LittCe 'Rock Centra( J-fif3li Sclioo( 1500 Soutfi Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 Pfione 501-447-1400 ]\"ax 501-447-1401 DATE: 1/9/2004 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL crf!_,~ SUBJECT: DONATION Rush Harding, III, of 4 Valley Creek View, Little Rock, AR 72223, very graciously donated $300 to our Lady Panther basketball team. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. RECEIVED Jfo.N r. c ittCe 'Rock Centra{ J-fffJli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutli Park Street Litt[e 'Rock, .Jlrkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 ]'ax 501-447-1401 DATE: 1/9/2004 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~ SUBJECT: DONATION Ronald Crawford graciously donated $500 to our Lady Panther basketball team. Mr. Crawford's address 1s as follows: P. 0. Box 13688 Maumelle, AR 72113. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: J. A. FAIR MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS 13420 David 0. Dodd Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Phone: 501-447-1700 Fax: 501-447-1701 Environmental Science * Information Science \u0026amp; Systems Engineering * Medical Science Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Ci~\\ C~dra Norman, Principal January 6, 2004 Donation to J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Mr. Woody Rigdon, Hanson Pipe and Products, Incorporated, 1300 Bond Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72202, has generously donated four sections of six foot concrete pipe with a value of $200.00 for use in the J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School outdoor classroom. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. RECEIVED A School of the Little Rock School District TO: FROM: DATE: RE: J. A. FAIR MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS 13420 David 0. Dodd Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Phone: 501-447-1700 Fax: 501-447-1701 Environmental Science  Information Science \u0026amp; Systems Engineering  Medical Science Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement (l\n\\L Cassandra Norman, Principal January 6, 2004 Donation to J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Mr. Gary Gaul, DUIT Construction Company, 16915 High 1-30, Benton, AR, 72015, has generously provided delivery of four sections of concrete pipe for use in the J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School outdoor classroom. Delivery services for this pipe have value of $150.00. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. A School of the Little Rock School District TO: FROM: DATE: J. A. FAIR MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS 13420 David 0. Dodd Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Phone: 501-447-1700 Fax: 501-447-1701 Environmental Science * Information Science \u0026amp; Systems Engineering * Medical Science Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement t~sandra Norman, Principal January 6, 2004 RE: Donation to J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Mr. Haskell Dickinson, Granite Mountain Quarries, has generously donated 200 tons of rock fines with a value of$500.00 to be used on the outdoor trails and the greenhouse floor of J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High 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. A School of the Little Rock School District MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL To: Darral Paradise, Director of Procurement bi'~, From: Tyrone Harris, Principal Date: January 5, 2004 Re: Donation The M.L.King PTA, 905 M. L. King Jr. Drive, Little Rock, AR 72202 has generously donated a Hewlett Packard copier for the Health Services Department at King valued at $130.00 It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. I I 1 t .. ' . i 905 Martin Luther King , Jr. Drive  Phone (501) 447-5100  Fax (501) 447-5101  Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: TJi Harris, Principal Date: January 5, 2004 Re: Monetary Donation Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Duane and Genevieve Jackson of 16801 Davis Cup Lane in Little Rock, AR 72209 have made a generous donation of $1500.00 to split between Julia Lloyd and Shacuna Jones. It is Mrs. Jackson's wish that the donation be used to purchase student incentives, classroom and instructional materials to support the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten curriculum. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. Thank You 905 Martin Luther King , Jr. Drive  Phone (501) 447-5100  Fax (501) 447-5101  Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Michael Peterso~rincipal Donation January 7, 2004 Please accept this generous donation given to Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. Mr. Perry Gravitt, President of Hackman Paint and Supply Co., Inc. of Little Rock, AR, has given Metropolitan's Paint and Body Program $21 ,675.30 worth of paints, primers, sealers, reducers, thinners, fillers, tools, tapes, sand paper, polish pad, etc. These materials will be used for training our students. We recommend that this generous donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. cc: Dr. Marion Lacey, Associate Superintendent Metropolitan Career-Technical Center 7701 Scott Hamilton Drive  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209  (501) 447-1200  Fax (501) 447-1201 PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL \"r/)tt,.wi119 r/)anllte, r/)Pide\" Date: January 6, 2004 To: From: Darr~aradis, Director of Procurement 1,W Dr. aniel Whitehorn, PHMS Principal Subject: Donation Winthrop and Lisenne Rockefeller of 3518 Hill Rd. Little Rock, AR 72205, have very graciously donated $10,000.00 to the instructional program of Pulaski Heights Middle School. They have requested that the money be allocated in the following manner: $1,000.00 for 8th grade English books, $1,000.00 for 7th grade English books, $1,000.00 for the Foreign Language Department, $4,000.00 for our library (one-half of this amount is to be spent on upper level AR books), $1,000.00 for the Special Education Department, $1,000.00 for 8th grade science classes, $500.00 for Math Counts, and $500.00 for Quiz Bowl. It is recommended that this very generous donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ~  ~~ :' ::y~ i ~\n401 North Pine Street  Phone (501) 447-3200  Fax (501) 447-3201  L.ittle Rock , Arkansas 72205 To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: January 15, 2004 Re: Donations Dassault Falcon Jet Corp, P.O. Box 967, Little Rock, AR 72203, has generously donated school supplies and uniforms valued at $350.00 to Woodruff Elementary School. We sincerely appreciate this donation on behalf of the children of Woodruff. School counselor, Shirley Davi~, distributed the school supplies and uniforms to children who needed assistance. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. RECEIVED LRSD ATHLETICS Fax:501-324-2119 Jan 4 2003 13:58 P.02 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Iii . ATHLETIC DIRECTOR-SECONDARY SCHOOLS II\\ January 5, 2004 To: . Darral Paradis, Director LRSD Procurement Department From: n I.JJ Johnny Johnson, CAA r ~7 Athletic Director LRSD Subject: Lockers and Mirrors Donation David Ensminger recently donated 124 metal gym lockers valued at $11,560 to the Little Rock School District which were installed at Forest Heights Middle School. Mr. Ensminger also donated 14 large mirrors valued at $3, 500 which will be placed in the weight room at Quigley Stadium. It is reconunended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the LRSD. 3615 West 25th Street*Little Rock, AR 72204*(501)447-2060 To: From: Subject: '.\n4n Individual Approach to a World efKnowledge\" Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management tf]lkJQrion E. Woods, Coordinator of Professional Development Donation of Books for the Mahlon Martin Professional Library Arkansas Democrat-Gazette donated educational books to the Mahlon Martin Professional Library. The value of the donation is $3,500.00. The contact information is as follows: Cynthia Howell Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 121 E. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 It is recommended that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1086 Fax: (501) 447-1158 DATE: February 26, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY,Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending January 31, 2004. To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial conditi9n. NIA NIA Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District NIA  Needed Staff NIA  Comments None  Recommendation Approval of the January 2004 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, ~PENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2003 AND 2004 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2002/03 01/31 /03 COLLECTED 2003/04 01/31 /04 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% 57,547,800 55,681 ,497 96.76% DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 7,923,699 99.05% 10,100,000 9,516,878 94.23% 40% PULLBACK 29,400,000 29,600,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 205,072 109.66% 210,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 174,515 45.33% 180,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 337,232 249.80% 150,000 206,062 137.37% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 223,326 65.68% 380,000 231,195 60.84% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 90,653 32.96% 200,000 77,339 38.67% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 156,386 97.74% 240,000 166,872 69.53% TOTAL 97,432,000 66,258,663 68.01% 98,607,800 65,879,843 66.81% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 17,215 71 .73% 21 ,000 11 ,594 55.21% TOTAL 24,000 17,215 71.73% 21,000 11,594 55.21% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 30,219,479 55.08% 53,226,139 29,447,876 55.33% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 3,891 ,937 51 .28% 8,300,000 3,373,820 40.65% VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 644,552 48.10% 1,400,000 621 ,053 44.36% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 346,684 20.39% 1,675,000 271 ,285 16.20% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 205,407 75.14% 273,358 202,301 74.01% TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 1,226,542 33.28% 3,875,562 1,243,841 32.09% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 1,396,152 42.76% 3,900,000 1,473,688 37.79% ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 335,976 33.40% 920,337 368,337 40.02% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 658,607 100.00% 560,545 267,486 47.72% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% 285,245 142,623 50.00% AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 57,386 8.83% 360,000 193,739 53.82% TOTAL 75,441,106 39,267,993 52.05% 74,776,187 37,606,049 50.29% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 13,857 1.23% 1,350,000 141,308 10.47% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 554,813 33.33% 1,632,430 544,143 33.33% TOTAL 3,410,671 568,670 16.67% 3,752,430 685,451 18.27% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 106, 112,540 60.19% 177,157,418 104,182,938 58.81% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25, 152,981 7,262,743 28.87% 24,075,790 10,010,008 41 .58% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 2,082,476 52.32% 4,000,000 2,398,316 59.96% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 9,210,250 36.74% 24,689,351 9,322,338 37.76% TOTAL 54,198,923 18,555,469 34.24% 52,765,141 21,730,662 41.18% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 124,668,008 54.08% 229,922,559 125,913,600 54.76% - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2003 AND 2004 - APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2002/03 01 /31 /03 EXPENDED 2003/04 01 /31/04 EXPENDED EXPENSES -SALARIES 100,865,586 51 ,391 ,118 50.95% 100,684,982 46,716,574 46.40% BENEFITS 24,838,361 12,739,832 51 .29% 26,483,772 12,288,907 46.40% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 9,845,498 49.74% 19,719,297 9,320,130 47.26% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 4,087,172 48.97% 8,185,459 5,169,777 63.16% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 781 ,770 48.35% 1,575,580 630,412 40.01% OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 2,903,848 34.13% 8,384,567 2,968,136 35.40% DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 12,213,572 99.97% 12,098,342 12,191 ,763 100.77% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176,189,538 93,962,810 53.33% 177,131,999 89,285,698 50.41% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 7,478,349 28.60% 26,056,193 8,419,292 32.31% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 1,723,548 43.31% 4,000,000 2,306,955 57.67% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 11,415,683 45.54% 24,689,351 10,577,444 42.84% TOTAL 55,194,668 20,617,580 37.35% 54,745,544 21,303,691 38.91% TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 114,580,390 49.52% 231,877,543 110,589,388 47.69% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 10,087,617 (1 ,954,984) 15,324,211 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,645,440 3,558,580 3,558,580 OPERATING 8,557,652 8,557,652 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 (416,671) 1,578,177 3,985,551 OPERATING 8,675,891 20,707,381 9,052,274 23,924,095 TOTAL 9,325,586 20,290,710 10,630,451 27,909,647 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2004 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 01-31-04 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,219.02 77,219.02 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 110,501.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110,501.92 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 87,000.00 62,375.74 57,426.63 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 246,791.00 10,141,400.20 7,434,812.30 1,285, 123.90 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 2,650.68 39,623.29 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 7,679.00 22,190.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 2,108,630.36 2,265,578.88 514,549.29 2,097,082.00 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31,306,506.59 166,300.00 11,338,379.23 9,779,114.60 10,355,312.76 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 945,917.47 3,353.37 1,385,748.40 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 2,608,721.36 24,763,981.20 17,731,829.56 15,242,507.54 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 1,000.00 445,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 (2,608,721.36) 19,465,877.87 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 893,210.83 8,181,987.72 SUBTOTAL 31,107,082.11 894,210.83 (2,608,721.36) 0.00 0.00 29,392,571.58 GRAND TOTAL II ~!lZ lllD llZ llll!l ~lD II\n! ~ ~!l Z\n! ~Ill ~g lZnl !l~ll li !l!lZ!lli m D!l LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY - THRU THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2004 -- - - PROJECT ENDING f------- ALLOCATIONS EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE ENCUMBERED ALLOCATION PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 01-31-04 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 THRU 01-31-04 THRU 01-31-04 SUBTOTAL 01-31-04 - -- - - ADMINISTRATION 673,846.55 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 149,597.63 62,375.74 0.00 616,419.92 57,426.63 NEW WORK PROJECTS 35,565,851.80 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11,671,442.11 10,141,400.20 7,434,812.30 34,280,727.90 1,285,123.90 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 113,930.47 109,609.73 2,650.68 0.00 226,190.88 39,623.29 - LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,883,405.13 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661 .38 7,679.00 0.00 4,861,214.57 22,190.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 13,342,240.87 ~ 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 2,265,578.88 514,549.29 11,245, 158.87 2,097,082.00 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51,655,707.04 --397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 11,338,379.23- 9,779,114.60 41,300,394.28 10,355,312.76 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 11,735,611.7-8 - 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 4,500,374.61 945,917.47 3,353.37 10,349,863.38 1,385,748.40 - - - - -~-- - UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 20,759,698.84 20,759,698.84 -- - - - - ~ TOTAL 138,882,176.18 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 24,763,981 .20 17,731,829.56 102,879,969.80 36,002,206.38 -- - - - - ~ - - - - - - f- - - c- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - I l,l~Ul,\u0026amp;nnl\"nW y I ~t\\Ul1.n,r.:au \"VI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT - SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND --- --- - FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31 , 2004 I Fund Purchase Maturity Institution Interest Rate Type Principal Date Date Operating 01 -30-04 TFN Bank of America 0.850% Repo 2,735,000.00 Operating 01 -15-04 03-15-04 Twin City Bank 1.350% CD 5,004,986.08 Operating 12-19-03 02-02-04 Twin City Bank 1.350% - CD 9,500,000.00 Operating 12-19-03 02-13-04 Twin City Bank 1.350% CD 5,000,000.00 Operating 12-19-03 03-01-04 Twin City Bank 1.400% CD 9,600,000.00 Total - 31 ,839,986.08 - - Food Service 01 -27-04 TFN Bank of America 0.720% Repo 810,000.00 810,000.00 - Activity Fund 01-16-04 TFN Bank of America 0.780% Repo 1,200,000.00 Total 1,200,000.00 - - Bond Account 09-08-03 03-08-04 Regions 1.094% CD 400,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01 -16-04 07-14-04 Metropolitan 1.930% - - CD 1,000,934.31 Capital Projects Fund 01-16-04 07-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.400% CD 5,231 ,393.21 Capital Projects Fund 10-15-03 02-13-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD 5,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-30-04 01-31005 Bancorp South 1.850% CD 2,100,244.72 - Capital Projects Fund 11-18-03 04-15-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.300% CD 6,000,000.00 - Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 08-16-04 USBANK 1.420% CD 11,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-16-04 06-10-04 Bank of America 0.910% _ Treasury Bills 5,365,126.36 Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 05-14-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% CD 9,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 12-01-03 05-03-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD 3,060,648.33 Capital Projects Fund 09-15-03 03-15-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.430% CD 10,221 ,001 .82 Capital Projects Fund 01-26-04 TFN Bank of America 0.810% Repo 5,740,000.00 Total 64,119,348.75 Deseg Plan Scholarship 12-05-03 06-15-04 Bank of America 1.020% - Treasury Bills 668,325.28 Total - 668,325.28 Rockefeller Scholarship 01-15-04 . 06-10-04 Bank of America --- 0.910% - T reasury Bills 252,059.89 Total 252,059.89 - Risk Management Loss Fund 01 -30-04 TFN Bank of America 0.250% Repo 400,000.00 400,000.00\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_382","title":"Compliance remedy","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":["2004/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance remedy"],"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/382"],"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\nJ. As to the educational acronyms, Counsel has requested that the authors of the comprehensive evaluations immediately prepare a glossary of acronyms used in their respective evaluations. These will be consolidated into a single glossary for all exhibits and provided to the Court as soon as possible. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: Christopher Heller 1 Page 2 of 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on May 13, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp;. Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Arm Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 323 Center Street 200 Tower Buildin! Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ig Christopher Heller Pa-. Page 3 of 3 0.!- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION received may 1 4 200^ DKEGREGATIO? fSoNITORJNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO.4\n82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FIT.iNG DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER FILED MAY 12, 2004 Plaintiff Little Rock School District (^ERSD) for its Notice of Filing states: 1. Attached are the following documents requested by the Court in its Order filed May 12, 2004: A. Little Rock School District Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1 (Appendix 1 of which is IL-Rl\")\nB. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 10, 2002\nand. C. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 23, 2002 (received by fax on October 24, 2002). 2. As to Mr. Walker s references to your document, the Court is correct that Mr. Walker is referring to the Proposed Compliance Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. Page 1 of 3Little Rock School District Compliance Committee Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1.The District Courts Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion ) finding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7,1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving Afincan-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that program has not and likely will not improve Afiican-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program a The District Court s Opinion set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the details of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 to improve the academic achievement of Afidcan-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those prograrhs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. Revised Plan  2.7 provided, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of Afiican-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 1 1B. C. F. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the year\nelimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were mvolved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process {e.g., all fourth grade math teachers\nall eighth grade Enghsh teachers, etc.).  LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerlw or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Comphance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Comphance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSDs substantial compliance with  2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with  2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2 iProposed Compliance Plan As the Compliance Committee understands the District Courts Opinion, the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\nDevelop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiucan-American students\nMaintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process\nPrepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program\nand Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD s Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. What follows is an explanation of how the Compliance Committee derived these five requirements from the District Courts Opinion, and what the Compliance Committee proposes to do to comply with each requirement. Assessment and Evaluation When first read, the District Courts Compliance Remedy seemed simple and straightforward, but as the Compliance Committee attempted to develop this Proposed Compliance Plan, numerous questions arose. The most fundamental question related to the District Courts use of the term assessment in Paragraphs A and B of the Compliance Remedy. The ambiguity of this term was the subject of testimony at the hearing. The District Court included in its Opinion Dr. Lesleys testimony on the difference between assessment and evaluation, see Opinion, p. 152, but it is unclear whether the Court accepted this testimony. 3It is clear that the District Court understood the distinction between testing data, which are derived from student assessments, and program evaluations, which are used to determine the effectiveness of programs. Opinion, p. 152 (LRSD ackno^vledged in the Interim Compliance Report that it was required\n(a) to use both the testing data and the program evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the key academic programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 . .. (emphasis in original)). Even so, the District Court appears to have used the term assessment in some instances to refer to only student assessments and in other instances to refer to both student assessments and evaluations. This required the Comphance Committee to determine the District Courts intended meaning. In making this determination, the Compliance Committee considered the context in which the term was used, the District Courts findings of fact as set forth in the Opinion, what would be in the best interest of African-American students, and hopefully, common sense. An explanation of each requirement of the Compliance Remedy is provided below. To avoid any ambiguity, Compliance Committee hereinafter uses the term assessment to refer to student assessments and the term evaluation to refer to the program evaluations, whether formal or informal. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. Given Paragraph A s reference to testing data, it seems clear that Paragraph A concerns, in part. ^'1* A X WAA w A IO XXX XXX Uj student assessments. The Compliance Committee proposes to comply with this part of Paragraph A by implementing the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan incorporates four changes that have been made since the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. First, the Board eliminated the fall administrations of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) in 2001-02. The administration recommended this for three reasons\n(1) the loss of instructional time resulting from testing and test preparation\n(2) fall results did not provide significantly different information from the previous springs results\nand (3) the cost of administering and scoring the tests. Second, the fall administration of the Observation Surveys and Developmental Peading Assessment will only be used by the teacher for diagnostic purposes. The scores will not be reported to or maintained by the LRSD. This change saves considerable time in test administration and allows more time for instruction. It was approved by the Board on September 26, 2002. Third, the LRSD will no longer admimster the ALTs. The administration recommended the complete elimination of the ALTs for the following reasons: (1) the lack of alignment with the content and format of the State Benchmarks\n(2) the loss of instructional time resulting from 4testing and test admimstration\n(3) the new federal accountability requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act require annual testing by the State in grades 3-8, making the LRSDs administration of the ALTs redundant\nand (4) the costs of administering and scoring the tests. The Board approved this change on September 26, 2002. Finally, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) has moved the admini stratinn of the SAT9 from the fall to the spring, effective 2002-03. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Observation Surveys (5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 7 Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. This requirement derives from the opening paragraph of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, two proposed regulations have been drafted, EL-Rl for formal evaluations and IL-R2 for informal evaluations, attached as Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. 5 1Proposed regulation IL-Rl combines generally accepted principles of program evaluation with practices that have been in place in the LRSD for the past two years. See, e.g., Robby Champion, Map Out Evaluation Goals, Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002, attached as Appendix o. This regulation will be submitted to the Board, Office of Desegregation Monitoring ( ODM ) and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) for review and comment before being finalized. Proposed regulation IL-R2 specifically addresses the next requirement and is discussed therewith. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. This requirement derives from Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. Paragraph B apparently came about as a result of the District Courts concern about the LRSD making program modifications based on informal evaluations of student assessment data. See Opinion, p. 155 ( I have grave reservations about anyone this side of Solomon being wise enough to use two or three semesters worth of erratic composite test scores to make reliable decisions about which remediation programs for LRSD s Afihcan-American students were actually working.). Proposed regulations IL-R2 was drafted to specifically address this requirement. It prohibits substantial program modifications from being made without a written record as required by Paragraph B. This regulation will also be submitted to ODM and Joshua for review and comment before being finalized. Proposed regulation IL-Rl also complies with this requirement. It mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afincan-American students?. See Appendix 1, IL-Rl, p. 5. Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 64. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify replace the program. or This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, the Compliance Committee proposes to prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Primary Readingkanguage Arts, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science, Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. Based on Paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD understands these evaluations must be submitted to the Court on or before March 15 2004. Some may argue that Paragraph A and Paragraph C together require the LRSD to prepare new, comprehensive evaluations of all the programs identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The Compliance Committee considered and rejected this argument for three reasons. First, Paragraph As description of the programs to be evaluated differs from that of Paragraph C. Paragraph A states that the LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented imder  2.7 . . . The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should continue to prepare evaluations of some of the key programs, as identified in the Interim Compliance Report. See Opinion, p. 151 (In addition to the Assessment Plan,  2.7.1 of the Interim Compliance Report noted that the LRSD was preparing evaluations of some of the key programs designed to improve African-American achievement in order to provide a more in-depth look at the effectiveness of those programs. (emphasis in original)), In contrast to Paragraph A, Paragraph C requires the LRSD to prepare evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should complete all of the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and submit those to the Court. S^ Opinion, p. 156 ( [A]s of March 15, 2001, the date the Final Compliance Report was filed with the Court. (1) PRE had prepared only draft evaluations of some of the programs in question\n(2) none of those evaluations had been approved by the Board . .. . (emphasis in original)). The District Court s statement in Paragraph C that it will accept evaluations already completed and approved by the Board further indicates that Paragraph C does not require new, comprehensive evaluations. Second, recognizing this distinction between Paragraph A and Paragraph C resolves a potential conflict between Paragraph C and Paragraph F. Paragraph C provides, All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 7 1 Iof the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. However, Paragraph F does not require the LRSD to file a compliance report on its compliance with Revised Plan  2.7.1 until March 15, 2004. The Compliance Committee concludes that March 15,2004, is the deadline for submitting the new, comprehensive evaluations of the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7. See Paragraph A of Compliance Remedy. This is consistent with Paragraph As requirement that the LRSD include assessment data through December 31, 2003. Obviously, such data could not be included in an evaluation filed on or before March 15, 2003. Finally, it makes the most sense for the LRSD to expend the greatest time and resources preparing evaluations of the programs designed to improve Afincan- American achievement. While the requirement for new, comprehensive evaluations derives from Paragraph A, some may argue that Paragraph Cs requirement that the LRSD use an outside expert to prepare evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report applies to the new, comprehensive evaluations. The Compliance Committee hopes the District Court and the parties agree that the team approach to program evaluation set forth in proposed regulation IL-Rl renders this argument moot. Proposed Regulation IL-Rl states that the program evaluation team must include [a]n external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing . . . Appendix 1, p. 4. The exact role of the  external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. Id. The Compliance Committee believes that the LRSDs practice over the last two years of using the team approach to program evaluation has produced credible evaluations. Moreover, participation of the LRSD staff on the evaluation team provides them an excellent learning experience that they do not typically receive when an evaluation is prepared entirely by an outside expert. The evaluations prepared over the last two years using the team approach are as follows: 1. 2. Dr. Steve Ross was the external consultant in the production of the Early Literacy program evaluation for 1999-2000 and 2000-01. He was asked to read a nearfinal draft and to provide feedback, which he did. His suggestions were then incorporated into the final report before it was published and disseminated. Other team members included Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent), Patricia Price (program director), Pat Busbea (program specialist), Ed Williams (statistician)^ and Ken Savage (computer programmer). Dr. Julio Lopez-Ferraro is the National Science Foundation (NSF) program officer who over-sees the LRSDs implementation of the grant-funded 8 j iComprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement ( CPMSA ). NSF trained a team of LRSD staff to produce the mandated annual program evaluations for this initiative and then assembled an external team of practitioners and researchers who came to the LRSD each year to validate findings and provide written feedback. The LRSD team members who OUT participated in writing of the annual progress reports included Vanessa Cleaver (project director), Dennis Glasgow (director of mathematics and science), Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent and co-project investigator), Virginia Johnson (CPMSA program evaluator), Ed Williams (statistician), and Ken Savage (computer programmer). 3. 4. Mr. Mark Vasquez, an attorney and former employee of the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas, has been retained by the LRSD for the past three years to provide guidance in the design and production of the English as a Second Language (ESL) program evaluation. Other team members have been Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent), Karen Broadnax (program supervisor), Ed Williams (statistician), Ken Savage (computer programmer), and Eddie McCoy (program evaluator). Dr. Larry McNeal, a professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in education admimstration and a private consultant in program evaluation, was retained by the LRSD to lead the team that produced the program evaluation for the Charter School. Other members of that team included Linda Watson (assistant superintendent), Knsta Young (program director), and Ed Williams (statistician). Dr. McNeal wrote this report. The team approach, supported by an external expert, ensures that all areas of expertise (program, implementation, techmeal and evaluative) are included. No one person would have all the knowledge and skills that a team would have. As these examples show, the external expert does not always perform the same role in every project. Rather, the role changes, depending the expertise that is required for a credible report. on 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The following program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report have been completed: 1. Early Literacy. A comprehensive report for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in fall 2001. An update to this report for 2001-02 was presented to the Board in June 2002, with an emphasis on 9the improved achievement of African-American students and closing the achievement gap. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Mathematics and Science. Three years (1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01) of program evaluations as required by the NSF were prepared, presented to the Board, and submitted to NSF, and NSF has responded to each evaluation. Extended Year Schools. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in the spring of 2002 an evaluation of the Extended Year Schools. Elementary Summer School. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and provided to the School Services Division an evaluation of elementary summer school programs for 2000-01. 5 HIPPY. The HIPPY program was evaluated by the LRSD staff in July 1999. The report was prepared, completed, and submitted to the program director and the Cabinet. Charter School. This program evaluation was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in June 2001. ESL. The Office for Civil Rights has required the LRSD to prepare a program evaluation in this area for each of the past three years: 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02. The first two of these reports have been prepared, completed, submitted to the Board, and submitted to OCR. (A third program evaluation will be completed in October when state scores arrive and will be ready by the March 15, 2003 deadline). Lyceum Scholars Program. Two separate evaluations of this alternative education school program were prepared by the LRSD staff. Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program. Southwest Middle School was the recipient of a two-year technical assistance grant from the Southwest Educational Development Lab (SEDL) to build professional community. SEDL prepared a comprehensive program evaluation that included Southwest among other grant recipients outside the LRSD. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary). A grant from ADE funded a partnership between Watson Elementary and the Northwest Educational Development Lab to implement a school improvement initiative. The LRSD staff provided data to Watsons principal for preparation of program evaluations. The principal submitted two armual program evaluations to ADE. 10 t11. 12. Collaborative Action Team (CAT). This one-year partnership with SEDL provided in 2000-01 for establishing and training a Collaborative Action Team of parent and community volunteers supported by LRSD staff to improve parent involvement. SEDL wrote a 249-page evaluation of their three-year grant-funded program, of which LRSD was included only the last year. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. Vital Link. The LRSD staff prepared a program evaluation, and it was provided to the project director. A question arises as to which of these evaluations are acceptable to the Court without additional work. The first sentence of Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy provides, LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent quahfications and expertise to prepare program evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The second sentence of Paragraph C states that the District Court will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or someone with similar qualifications. It is unclear whether an expert from outside the LRSD must have prepared the completed evaluations for them to be accepted by the District Court, whether it is sufficient that they were prepared by someone within LRSD with similar or qualifications. \u0026gt;5 The District Courts findings of fact suggest that the District Court will accept only program evaluations already completed by an outside expert. The District Court noted that Dr. Lesley testified hhat, by the end of November 2000, it was her opinion that no one in PRE had the expertise to prepare program evaluations. Opinion, p. 153. Thus, the District Court likely concluded that the only acceptable program evaluations would be those prepared by persons outside the LRSD. Applying this standard, the Compliance Committee believes that the following evaluations are acceptable to the Court, following Board approval, without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and CAT. The remaining program evaluations identified on the bottom of page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be completed by an outside expert. They are: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (CLTs), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The Compliance Committees proposal for completing each of these evaluations will be discussed below. In deciding how to go about completing these evaluations, the Comphance Committee focused on what makes sense to do at this time considering the goal of improving Afincan-American achievement and the limitations inherent in asking an expert to complete an evaluation. 11Extended Year Schools. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. A draft of this evaluation was presented to the Board in July and August 2000, but it was never completed. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to rewrite the report and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. Elementary Summer School. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance ComTnirtee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. The LRSD staff conducted a survey of CLTs during 2000-01. A summary of the survey findings was presented during a CLT training session, but no formal report was ever prepared. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. This evaluation was completed by LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 12Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Committee proposes implementation of this Compliance Plan in accordance with the following timeline. 1. Provide copies of this proposed Compliance Plan to ODM and Joshua for their reactions. 2. Incorporate, as possible, suggested revisions from ODM and Joshua.______ 3. Place Compliance Plan on the agenda for Board review and approval.______ 4. Place 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda on the Boards agenda for review and approval. 5. Place on Board agenda for approval two previously presented program evaluations (early literacy, and charter school).______ 6. Place on Board agenda for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle Schools SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 7. Place on Board agenda for approval the previously jresented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. Week of September 30, 2002 Week of October 7, 2002 October 10, 2002 October 24, 2002 October 24, 2002 November 2002 November 2002 13 Clay Pendley Ken James Attorneys Ken James Compliance Team Ken James Attorneys Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Karen Broadnax8. Place on Board agenda for approval the three previously presented program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 9. Issue Request for Proposals (RFPs) from available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148.________________ 10. Form a screening team to determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148.____________________ 11. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 12. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc.________ 13. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 14. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. December 2002 Mid-October 2002 Late October 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002^February 2003 December 2002^February 2003 14 Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley15. As each paper is completed, place on the Boards agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 16. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 17. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). 18. Publish RFPs to identify external experts to serve on each of the two staff teams for the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/science external experts are provided by NSF). 19. Establish consulting contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 20. Train each program evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. December 2002F ebruary 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 March 1, 2003 Late March 2003 May 2003 15 Ken James Bonnie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley21. Monitor the completion MayOctober 2003 of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda.___________ 22. Send copies of the completed Elementary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information.___________ 23. Complete the evaluation of the Elementary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 24. Send copies of the Secondary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 25. Complete the evaluation of the Secondary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval._____________ 26. Send copies of the completed CPMSA program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 27. Complete the five-year evaluation of the CPMSA moject (science and mathematics) and place on the Boards agenda for approval.___________ 28. Write Section 2.7.1 \"inal Compliance Report or federal court and file with Court. With October 2003 Board agenda packet October board meeting, 2003 With November 2003 Board agenda packets November board meeting, 2003 With December 2003 Board agenda packet December board meeting, 2003 March 15, 2004 16 Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Ken James Attorneys Compliance Team JAppendix 1 Proposed IL-Rl ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R1 PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to the staff involved in the evaluation of programs required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides funding for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board- approved Program Evaluation Agenda shall be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2^ Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows: Stakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed. Evaluator credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance. Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of clients and other specified stakeholders. Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgements are clear. Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. 1Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion. Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported jn ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed information is obtained. Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations to vias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted. or Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Propriety Standards The propriety standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results. Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants. Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it. Rights of human subjects. Evaluations should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed. Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed. Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the 2 (evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluators allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated. Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it programs is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. 3Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Metaevaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated so formatively and summartively against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. 2. 3. The Division of Instruction shall recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation shall include a proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Can the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Can the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Is the program significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P, Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass Publishers. 5-7.) The Superintendent shall recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agenda^with anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agena, the Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team shall include, at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing shall be retained 4as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader shall establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Board s policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. D. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? (See Policy IL, 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) E. Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data must be included. (See Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) F. Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. G. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports {e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendent s Cabinet and/or Compliance Team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (until Unitary Status is achieved), and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC)\nRobby Champion (Fall 2002). Map Out Evaluation Goals.\" Journal of Staff Development. 78-79\n5Thomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin Press\nBlaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines\n153-169\nBeverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nand Joseph S. Whoiey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) 7. Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: to monitor the completion of assignments\nto collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data\nto pose any necessary new questions to be answered\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nto formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of African- American achievement\nI? to assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. I s 8. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. 9. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet, for ODM (until Unitary Status is achieved), and for the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). s I 3 I 10. The program evaluation team shall plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. i j 611 .The Associate Superintendent for instruction shall prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information (see Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy): A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. (See Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) B. C, D. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 10. When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for approval. 11. Each program evaluation team shall meet with the Associate Superintendent for Instruction after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See Joeilen Killion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development u Council. 46, 123-124.) 7Appendix 2 Proposed IL-R2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R2 INFORMAL PROGRAM EVALUATION Introduction The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that a written record exists explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. It is not the intent of this regulation to require a formal program evaluation before every significant program modification. Definitions Academic Program means one of the core curriculum programs of English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science or Social Studies. Significantly modify means a material change in the content or delivery of an academic program implemented throughout the entire District. Written Record A written record must be prepared and maintained explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. The written record required by this regulation must include the following information: (a) the written criteria used to evaluate the program, (b) a summary of the student assessment data or other data on which the decision was based\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers\nall eighth grade English teachers etc.). 1Appendix 3 Robby Champion, Map Out Evaluation Goals, Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002 ?9t a k i n g ROBB-Y CHAMPION Map out evaluation goals A master plan can guide you down the rocky path of evaluation when you launch a major professional development evaluation, regardless of the projects scope, you may quickly find yourself on a slippery, often rocky road, v/ith twists and unexpected turns. Before venturing too far and becoming disillusioned about program evaluation, create a master plan. 'While it requires an upfront investment of time and may delay starting, it quickly becomes an invaluable road map that helps you avoid delays and detours along the way. Developing an evaluation master plan is most useful when you are launching a major, summative program evaluation. A summative evaluation is done at major junctures in a programs fife cycle and emphasizes documenting impact. Information from summative evaluations is used to make important decisions about the initiative, such as whether to continue, alter, expand, downsize, or eliminate it A formative evaluation, on the other hand, means monitoring and collecting data, often informally and spontaneously, throughout program implementation. Formative evaluation helps show implementers where to make adjustments so a program can eventually achieve significant results. A thoughtfully prepared master plan for a major evaluation effort would\n Focus the evaluation effort and help implementers avoid being sidetracked by leadership changes and new opinions\n Create a realistic timeline and work plan that B Robby Champion is president of Champion Training \u0026amp; Consulting, You can contact her at Champion Ranch at Trumbeli Canyon, Mora. NM 87732, (505) 387-2016, fax (505) 387-5581, e-mail\nRobbychampion@aol.com. provides needed momentum for the work\n Be a key informational document to provide an overview and answer specific questions throughout the process\n Help recruit people to assist with the project on the myriad evaluation tasks\ne Give the message that the evaluation will be open and not secretive. Whether your evaluation must be completed within a few months or wdl extend for several years, think through four phases of work before starting. PHASE 1: ORGANIZE THE PROCESS 1. Form a steering committee, including any needed outside expertise. 2. Learn more about program evaluation together. 3. Write a clear description of each program to be evaluated. 4. Agree on the primary purpose of the evaluation. .5. Plan how you will keep everyone informed along the way. Steering committees, charged specifically , with program evaluation, are important to focus attention and maintain the energy and momentum needed for the evaluation. They also help build a spirit of 'collaboration and open inquiry. And they keep the evaluation on track when other priorities might push the effort aside. Provide steering committee members with the tools to succeed. Members need not be evalu- 78 National Staff Development Council JSD Fall 2002 t. a\nltj 3l jg: JE St a JI r X I ation experts, but they do need information, support, and guidance to make informed decisions. They need background material to learn about program evaluation and examples of good evaluation studies. Finally, ey need access to experts on professional development, measurement, and the content areas of the training programs. - Before launching any evaluation effort, have a written description of each program to be evaluated. You would be amazed at the number of people who do not have a clear idea of what you mean by the New TeacherJmduction Program or the Early Literacy Initiative since so many different initiatives are being undertaken simultaneously around the school or district PHASE II: DESIGN THE EVALUATION 1. Generate questions to guide the evaluation. 2. Generate potential data sources/ instruments to address the questions. 3. Using a matrix to provide a birds-eye view, agree on e most important questions and the best data sources. 4. Decide if collecting data from a sample group is warranted to make the evaluation manageable. 5. Determine the evaluation approach that makes sense\nquantitative vs\nqualitative/naturalistic. 6. Gather or create the instruments for data collection. .7. Determine a realistic schedule for coUecting data. 8. Create a system for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. Decisions made in Phase EI are critical. They determine the technical quality of your evaluation. In the questions you select, you determine what to examine and what to ignore. When you finish with the design phase, your program evaluation wiU be shaped, to use a quantitative or a , quahtative model  or a mixture of the two. In the design phase, you make oer major decisions, such as whether to use a sample group. You also decide whether to do an in-depth case study, wheer to ON THE WEB. See an example of a matrix to help guide evaluations at\nwww.nsdc.org/library/jsd/ champion234.html. survey the whole population, whether to use examples of smdent work instead of official documents such as student grades or standardized test scores, or whether to judge adult learners understanding of the training content with performance tasks during training or by exit tests, classroom observations, or smdent feedback. If the programs to be evaluated already have stated indicators of longterm impact, generating appropriate evaluation questions is much simpler than when programs have only vague, lofty goals. The steering committee may drift into the realm of program planning as you encounter hurdles like fuzzy program outcomes. To avoid making misinformed evaluation design decisions, involve program leaders in your discussions. Developing or gathering instruments and then collecting the data are the most expensive steps in any evaluation. Think strategically about which data to collect, from whom to collect it or where to find it, and the best time to collect it. Your organization may already be collecting data for another purpose that now can be used for program evaluation. Some public records, such as smdent attendance, may be valuable if, for example, 20% increase in smdent attendance at aU grade levels is one of your programs indicators of impact. PHASE III\nPREPARE TO REPORT 1. Determine which audiences wiU want to know the results. 2. Consider several forums and formats to disseminate the results. 3. Plan reports, presentations, photo displays, graphs, charts, etc. Remember that your job is to make the evaluation results useful to your organization, so consider a range of ways to provide information to various groups. Consider briefs in the school or district newsletter, a handout updating staff about the schedule for data collection, five- minute progress updates in faculty meetings, bulleted statements on your web site, a digital picture- album of the programs results in classrooms with photos of smdents, and hallway displays of smdent work. If your final report is a formal document complete with examples of your data collection instruments, consider writing an executive summary of five pages or less to help.readers get the essential information. PHASE IV: CREATE THE WORK PLAN 1. List aU tasks to be completed for the whole evaluation.. 2, Create a realistic timeline. 3. Assign work. .4. Distribute the master plan. You -will have to be creative to accomplish ail the evaluation tasks. In education, we rarely have the luxury of contracting outsiders for the entire project Enlist steering committee members, partners, graduate smdents from the local university, and other talented critical friends to get the work done. One caution: For formal or summa- tive evaluations to be credible, avoid using insiders such as the program designers or implementers (coaches, mentors, trainers, or facilitators) to perform critical evaluation tasks that call for objectivity and distance. And be sure to get ongoing, high-quaiit)' technical expertise for the critical technical analysis. A CATALYST FOR REFLECTION Completing a major program evaluation usually serves as the catalyst for serious reflection on the current designs, policies, and practices of your professional development programs  their goals, content, processes, and contexts. In fact, revelations are often so powerful that they bring about the realization that major changes are needed if significant results' are reaUy expected from professional development People frequently conclude that designing the evaluation should be the first step in the program planning process, rather than an afterthought during implementation. B JSD Fall 2002 National Staff Development Council 79John W. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 October 10, 2002  OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, pa donna J. McHenry 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbeU.net Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Chris: Plan. This refers to your letter of October 4, 2002, providing LRSDs proposed Comphance The carts remedy and the general subject matter are too complex for us to provide all comments and objections we may ultimately have before todays Board meeting. We do note the following: 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as implementation , which are to be subjected to a comprehensive program evaluation cJocument at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail reg^dmg mteiventions / scaflFolding - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of .African Amencan students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited pursuant to Section 2.7 . . many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing Judge Wilson, we understood Dr Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the Pre-K - 2 literary program was not adequate' hp nntfitinn oorta A J_______ r-.i , , * The notation at page 4 of your document of the changed use u 3 DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD of the Observation Survey and the in  r .  -------- ------------------- argument (page 1) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the courts remedy. 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the courts order regarding the evaluations EXHIBITmentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. 4. We question the period for implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. Once again, these comments should not be taken to be the full range of concerns which Joshua may ultimately have about the courts remedy and the Compliance Plan. Nor do we intend to waive our concerns about the court setting forth a remedy, without first hearing from the parties and the ODM with regard to the courts views on an appropriate remedy. ihc^ly. ohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record, OCT. 24.2002 8:06ftM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.963 P.E JOHN w. Walker SHAWN CHILDS I John W. Wllker, p.a. Attorne? At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 October 23, 2002 OR COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKT P^ 8210 Hendeksqn BqaD Lrrtm Sock, Arkansas 722i n Phone: (501) 372-3425  Faz (501) 372-3428 Email\nmcheciydgawbolLaet Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Chris\nThis letter sets forth additional Compliance Plan. We comments of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the LRSD , ----------------* LLiC jUIkOU the dataJ  In tol^TSD attention should be given to the quality of e oata. m_the past, LRSD has used results on the RA and the Observation in consistent Txnth rr  ^nd the Observation SuTvcy in wcvs not nsistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teanherc 4., In addition, because teachers provided scores for to own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the diS newly enacted Regulation IL-Rl that Conflict of Interest .55 must be avoided. :s recognition in the for 2. We are concerned about the .  manner in which the regulation describes the team nropAg-\nprepari^ evaluauons, again in the context of conflict of interest  L - - isavoided,e external consultant needs to write the report and control the conflict of interest In order to insure that context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the guarantee that the external ti' which w= describe,-JI Program Evaluation Procedures do not iizitk , cNfv   .' --------LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. Continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of P desenbed (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example the Board is bXwX'^sSStoe with remediation for students whose petoanc, is oe ow par Studying the actual implementation of these stotuds im an or a re more T' because class membersare so much AcibeiSn^esS Srf i 1 P^rfoxmauce on the Benchmark and Stanford /vcnievement lests. A. satisfactory desenpuon by e School Board :e standards (in all or a representative of the evaluations which it : exhibit I 10/24/2002 THU 09:03 [TX/Ri: NO 85S0] @002' . CX^. 24.2002 8:07flM JOHN W WALKER P R N0.9S3 P.3 Page Two October 23, 2002 ^dert^c should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation acmvines m ehstnet schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see Accuracy Standards, para. 2), i^onicxiuai . Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations ofprograms deemed pamculmly direcmd to achievement of African American students for the Uidefiuiu: ' necessary to satisfy the court. We would Uke to receive the Boards assurance mat inns is me case. to be indefinite future, not We would appreciate your providing this letter to the Superintendent and the members of the school board. Walker Sincerely, JWW:Ip cc: AU Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray 10/24/2002 THU 09:03 [TX/RI NO 8580] @003 MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: Dennis Glasgow Gene Jones Compliance Remedy August 9, 2004 Thank you for providing time for Margie and me Wednesday and for making our conversation both pleasant and informative. We are pleased to be invited to participate in the planning for and implementation of the Courts June 30 Compliance Remedy. We will be available as much as necessary to complete the work. The proposed responses to the Compliance Remedy that you shared with us should be helpful to the people to be assigned those tasks. As you refine and update the document, it may be worth considering that the language of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy includes the term statisticians in the list of people to be hired. The language of the list of staff members of the Research, Assessment and Evaluation Department in the proposed response document does not. 1 also note that the term is plural in the Compliance Remedy. Significant tasks ordered by the Compliance Remedy in paragraphs F and G include written notification to Joshua and ODM of the eight programs to be targeted for step 2 evaluations and the quarterly updates. The proposed response document does not include these and may not need to, but they should be prominent on the list of things to do when the staff of the Research, Assessment, and Evaluation Department is assembled. The first of the quarterly updates is due December 1. Thank you for arranging our meeting with the superintendent this Thursday.PROJECTED SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STATUS OF LRSD SCHOOLS BASED ON 2004 ACTAAP ASSESSMENT RESULTS SUMMARY:  Fifteen (15) elementary schools fully met standards for all subgroups in both mathematics and literacy. These schools are not on school improvement status.  Of the remaining nineteen (19) elementary schools that are on school improvement status, seven (7) met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in both math and literacy.  Bale, Baseline, Chicot, Cloverdale (Elementary), Dodd, Fair Park, and Rockefeller met AYP for 1 year. These seven schools can come off school improvement if they make AYP next year.  One elementary school moves up to Year 3 status: Mitchell.  Meadowcliff, Rightsell, and Western Hills are projected to be on alert since they failed to meet AYP for one or more subgroups in mathematics. These schools will be on Year 1 of School Improvement should they fail to meet AYP next spring.  At the middle level Mann and Pulaski Heights Middle Schools met the adequate yearly progress standard. They will remain on Year 1 of School Improvement. The other six middle schools will move up a year on school improvement, five to Year 2 and one (Southwest) to Year 3.  All five high schools were on Alert status last year. Four of them will move to Year 1 status due to not meeting AYP in literacy and math. Parkview met AYP in literacy and math and will move off school improvement status. SCHOOLS THAT MET OR EXCEEDED THE STANDARD IN MATH AND LITERACY FOR 2004: Bale Booker Chicot Dodd Forest Park Geyer Springs Jefferson McDermott Pulaski Heights Romine Wakefield Mann Middle Parkview High School Baseline Carver Cloverdale Elementary Fair Park Fulbright Gibbs Mabelvale Elementary Otter Creek Rockefeller Terry Williams Pulaski Heights Middle received AIIR - A 200H OFFICE OF desegregation monitoringSCHOOLS THAT WERE ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STATUS FOR THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: Current Status (Based on 2002-03 Scores) Level/School ELEMENTARY Chicot Year 3 Bale Baseline Fair Park Mitchell Wakefield Brady Cloverdale Dodd Franklin ML King Mabelvale Rockefeller Stephens Washington Watson Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Projected Status (Based on 2003-04 Scores) Year 3 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Off School Improvement Year 2 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Off School Improvement Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Subgroup/Subject not meeting AYP All students: Math and Literacy All students\nMath All students: Math African-American students\nMath All students\nMath and Literacy African-American students: Math and Literacy All students: Math and Literacy Comments Met AYP for 1 year Met AYP for 1 year Met AYP for 1 year Met AYP for 1 year Met AYP for 2 consecutive years Met AYP for 1 year Met AYP for 1 year Met AYP for 2 consecutive years Met AYP for 1 yearWilson Woodruff Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 All students: Math All students: Math Meadowcliff Alert Rightsell Western Hills Alert Alert African-American students: Math All students: Math All students: Math MIDDLE SCHOOL Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest HIGH SCHOOL Central Hall Fair McClellan Parkview Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Alert Alert Alert Alert Alert Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 1 Year 1 Year 3 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Not on School Improvement All students: Math and Literacy African American students: Math and Literacy All students: Math All students: Math and Literacy All students: Math and Literacy All students: Math and Literacy African-American students: Literacy All students: Literacy All students: Literacy All students: Literacy Met Safe Harbor provision Met Safe Harbor provision 34% improvement in black students below basic in math compared to last year 88% of white students proficient in literacy Met AYP in literacy and mathEASTI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION FILED U.8. DISTRICT ^URT 'ESN district ARKANSAS JUN 30 2004 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By\n. DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OPINION' I. Warning to the General Reader The general reader, if any there be, should realize that educators, like lawyers, have developed their own language. To the extent that time, patience, and skill would permit, I have tried to Gamerize'^ this Memorandum Opinion. I have fallen short, but hope the effort will be of some help. IL Background On September 13,2002,1 entered a Memorandum Opinion (the September 13 Decision) holding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) had substantially complied with all of its I would be seriously remiss if I did not once again note the tremendous amount of work United States Magistrate Judge Joe 'Hiomas Ray has done on this case. -Bryan Gamer, of Dallas, Texas, has published several excellent books and articles for the legal profession on the use of plain, understandable English. .0 72A Rev.a/82)desegregation obligations set forth iii the January 16,1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the Revised Plan)/ except those obligations contained in  2.7.1, LRSD V. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist, et al., 231F. Supp. 2d 988 (E.D. Ark. 2002)\nafPd, 359 F.3d 957 (8* Cir. 2004). Section 2.7 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement. 2.7.1 ensured that the promise made in  2.7 would have teeth by requiring that: Section LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving Afiican-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve Afidcan-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. ex 871. As stated above, m the September 13 Decision, I found that LRSD had substantially complied with its obhgations under  2.7 of the Revised Plan\nhowever, I detennined there were numerous, substantial deficiencies in LRSDs efforts to comply with its obligations under 2.7.1. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076-1082. The September 13 Decision gave LRSD until March 15, 2004, to demonstrate that it had substantially complied with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in subparts A, B, and C of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88. LRSD has been involved continuously in desegregation litigation since 1956. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at footnote 18. As far as I can tell from the reported cases, LRSD now has the During the 2001-02 unitary status hearings, the Revised Plan was introduced into evidence as CX871. -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)dubious distinction of having been under federal court supervision longer than any other school district in history. Thus, LRSD is well seasoned when it monitoring. comes to court supervision and On November 12, 2002, Joshua Intervenors\" (Joshua) appealed (docket no. 3704) the Septembers Decision. On March 2,2004, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. LRSD V. Joshua, 359 F.3d 957 (8- Cir. 2004). Thus, all aspects of the September 13 Decision are now final and the law of the case. On March 12, 2004, LRSD filed its Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) seeking complete unitary status on the ground that it had substantially complied with the obligations imposed under the Compliance Remedy and  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. On April 15, 2004, Joshua filed an Opposition to LRSDs Request for Release from Court Supervision of Its I Desegregation Efforts (docket no. 3856), along with a supporting Memorandum (docket no. 3857). 1 must now decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy, and whether it should be released from almost five decades of court supervision. in. The September 13, 2002 Compliance Remedy Almost 70% of LRSDs students are African-American. Historically, the academic achievement of many of these students, as gauged by standardized test scores, is low and poses a significant long-term challenge to LRSD teachers and administrators. Of course, because this so-called achievement gap IS a nationwide phenomenon, it is a problem that educators must are '^e Joshua Intervenors are a group of Afiican-American school children.. enrolled in each of the three Pulaski County school districts. Thus, Joshua some of whom serves as the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD, the Pulaski Countv Snecial School District, and the North Little Rock School District. -3- A0 72A (Rev.a/82)I ( ' AO72A (Rev.8/82) confront in schools throughout the-country. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1073-74. Importantly,  2.7 of the Revised Plan promised only that LRSD would implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate Afidcan-American achievement, See docket no. 3410 at 51. However,  2.7.1 went on to require LRSD to assess the  2.7 programs annually in order to determine their effectiveness, and to modify or replace any programs that were shown not to be working to improve African-American achievement. Id. at 148. Read together, the obligations set forth in  2.7 and  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan required LRSD not only to design academic programs that were int achievement of African-American students, but also to programs to ensure that they were, in fact, effective in improving^ Expressed in the vernacular of my native Scott County, Arkan^\n^ 1 c ise It. id  2.7.1 contained the bacon. These two sections of the Revised Plan are crucially important to the future educational success of a large number of LRSDs current and future students. During the November 2001 hearings on unitary status, Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSDs Associate Superintendent of Instruction and Curriculum, defined a program assessment as something that is dynamic, it is interactive, its ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077. In contrast, she defined a program evaluation as more long term, it may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a series of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report. Id. In other words, a program assessment is a relatively informal process that may not result in much documentation, while a program evaluation is a formal process that always A-AO 72A (Rev.B/82) I i I I I mvolves the preparation of an often lengthy written program evaluation which is centered around carefully prepared research questions that the evaluation is designed to answer. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan provided that LRSD must make assessmentsnot evaluations-of the  2.7 programs in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. However, as early as March 15, 2000, LRSD acknowledged, m its own Interim Compliance Report (docket no. 3356), that  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan obligated it to prepare evaluations on the key  2.7 programs so that LRSD admimstrators could make an informed decision on the effectiveness of those programs. See LRSDs Interim Compliance Report at 51-55. Furthermore, during her testimony in November of 2001, Dr. Lesley admitted that, even though  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan did not mention anything about LRSDs obligation to prepare program evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the  2.7 programs, she and other administrators interpreted that section of the Revised Plan as requinng LRSD to perform evaluations covering the most important  2.7 programs. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077. Because it is so important to an understanding of the Compliance Remedy, I want to be very clear on this pomt: The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that LRSD has always construed the obligations contained in  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as requiring It to prepare formal program evaluations on the key  2.7 programs. See Interim Compliance Report at 51-55\nFinal Compliance Report dated March 15, 2001 (docket no. 3410) at 148\nDr. Lesleys testimony cited in the September 13 Decision, LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077. Since my decision will turn on whether LRSD has properly implemented the September 13, 2002 Compliance Remedy, it is set forth below in full\n-5-Vn. Compliance Remedy Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in  2.7.1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under  2.7 in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-Amencan students\nand (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The details of this compliance remedy are set forth below\nA. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 to unprove the academic achievement of Afiican-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those AO72A (Rev.8/82) i i I i I I I B. C. programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified eliminated. or LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year\n(b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process {e.g., all fourth grade math teachers\nall eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnery or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.^ I will accept all program evaluations On page 148 of its March 15, 2001 Final Compliance Report (docket no. 3410), LRSD flatly stated that it had prepared program evaluations on fourteen separate programs listed on that -6-that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as. In practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. D addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determ in p the effectiveness of those programs in improving Afiican- American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. 72A Rev.8/82) D. Joshua must monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 and must immediately bring to the attention of LRSD all problems that detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the Process for Raising Compliance Issues set forth in  8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan are E. to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. The ODM must also monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 and help to ensure that LRSD fulfills its obligations, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. F. On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSD s substantial compliance with  2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004 Thereafter, I will decide whether LRSD has substantially complied with  2.7.1, as specified in this Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. page. During the 2001-02 unitary status hearings, the evidence overwhelmingly established that, as of March 15, 2001, LRSD had not prepared any of those fourteen program evaluations. See LRSD,231'?. Supp.2dat 1079-80. Henceforth, I will refer to these fourteen program evaluations as the Page 148 Evaluations. -7- I I I ILRSD,131 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88 f-emphasis added). Even a casual reading of this Compliance Remedy reveals that it imposed four essential obligations on LRSD, Joshua, and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM): 1. 2. Preparation of Annual Assessments of  2.7 Program .s LRSD was required to annually assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 during the 2002-2003 school year and the first semester of the 2003-2004 school year and then use those assessments, the more than three years of testing data, and all other relevant available information to determine the effectiveness of those programs and to decide whether any of the programs should be modified or eliminated. LRSD also was required to maintain written records reflecting: (a) the criteria used to assess each program\n(b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether any programs were modified or eliminated\nand (c) the administrators and teachers who were involved in preparing the assessment of each program. I I Subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess each of the  2.7 programs implemented during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year and to maintain written records of its armual assessments of each of those programs. I made no mention of LRSD preparing evaluations of  2.7 programs because, on its face, nothing in  2,7.1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform program evaluations. However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the assessment obligation in  2.7.1 included the obligation of preparing program evaluations. See discussion, supra, at 4-5. Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Because I was tracking the parties own language, I never dreamed the use of the tenns assess and assessment would suddenly create confusion for LRSD administrators in deciding how to comply with subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. Preparation of Page 148 Program Evaluations. I LRSD was required to hire experts to prepare the fourteen program evaluations identified on page 148 of its March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. The Court agreed to accept all program evaluations that had already been prepared by outside consultants and ordered LRSD to hire outside consultants to complete the unfinished program evaluations, which were to be approved by the LRSD Board and filed with the Court no later than March 15, 2003. Finally, as those evaluations were prepared, LRSD was required to use them - to the extent they I -8- AO72A (Rev.e/82)might be useful - in its annual assessment of the effectiveness of the  2.7 programs. 3. Monitoring. Joshuas counsel was required to continue with its monitoring of LRSDs implementation of the Compliance Remedy and to use the procedures set forth in  8.2 of the Revised Plan to resolve any compliance problems that might arise. If Joshua and LRSD were unsuccessful in using the ODM to facilitate and resolve those problems, they were required to bring those compliance issues directly to me for resolution. Finally, the ODM was directed to monitor LRSDs implementation of the Compliance Remedy and to help ensure that LRSD fulfills its obligations specified therein. The sole purpose of subparts D and E the Compliance Remedy was to ensure that, if the ODM was unable to successfully facilitate the resolution of any compliance issues raised by Joshua, those compliance issues would be brought to my attention so that I could resolve them on a timely basis, thereby avoiding any surprises when LRSD filed its Compliance Report. 4. Preparation of Compliance Report. V LRSD was ordered to file a Compliance Report by March 15,2004, documenting its substantial compliance with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. TV. The Parties Compliance Activities after September 13, 2002 A. The Court Clarifies Joshuas Monitoring Obligation. After the entry of the September 13 Decision, LRSD did not seek clarification of any terms used in the Compliance Remedy or any of its compliance obligations. Based on its silence, I concluded that LRSD understood what it was required to do under the Compliance Remedy, and that it was proceeding apace to meet those obligations. In contrast, on October 1, 2002, Joshuas counsel wrote a letter (docket no. 3680) objecting to the monitoring obligations imposed on them under subpart D of the Compliance Remedy. Among other things, Joshuas counsel challenged the Courts decision to: (1) impose monitoring obligations on them that were contemplated to be the responsibility of the ODM\n-9- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)i and (2) place a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the ODM. Id. By way of relief, Joshuas counsel sought clarification of their monitoring obligations under subpart D ( . of the Compliance Remedy and a hearing on this matter so that an appropriate record on the issues of the role of the ODM monitoring and Joshuas monitoring may be fully developed. Id. On October 11, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3685) clarifying the monitoring obligations imposed on Joshuas counsel under the Compliance Remedy. After noting that Joshua s counsel had been engaged in monitoring LRSDs compliance with its desegregation obligations since at least 1990,1 made it clear that subpart D of the Compliance Remedy only obligated Joshua s counsel to continue to perform their monitoring role according to the same procedure they and LRSD have followed for many years in this case. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1091. Because the October 1,2002 letter could be read to suggest that Joshuas counsel would only continue their monitoring role, if ordered to do so by the Court, I also made it clear that: I do not believe I can force Joshuas counsel to perform monitoring duties  something that I may have mistakenly assumed they wanted to do. I will leave it up to Joshua s counsel to decide if they have an ethical and professional duty to continue monitoring LRSDs compliance with its sole remaining obligation under the Revised Plan. I hope Joshuas counsel resolves that question in favor of continuing their long-standing commitment to monitoring LRSDs compliance with its desegregation obligations. However, since they complain about my expressly directingthem to continue monitoring LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan - something I never expected to hear -1 believe I must now clarify Section VII.D. of the Memorandum Opinion to read as follows\nJoshua may monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 and, if they choose to do so, they should bring to the attention of LRSD, on a timely basis, all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the process for raising compliance issues set forth in  ^-2. et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua shall -10- XO72A Rev.8/82) present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timfily Id. at 1091. Finally, I emphasized that, regardless of whether Joshuas counsel decided to continue to monitor LRSDs compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, the ODM staff most certamly will continue their close monitoring ofLRSDs compliance with that section of the Revised Plan. Id. at 1091. My final admonition follows\non the subject of monitoring was as K Joshua s counsel decide to continue their monitoring role, which is independent from the momtonng work performed by the ODM,... I expect counsel for Joshua and LRSD to cooperate and work together to ensure that things go smoothly with regard to monitoring LRSDs implementation of its obhgations under  2.7.1. However, if actual disputes arise regarding monitoring, I wiU be available to resolve them. I at 1091. B. LRSD Adopts Compliance Plan, Approves Regulation IL-R1, and Designates Areas for  2.7.1 Program Evaluations. On October 10,2002, LRSDs Board of Directors (the Board) adopted a Compliance Plan that was specifically designed to satisfy the Courts Compliance Remedy. See Exhibit A to LRSDs May 14, 2003 Notice of Filing Program Evaluations (docket no. 3745)? The 72A Rev.8/82) During the June 14 and 15, 2004 compliance hearing (hereafter referred compliance neanng (hereafter referred to as the ), the Proposed Compliance Plan was introduced into evidence as LRSDs In most respects, the Proposed Compliance Plan is identical to the final Compliance Plan approved by the Board on October 10, 2002. However, the Proposed Compliance Plan raises a number of questions about the meaning of subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. All of those questions were deleted from the final Compliance Plan approved by the Board on October 10,2002. As will be discussed later, LRSD did not bnng any any of those questions to my attention, or otherwise seek clarification of the requirements of the Exhibit No. 2. Compliance Remedy. -11-Compliance Plan recognized that, in order for LRSD to meet its obligations under the Compliance Remedy, it would have to satisfy three core obligations\n(1) develop a written procedure for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\n(2) maintain written records of the criteria used to evaluate each [ 2.7] program\nand (3) repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to ...  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program.'\" Id. at 3-5 (emphasis added). Significantly, there is nothing in the Compliance Plan adopted by the Board that suggests LRSD was confused about the meaning of any of the terms in the Compliance Remedy or any of its compliance obligations. Additionally, the Compliance Plan makes it clear that LRSD construed subpart A of the Compliance Remedy as requiring it to prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to .. .  2.7 . The Compliance Plan also included a detailed Action Plan Time Line that: (1) identified the LRSD employees who were responsible for implementing each activity necessaiy to satisfy the Compliance Remedy\nand (2) provided a schedule for completing each of those activities. Dr. Bonnie Lesley, the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instmction, and Dr. Ken James, LRSD s Superintendent of Schools, were assigned personal responsibility for each of the twenty-eight (28) activities identified by the Action Plan Time Line. Id. at 7-10. Thus, It was up to Dr. Lesley and Dr. James to spearhead the timely implementation of all twenty- eight activities necessary to satisfy the Compliance Remedy. Finally, at the same time it approved the Compliance Plan, the Board also adopted -12- \\O72A Rev.e/82)Regulation IL-Rl, which set forth the written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. See Exhibit A at 2 (docket no. 3745).' According to the Compliance Plan, Regulation IL-Rl established the criteria for preparing the program evaluations necessary to satisfy LRSDs obligations under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. On October 24,2002, the Board approved a Program Evaluation Agenda for the 2002- 03 school year that authorized the preparation of evaluations in three broad areas: (1) Elementary literacy\n(2) Secondary literacy\nand (3) the National Science Foundation (NSF) K-12 Math and Science Project. See LRSDs Exhibit No. 3\nODMs March 30, 2004 Report on LRSDs Implementation of the Courts Compliance Remedy at 4 (hereinafter referred to as the ODMs Compliance Report) (docket no. 3854). LRSD subsequently construed the 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda as requiring it to prepare only two  2.7.1 evaluations in order to satisfy its ! I I I i I i I obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy: (1) I I a comprehensive Literacy Evaluation\nand (2) a comprehensive Math and Science Evaluation. Of course, Literacy and Math and Science are not programs they are broad I i ! I i I academic areas that roughly correspond to the grouping of college courses into Arts or Sciences. Because LRSD administrators, such as Dr. Lesley, had always constmed  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as requiring LRSD to prepare evaluations of the key  2.7 programs implemented to improve African-American achievement, the Board should have been aware that I I I During the compliance hearing. Regulation IL-Rl was introduced into evidence Joshuas Exhibit No. 2. as I -13- AO72A (Rev.a/ea)they were beingtoo general in dividing the academic universe into Literacy and Math/Science and then preparing a global evaluation of each of those areas. Nevertheless, in its March 12,2004 Compliance Report (docket no. 3837), LRSD contends that these two  2.7.1 evaluations fully satisfy all of its obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy/ C. Joshua Invokes Facilitation Provision of Revised Plan. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Ann Marshall, the Director of the ODM, wrote Joshuas counsel a letter confirming that she: (a) had received their November 1,2002 letter requesting that she facilitate the dispute that had arisen between Joshua and LRSD regarding the adequacy of LRSD s Compliance Plan\nand (b) was willing to facilitate that dispute.' I Thereafter, I was never contacted by Joshuas counsel or anyone else about the outcome of the ODMs facilitation efforts. Because subpart D of the Compliance Remedy obligated Joshuas counsel to contact me only if the facilitation was unsuccessful, I concluded from the parties silence (and the ODMs silence) that the ODM had successfully resolved this dispute. On November 6, 2002,1 wrote Ms. Marshall to reinforce the crucially important role I expected herto playmmomtoring LRSDs compliance withits obligations under the Compliance As I explain later in some detail, I was notmade aware ofLRSDsPropoW Compliance Plan and Regulation IL-Rl until two months after LRSD filed its March 12, 2004 Comphance Report. LRSD did not file the October 10,2002 Compliance Plan with the Court until March 14 2003.  I Section 8.2 of the Revised Plan required the parties to use the ODM to facilitate the resolution of any compliance issues. Since the words facilitation and facilitate come directly TT*r\\-m fkio \"D c\u0026amp;irt Din., T _____j.i____... from the Revised Plan, I will use them. A copy of Ms. Marshalls November 4,2002 letter, marked Exhibit A, is attached to this Memorandum Opinion. -14- ^O72A Rev.8/82)I Remedy?* The instructions to her were: It seems to me it would be best if you worked with the parties toward implementing the remedies\nbut you should feel free to contact me in writing if a serious impasse develops. In other words, as long as everything is going along smoothly, I see no reason for you to make regular reports to me in this respect. - J. -------------- A wuywi. I emphasize, however, that you should feel free to call on me if serious problems anse. Neither the parties nor the ODM ever contacted me to request that I become involved in resolving any compliance disputes or other serious impasses between LRSD and Joshua, despite the requirement for such contact by subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and my November 6,2002 letter. D. The Six Completed or Substantially Completed Page 148 Evaluations. The September 13 Decision stated that the Court will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. LRSD, 273 F. Supp. 2d at 1088. By the time I entered that decision, LRSD had completed or substantially completed six of the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations. These SIX evaluations covered the following programs\n(1) Pre-K-3 Literacy\n(2) NSF Math and Science Project\n(3) Charter Schools\n(4) English as a Second Language\n(5) SEDL*^ Program at Southwest Middle School\nand (6) Collaborative Action Team Project. By December 31,2002, LRSDs Board had approved all six of these Page 148 Evaluations. II A copy of my November 6, 2002 letter, marked Exhibit B, is attached to this Memorandum Opinion. ^SEDL is an acronym for Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. ODMs Compliance Report at 8 (docket no. 3854). See -15- AO72A (Rev.8/82)E. The Eight Remaining Page 148 Evaluations. LRSD contracted with Dr. Steven Ross, a program evaluation expert and a member of the faculty at the University of Memphis, to prepare guidelines for completing or revising the eight remaining evaluations.'^ These eight evaluations covered the following programs\n(1) Middle Schools\n(2) Extended Year Schools\n(3) HIPPY\n'\"* (4) Campus Leadership Teams\n(5) Summer School - Elementary\n(6) Lyceum Scholars Program\n(7) Onward to Excellence - Watson Elementary\nand (8) Vital Link. In late November of 2002, Dr. Ross prepared a document captioned Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the LRSD.'^ On January 10,2003, LRSD contracted with Dr. Ross and two other program evaluation experts. Dr. William Moore and Dr. Larry McNeal, to prepare these eight program evaluations. Dr. Ross prepared or completed evaluations I on Vital Link, Onward to Excellence, HIPPY, and Campus Leadership Teams\nDr. Moore prepared or completed evaluations on Middle School Transition and Extended Year Education- and Dr. McNeal completed evaluations on Lyceum Scholars and Elementary Summer School. j On March 14,2003, LRSD filed all fourteen ofthe Page 148 Evaluations with the Court, as required by subpart C of the Compliance Remedy. See LRSDs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations (docket no. 3745). The six evaluations, which were substantially completed as of 1 t I 'A number of years ago, Joshua formally agreed that Dr. Ross has the qnalificatinns necessary to prepare program evaluations. 'hippy is an acronym for Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters. See ODMs Compliance Report (docket no. 3854) at 8. '^During the compliance hearing, this document was introduced as LRSDs Exhibit No. 5. -16- ^O72A flev.e/82)September 13, 2002, are bound together in Volumes I and II. The remaining eight Page 148 Evaluations are bound together in Volumes HI and IV. On April 14,2003, Joshua filed Comments on the Submission of Page 148 Evaluations. (Docket no. 3752.) These comments identify and discuss numerous alleged deficiencies, most of which are contained in the eight Page 148 Evaluations that the Board after January 1, 2003. were completed and approved by F. Dr. Lesley and Dr. James Resign. On March 14, 2003, the same day LRSD filed the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations, Dr. Lesley, who was responsible for overseeing the preparation of those evaluations, resigned. and, two months later. Dr. Janies, LRSDs Superintendent, also resigned. As indicated ( ) previously, LRSDs Compliance Plan had assigned Dr. Lesley and Dr. James direct responsibility for each of the twenty-eight time line activities necessary for LRSD to implement the Compliance '^During the compliance hearing, these fourteen program evaluations were introduced as LRSDs Exhibit No. 13. During its implementation of the Revised Plan in 1998 through early 2001, LRSD originally intended to use its own Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) I to prepare the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations. Dr. Kathy Lease was the Assistant Superintendent who headed PRE and reported to Dr. Lesley. See ODMs Compliance Report at 2. According to Dr. Lesley s testimony during the November 2001 hearings on unitary status. Dr. Lease dropped the ball in preparing these evaluations, which resulted in only a few partially completed and woefully inadequate evaluations being available on March 15,2001, the deadline for LRSD to file its Compliance Report seeking unitary status. Additionally, Dr. Lesley testified that, in her opimon, no one in PRE-including Dr. Lease-had the expertise to prepare program evaluations. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077-81. I In early 2001, Dr. Lease resigned and left LRSD for other job opportunities. Since that time, PRE has functioned with only a statistician and several support employees, but no one was hired to replace Dr. Lease or take over and operate the department. In November of2003, LRSD appointed the statistician as the acting head of PRE. As a result, since Dr. Leases departure in early 2001, LRSD has essentially functioned without a meaningful Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. See ODMs Compliance Report at 6. -17- KO72A Rev.B/82)Remedy. i Thus, less than a year after the September 13 Decision, LRSD lost both of the crucially important leaders to whom all responsibility had been assigned for implementing LRSDs Compliance Plan. Both Dr. James and Dr. Lesley had been deeply involved for years in LRSDs implementation of its desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan, and both were thoroughly familiar with the intricacies of satisfying judicially imposed desegregation obligations. The almost simultaneous departures of Dr. James and Dr. Lesley during the early stages ofLRSDs implementation of its Compliance Plan clearly created problems for LRSD in its compliance efforts. In the ODMs Compliance Report, the authors observe that the loss of Dr. Lesley and Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation ofLRSDs Compliance Plan, and the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in filling those positions with acting or interim employees created a period of some uncertainty for LRSD. Id. at 5. In June of2003, LRSD appointed an Interim Superintendent to replace Dr. James. Later that month, on June 26, 2003, Mr. Dennis Glasgow, who previously had been the Director of i I LRSDs Math and Science Department, was appointed to succeed Dr. Lesley as Interim Associate Superintendent of Instruction and Curriculum. According to the Compliance Plans Action Plan Time Line, Mr. Glasgow originally was assigned responsibility for only two of the twenty-eight time line activities. Although it was not mentioned in LRSDs Compliance Report (docket no. 3837), during the recent compliance hearing, Mr. Glasgow testified that, on March 18,2003, he assumed responsibility for all of Dr. Lesleys twenty-eight activities under the Compliance Plan. In August of 2003, after the Interim Superintendent, hired only three months earlier, left that position, LRSD hired Dr. Morris Holmes as the second Interim Superintendent. Dr. Holmes -18- AO72A (Rev.a/82)has continued to serve as Interim Superintendent through the date of this Memorandum Opinion 18 LRSDs Compliance Report does not address what role, if any. Dr. Holmes had in implementing the Compliance Plan. It seems that Dr. Holmes or someone else should have been assigned I responsibility for the twenty-eight time line activities that had been assigned to Dr. James in the October 10, 2002 Compliance Plan\nbut the Compliance Report is silent on this point. G. LRSD Files Its Compliance Report Seeking Release from Court Supervision. When LRSD filed its Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) on March 12,2004, IQ  it was supported by documents attached to it as Exhibits A through G. According to LRSD, the documents attached to the Compliance Report establish that it has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy and is entitled to be released from all fiirther court supervision and monitoring. A careful reading of the Compliance Report reveals a number of revelations that cast LRSDs efforts in a less than favorable light. First, the Report states that: (a) in October of2002, less than sixty days after the Courts September 13 Decision, Joshuas counsel raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan\n(b) subsequently, Joshuas counsel invoked the Process for Raising Compliance Issues set forth in Revised Plan 8.2\" and [the parties] met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate .5, an agreement\nand (c) the parties last such meeting with Ms. Marshall was on February 28,2003, but the parties failed to reach an agreement on Joshuas or 'On June 11,2004, the Board announced that it hired Mr. Roy Gregory Brooks to serve as LRSDs new Superintendent of Schools. It is my understanding that sometime in July August Mr. Brooks will assume his new duties as Superintendent. During the compliance hearing, this document was introduced into evidence as LRSDs Eichibit No. 14. -19- AO72A (Rev.B/82)( AO72A (Rev.e/82) objections to the adequacy of the Compliance Plan. See Comphance Report (docket no. 3837) at 1-2. Thus, LRSDs March 12, 2004 Compliance Report constituted my first notice that Ms. Marshalls facilitation efforts in late 2002 had failed-neither the parties nor the ODM brought this to my attention, although they were required to do so by subpart D ofthe Compliance Remedy and by my November 6, 2002 letter to Ms. Marshall Second, LRSD contends that, by failing to bring the parties disagreement over the Comphance Plan to the Courts attention, Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Id. at 1-2. As I explained earlier, the sole purpose of subpart D ofthe Compliance Remedy was to require the parties to bring potential compliance problems to my attention. as soon as they arose, so that I could resolve them early enough to prevent them fi-om becoming stumbling blocks to LRSDs compliance with its obligations under the other subparts ofthe Compliance Remedy. After the ODMs facilitation efforts failed, it must have soon become obvious to LRSDs counsel and the ODM that Joshuas counsel was not going to notify the Court. It seems to me that, at this point, both LRSD and ODM should have realized that it was in LRSDs best interest to let me determine, in March of 2003-while there was still time to do something about it~if the compliance issues raised by Joshua had merit. In a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 195 7 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is likely to hold the silence of Joshuas counsel-even if they are to be cnticized-against the Aftican-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% of the total number of seats in LRSDs classrooms. I believe I would be ill advised to adopt waiver as a way to avoid reaching the merits of the adequacy of the board-approved -20- i I I I iCompliance Plan. In other words, I find that it would be inappropriate for me to default approximately 17,000 LRSD students. Third, LRSD acknowledges in the Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) that it was required to do two things to satisfy the core obligations imposed by subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy: (1) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 of the Revised Plan to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (2) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2.7 of the Revised Plan to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Report at page 2, paragraph 4 (docket no. 3837\nLRSDs Exhibit No. 14) (emphasis added). To satisfy this first core obligation, which is contained in subpart B of the Compliance Remedy, the Compliance Report states that the Board adopted Regulation IL-Rl. As indicated previously, the Board adopted Regulation IL-Rl on October 10,2002. But, LRSD did not make I this key Regulation an Exhibit to either its March 14,2003 Notice of Filing Evaluations Pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy (docket no. 3745) or its March 12,2004 Compliance Report (docket no. 3837). On May 12, 2004, after I had been unable to locate this document anywhere in the record, I entered an Order (docket no. 3864) requiring that LRSD provide a copy I of Regulation IL-Rl. The next day, LRSD filed its Response (docket no. 3865), which attached I Regulation IL-Rl as Appendix 1 to Exhibit A of that document. Regulation IL-Rl contained the following procedures that were to be followed in preparing all future  2.7.1 program evaluations: 1 -21- AO72A (Rev.8/82)I i (1) Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. (2) Agree on the necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question: Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? (3) If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another program with more potential for the improvement and remediation of AO 72A (Rev.8/82) I II I I I (4) (5) Afiican-American students. (See  2.7.1 of the Revised Designation and Education Plan and Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g. dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to Superintendent\nCabinet and/or Compliance Team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the ODM (until Unitary Status is achieved) and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). \u0026gt;5 The team preparing the program evaluations had to meet to monitor the completion of assignments\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nand to formulate recommendations ... for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the -22-I improvement of Afiican-American achievement. (6) (7) (8) A final draft of the program evaluation had to be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction at least one month before placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. After the program evaluation was approved by the Board, a copy of the complete report had to be made available to the ODM and Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). Each program evaluation team shall meet with the Associate Superintendent for Instruction after the completion of the work to evaluate the process and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluation. See Regulation IL-RI at 3-7 (emphasis added). In paragraph 8 of the Compliance Report, LRSD states that it satisfied the second core obligation specified in subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, by doing the following things: (1) (2) Dr. Steve Ross was hired to prepare evaluations of the Districts elementary and secondary literacy programs. Ultimately, Dr. Ross authored the global Literacy Evaluation, which the Board approved in November of2003. See Exhibit F to Compliance Report (docket no. 3837).^ Dr. Don Wold, a retired member of the faculty at UALR, authored the global Math and Science Evaluation, which covered the overall math and science curricula (grades K-12) that LRSD had implemented with the grant it received ^As indicated previously, during the compliance hearing, the Compliance Report was introduced into evidence as LRSDs Exhibit No. 14. -23- AO72A (Rev.S/82)from the NSF. The Board approved this evaluation in December 2003. See Exhibit G to Compliance Report (docket no. 3837). According to the Compliance Report, these two global evaluations satisfy all of LRSDs obligations under subpart A ofthe Compliance Remedy and constitute substantial compliance with the obligations contained in  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Ominously, the Compliance Report says nothing about whether these two evaluations complied with the mandatory requirements of Regulation IL-Rl. H. The ODMs Compliance Report on LRSDs Implementation ofthe Compliance Remedy. On March 30, 2004, the ODM filed its Compliance Report (docket no. 3854)^ commenting on various aspects of LRSDs implementation of the Compliance Remedy. The first four pages of the ODMs Compliance Report re-plow the now largely irrelevant events related to LRSDs earlier compliance efforts under the Revised Plan.\"- The remaining nineteen pages of the Compliance Report contain Findings and Conclusions that, for the most part, criticize LRSDs compliance efforts. Among the more significant Findings and Conclusions in the ODMs Compliance Report are the following: . (1) As of September 13,2002, the date the Court imposed the Compliance Remedy, LRSD had implemented at leastforty-six programs designed to improve African- I During the compliance hearing, the ODMs Compliance Report was introduced into evidence as LRSDs Exhibit No. 15. -\"The September 13 Decision addressed in detail all of the events described in these four pages ofthe ODMs Compliance Report. -24- ^0 72A Rev.8/82)I American achievement under  2.7 of the Revised Plan?\" Id. at 10. I AO72A (Rev.8/82) (2) (3) (4) The ODM had difficulty getting LRSD administrators to identify the specific  2.7 programs that would be evaluated under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. LRSD administrators finally acknowledged to the ODM that the program evaluation agenda for the 2002-03 school year would include only elementary literacy, secondary literacy, and the NSF math and science project. LRSD administrators never explained to the ODM which  2.7 programs would be covered in the literacy and math and science evaluations. Id. at 12. While the Compliance Remedy directed LRSD to use all available testing data in assessing the effectiveness of the  2.7 programs, LRSD only did so in the Evaluation of the Math and Science Programs. (Exhibit G to LRSDs Compliance Report.) In the Literacy Program Evaluation (Exhibit F to LRSDs Compliance Report), LRSD limited the testing data to the SAT9 and the benchmark literacy exams. Id. at 14. Subpart B of the Compliance Remedy required LRSD to maintain written records reflecting the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of programs. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88. The ODM concluded that, while Exhibit C to LRSDs Compliance Report describes the annual program modifications for elementary and secondary literacy and math, there is no ^During the compliance hearing, LRSD witnesses correctly pointed out that the chart on page 10 of the ODMs Compliance Report was flawed. Among other things, a number of programs are listed twice, and some of the things that are listed as programs are not. -25-( AO 72A (Rev.8/82) (5) (6) (7) discussion of annual program modifications for science.^'* Id. at 15. The ODMs Compliance Report noted numerous shortcomings in the Literacy Program Evaluation. Id. at 1677. However, the most serious criticism was that the evaluation draws no conclusions about the extent to which student performance might be affected by program components, such as Reading Recovery or Accelerated Reader, nor does it correlate any teaching practices with student achievement. Id. at 18. The ODMs most serious criticism of the Math and Science Evaluation was that it does not offer data relative to the level of uniformity of program implementation and does not identify which  2.7 programs most directly improved the academic achievement of African-American students in math and science courses. Id. at 19. By the time the Court entered its September 13 Decision, six of the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations had already been completed or substantially completed by outside consultants. Subpart C of the Compliance Remedy provided that the Court will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. Between October 24, 2002, and December 19,2002, the Board voted to approve these six evaluations which covered the following programs: (a) Pre K-3 Literacy\n(b) NSF Math and Science\n(c) Charter School\n(d) English as a Second Language\n(e) 2'Although not mentioned in the ODMs Compliance Report, Exhibit C also fails to discuss the reasons for making each of the modifications in the math and literacy programs, or and how those modifications were expected to improve the effectiveness of those programs. -26-SEDL Program.- Southwest Middle School\nand (f) Collaborative Action Team. The ODMs Compliance Report does not contain any significant criticism of these six evaluations. Id. at 20. (8) (9) As of September 13,2002, eight ofthe Page 148 Evaluations still remained to be prepared. Under subpart C of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD was obligated to hire outside consultants to prepare those eight evaluations and the\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_377","title":"Compliance report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/377"],"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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: April 5, 2004 To: Board of Education From: Through: Karen E. Broadnax, ESL Supervisor Morris L. Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent Subject: Update on the final report on Compliance Review 06995008 conducted by the Office for Civil Rights. Summary: A review of the districts progress reports was submitted to the Little Rock School District on March 18, 2004. The review addressed specific actions taken by the Little Rock School District to ensure the provision of equal educational opportunities and services to national origin language-minority students, who are limited English proficient. The report received by the district provided specific details in each on of the compliance areas that OCR has determined that the Little Rock School District has satisfactorily fulfilled the terms specified in the Commitment to Resolve. Objective: To provide an update on the progress to date that the Little Rock School District has made in meeting the terms of the Commitment to Resolve  Compliance Review 06995008. Expected Outcomes: N/A Population: National origin language-minority students, who are limited English proficient. ESL Report to Board April 22, 2004 Page 2 Budget Amount/Budget Source: ESL Department Manager: Karen E. Broadnax, Supervisor, ESL Department Long range: Continuation of the Little Rock School District ESL Program Other Agencies Involved: N/A Expectations of District: Continuation of the services provided to_national origin language-minority students, who are limited English proficient, to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C.  2000d, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C.  794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), 42 U.S.C.  12131-12161, and their implementing regulations. Needed Staff: N/A Comments: None Recommendation: We request that the Board of Education accept this report.XT OF u 2, ^TtSO^^ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS SOUTHERN DIVISION, DALLAS OFFICE mar 1 8 200^ Ref: 06995008 Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Dr. Holmes: The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Southern Division, Dallas Office has completed a review of the progress reports, which were submitted to OCR by the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Little Rock, Arkansas, to address the specific actions taken by the LRSD to ensure the provision of equal educational opporti^ties and services to national origin language-minority students who are limited English proficient (LEP). The LRSD voluntarily submitted a Commitment to Resolve (CTR), which was, acceped by OCR on September 30, 1999, to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil ^ts Act of 1964 ( i e VI) 42 U.S.C.  2000d, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C.  794 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), 42 U.S.C.  12131- 12161, and their implementing regulations. In the progress reports, the LRSD provided OCR with documentation pertinent to the implementation of the CTR. Based on a review of the progress reports md additmnal information gathered during the on-site monitoring visits conducted by OCR on December 10- 11 2002 and March 11-13,2003, OCR has determined that the LRSD has satisfactorily fulfilled the terms specified in the CTR. Provided below, by commitment provision, is an explanation of how OCR reached this determination: Identification of Students With a Primary Home Language Other Than English The progress reports revealed that, at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year the LRSD administered a Home Language Survey (HLS) to all students to identify those students who have a primary (first-learned) or home language (language influence) that is other than Enghs (PHLOTE). In addition, the information revealed that the LRSD directed staff (i.e., principals, counselors, registrars, and secretaries) at every school site and at the Student Assignment Center to secure a completed HLS for all students upon imtial enrollment. Further, the LRSD developed a procedure that allows for other methods of identifying 1999 BRYAN STREET. SUITE 2600. DALLAS. TEXAS 75201-6810 www.ed.gov Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. Page 2 - Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent PHLOTE students based on teacher referral, counselor recommendation, and interviews with parents. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Assessment of PHLOTE Students A review of the progress reports revealed that the LRSD developed and implemented procedures for assessing PHLOTE students in all four English language proficiency areas (i.e., speaking, reading, writing, and comprehension) to determine which students are LEP. The information reviewed revealed that the LRSD assessed and/or reassessed all PHLOTE students by administering an assessment instrument (i.e.. Language Assessment Scales). The information further revealed that the LRSD provided training to all LRSD staff responsible for administering the assessment instrument to ensure proper test administration and interpretation of test scores. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Placement of LEP Students and Ensuring Appropriate Services The progress reports revealed that the LRSD developed and implemented a policy requiring the district to provide alternative language program (ALP) services to LEP students through a research-based English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) program. Information reviewed revealed that PHLOTE students who score at a level 1,2, and 3 on the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) are identified as LEP and are placed in the ESL program after obtaining consent from the parent/guardian of the student. The information showed that PHLOTE students who score at a level 4, and 5 on the LAS are considered fluent in the English language and are identified as non-LEP and, as a result, are placed in the regular education program. A review of information revealed that the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC), which is comprised of at least one or more ESL teachers, a counselor, and a campus administrator, is responsible for making placement decisions. The information revealed that the LRSD provided training to LPAC members as follows: 1) OCR, state, and LRSD laws, policies, and regulations governing LEP programs and services\n2) interpretation of language proficiency assessments\n3) laws and rules governing confidentiality of records\nand 4) procedures for identification, placement, and exiting students from the ALP. The LPAC is responsible for ensuring that the parents of LEP students placed in the ALP receive an explanation of the benefits of the ALP in a language they can understand. The information indicated that the LRSD ensures the delivery of language support services to LEP students whose parents have refused placement in the ALP by providing training to regular education teachers in ESL methodologies and instructional strategies, parental involvement, tutoring, summer school, and by monitoring the academic progress of such students. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements.Page 3 - Dr. Morris Holmes. Interim Superintendent Selected Alternative Language Services Model The progress reports revealed that the LRSD selected a research-based English-as-a-Second- Language (ESL) program to address the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of LEP students at all grade levels. The information showed that the goal of the ESL program is to enable LEP students to master English language skills (i.e., reading, wnting, speaking, and listening) and content area concepts and skills so that students are able to participate meaningfully in the regular education program. A review of the progress reports revealed that the LRSD established the same curriculum standards and grade-level/course benchmarks for all students, including LEP students. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Staffing and Staff Development The progress reports revealed that the LRSD developed procedures to ensure that the district has appropriate staff to implement the ALP. The information in the progress reports showed that the LRSD made significant progress with respect to the number of teachers who obtained an ESL endorsement through the Arkansas Department of Educations ESL Endorsement Program. In addition, the information revealed that the LRSD has developed an ESL Training Program to provide continuous training opportunities for all personnel (e.g., principals, regular education, special education, gifted and talented, etc.) responsible for delivering instruction to LEP students. Specifically, the LRSD provides training to staff on how to adapt the instructional strategies, materials, pacing, and assessments for the delivery of instruction to LEP students. Further, the progress reports revealed that the LRSD designed an appraisal instrument to assess the performance of teachers who deliver ALP services to LEP students. OCR reviewed documentation pertaining to the training provided to administrators on the use of the evaluation instnunent and on observation techmques to enable them to identify ESL methodologies. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Materials The LRSD developed procedures to ensure that materials and equipment are appropriate for the implementation of the ALP. The progress report revealed that the LRSD surveyed ALP staff to determine whether there was a need for additional materials and equipment. The information showed that the LRSD provided teachers with materials and equipment, which are appropriate to the curriculum, and comparable in quality, availability, and grade level to the materials provided for the instruction of non-LEP students. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Page 4 - Dr. Morris Holmes. Interim Superintendent Reclassification and Exit The progress reports revealed that the LRSD established and implemented procedures for the exiting, monitoring, and reclassification of LEP students. The information indicated that the criteria employed by the LRSD is based on objective criteria using the LAS test scores in reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension plus other criteria to determine whether students will be able to participate meaningfully in the regular education program. A review of the information showed that a LEP student must score a 3/4 or a 3/5 or at the Fully English Proficient Level on the LAS post-test prior to exiting the ALP. The information revealed that the LPAC monitors the academic progress of LEP students who exit the ALP for a period of two years to ensure academic success in the regular education program. Specifically, the LPAC ensures that exited students are successfully participating in the regular education program by reviewing the following: 1) grades in all core subject areas\n2) teacher observations\n3) counselor comments\nand 4) assessment results. When the LPAC determines that a student needs to re-enter the ESL program, the student is placed back, into the ALP after obtaining approval from the parent of the student. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Parental Notice The LRSD developed procedures for providing notice to the parents of PHLOTE students of school activities in a language they can understand. The progress reports revealed that the schools mainUin a list of all PHLOTE students whose parents are limited English proficient and require communication in another language. OCR reviewed the documents which have been translated by the LRSD, to include but not limited to the following: Home Language Survey, Notice of School Placement, Notice of ESL Program Services, Notice of Testing Exemption, Exit Letter to Parents, K-8 Curriculum Standards and Grade-Level/Course Benchmarks, Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbooks, Summer School Applications, Parent Involvement Conference Notices, and the LRSDs Parent/Student Handbook. In addition, the information showed that bilingual staff at the schools translated newsletters, notices, letters, and flyers into other languages. Further, the LRSD advertises information in local publications in Spanish. The information showed that the LRSD disseminated a list of translators/interpreters to the school sites. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Special Education The progress reports showed that the LRSD revised its policies and procedures pertaining to the process for referring, identifying, evaluating, and placing LEP students with disabilities. The progress reports revealed that ALP staff and Special Education Department staff share information to ensure that LEP students with disabilities receive special education and alternative language services concurrently. A review of the progress reports revealed that thePage 5 - Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent LRSD provided training to special education staff (i.e., speech pathologists, resource teachers, and psychological examiners) in ESL methodologies to ensure the proper delivery of both ALP and special education services. Further, the progress reports revealed that the LRSD provides information to parents in a language they can understand pertaining to their rights and procedural safeguards by utilizing an interpreter or by providing information that has been translated into a language they can understand. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Special Opportunity Programs The progress reports revealed that the LRSD implemented procedures to ensure that LEP students are afforded an equal opportunity to participate in the Gifted and Talented (GT) program at the elementary level and in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses at the secondary level. The information reviewed revealed that the LRSD provided information about the GT program to parents in their native language. In addition, the progress reports revealed that the LRSD staff administered a nonverbal assessment instrument (i.e., Torrance Thinking Creatively) to test LEP students who had been referred for placement in the GT program. The progress reports further revealed that the LRSD provided cultural sensitivity training, training in identifying the characteristics of language minority gifted students, and ESL instructional strategies to LRSD staff. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Program Evaluation and Modification A review of the progress reports revealed that the LRD has adopted procedures to conduct an annual longitudinal performance evaluation of the ALP and make modifications to the ALP based on the results as required by the results of the program evaluation. The information showed that the LRSD evaluated its ALP on an annual basis in which it reviewed the following\n1) curriculum service delivery\n2) materials and resources\n3) staffing and staff development\n4) student academic progress\n5) longitudinal data comparing LEP students to non-LEP students, and LEP students in the program to LEP students not in the program with respect to academic achievement, attendance, drop-out rate, graduation rate, retention rate, gifted and talented program placement, and specid education program placement of LEP, and students who have exited the ALP, and LEP students not served in the ALP. The information showed that the LRSD made the necessary program modifications and improvements as required by the results of each program evaluation. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Maintenance of Records for LEP Students The progress reports revealed that the LRSD apprised all staff of the importance of maintaining accurate records regarding the implementation of the ALP and documenting actions pertaining to students participating and exiting the ALP. A review of student recordsPage 6 - Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Maintenance of Records for LEP Students The progress reports revealed that the LRSD apprised all staff of the importance of maintaining accurate records regarding the implementation of the ALP and documenting actions pertaining to students participating and exiting the ALP. A review of student records revealed that the LRSD maintains, at a minimum, the following documentation in student cumulative folders: Home Language Survey, LAS assessment data\ncommumcations with parents in a language they can understand\nplacement decisions\nreport cards\nmodifications\ndecisions to exit student\nand decisions for students to reenter the ALP. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR andcomplied with the OCR reporting requirements. After analyzing the above information provided by the LRSD, OCR has determined that the LRSD has met all of the commitments as specified in the CTR. Therefore, OCR is closing tiiis compliance review contingent upon the LRSDs continued implementation of the terms delineated in the September 30, 1999. While no further progress reports are required, OCR understands that the LRSD will continue to conduct qualitative and quantitative program evaluations in accordance with its civil rights responsibilities. OCR is available to provide technical assistance to the LRSD and will work with you and LRSD staff to ensure continued compliance with the regulatory requirements imder Title VI, Section 504, and Title IL Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information which, if released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwananted invasion of personal privacy. We appreciate your cooperation and that of your staff, especially the assistance provided by Ms. Karen Broadnax, ESL Supervisor. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. John F. Stephens at 214/880-2464 or Ms. Maria H. Gonzalez at 214/880-4918. Sincerely, Office for Civil Rights Southern Division, Dallas Office C: Ms. Karen E. Broadnax, ESL Supervisor Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURtR ECEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 7 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMPLIANCE REPORT I For its Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Courts June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21* Century Community Page 1 of 19Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 30 Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress of LRSDs efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSDs Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSDs compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15,2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are\nA. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in\n(a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. Page 2 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 30 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJamette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Comphance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 by Arthur Olds. Olds resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator Page 3 of 19 ICase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 4 of 30 responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are\nB. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students. Part of LRSDs proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest at LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program Page 4 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 30 assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross hadj'developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSDs educational operations. } December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1,2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. School portfolios assemble comprehensive data about classrooms, schools, and districts from disparate sources into data bases that are accessible and informative particularly to teachers and administrators as well as to board members, parents, and other stakeholders. September 1, 2005 Page 5 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 30 Quarterly Update, p. 3. School portfolios are useful for formative evaluations of student achievement and educational programs. LRSD began implementing school portfolios during the 2005-06 school year. Id. As part of the process of the development and implementation of portfolios, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources. Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. School and district data portfolios are an important part of this infrastructure. These portfolios allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators. and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1,2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational Page 6 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 30 processes. Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSDs portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of portfolios is a continual process. As new data becomes available {e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. See March 1,2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a data warehouse. The Janis Group has expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. Reports can be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or district-wide. Id. 16. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Page 7 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 8 of 30 Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the Business Objects Reporting Tools document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 17. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of error checking routines in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data wiin the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSDs database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 18. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program assessment process, PRE has designed feasible, ongoing assessments of the four Page 8 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 9 of 30 programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 19. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 20. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing. Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African- American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross - to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary Page 9 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 10 of 30 to prepare those evaluations. 21. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year, and to prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. 22. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15,2006. 23. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. Page 10 of 19Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 30 24. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thnve, Compass Learning and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 25. Dr, Ross initially identified the following four  2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network\nKnowledgePoints\nPLATO Learning and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 2U Century Community Learning Centers was substituted for PLATO Learning as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1,2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 26. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has Page 11 of 19Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 12 of 30 complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, 27. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of Afiican-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district? The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person, I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation, PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr, Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 28. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of Afiican-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each Page 12 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 13 of 30 evaluation. 29. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7\nMarch 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4\nJune 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6\nSeptember 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 30. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSDs record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of e eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 31. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which Page 13 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 14 of 30 describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 32. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSDs commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 33. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. _ addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive In program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must Page 14 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 15 of 30 provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSDs comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31,2004. 34. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 35. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. 36. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, Page 15 of 19Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 16 of 30 LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1,2006. Those quarterly written updates reported the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 36. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy. 37. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are\nPage 16 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 17 of 30 J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 38. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSDs substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 40. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Courts July 12, Page 17 of 19Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 18 of 30 2006 letter to the parties (docket no, 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Courts June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 /sZ Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 16, 2006,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Page 18 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 19 of 30 mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@ili.com iohnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 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 /s/ Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 20 of 30 Danyell Crutchfleld Cummings 5 Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 (501)407-8097 (501) 447-1737 Career Objective: To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. Professional Experience: 2004-Prescnt High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet Hi^ School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal 1998-Pre8eiit English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Education: May, 2005 Educadonal Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock December, 1998 Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock May, 1997 Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Professionally Related Activities: Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist I 3 I I EXHIBIT ACase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 21 of 30 References: Linda Young Granta Coordinator (501)447-3372 work (501)225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501)447-4300 work (501)680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501)447-3582 work (501)407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.0 Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work \u0026lt;501) 666-6216 homeCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 22 of 30 Danyell Crutchfield Cummings 5 Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 (501)407-8097 (501) 447-1737 Career Objective: To utilize proven academic and jxofessional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growdi and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment, Professional Experience: 2004-Present High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal 1998-Present English Teacher L A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Education: May, 2005 Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock December, 1998 Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock May, 1997 Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Professionally Related Activities: Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational SpecialistCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 23 of 30 References\nLinda Young Granta Coordinator \u0026lt;501)447-3372 work \u0026lt;501)225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501)447-4300 work (501)680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing \u0026lt;501)447-3582 work (501)407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J. A, Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext 1710 work \u0026lt;501) 666-6216 homeCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 24 of 30 Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Bl Platform Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate information to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations. Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School Districts BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24/7 availability. This platform recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platforms. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platform scalability is a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of information, and scale on a single machineor clusters of machines while maintaining high performance. Proven Reliability This platform s key attributesperformance, reliability, and scalabihtyare proven by extensive, real- world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprisi covered by a 24/7 technical customer supporthas demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and performance testing to ensure our platform scales to meet the needs of the Little Rock School District today and tomorrow. EXHIBIT LRSD B/ Tools 3 I Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well orgamzed reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data Ihis data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been normalized to 3 normal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which houses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industrys leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meamngful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District information and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSDBlToois Page 2 of!Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexible application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technolo^es. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of appEcation development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery\nReports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Configuration The report designer can save report export configuration infonnation within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is mn Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken links, formula errors, and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-Ievel security processes. An LRSD BI Tools Page i of!Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built. Business Elements (a collection of related fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View, The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimise the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-Ievel Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views iL All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD 31 Tools Page 4 of!Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set of reports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing formatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynaimc Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when youre designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects InfoView is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District mformation. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the information they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. InfoView is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within youre the Little Rock School District IT infi:astructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new information simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, theyre typically difficult to use and dont provide your non-technical with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. users With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the frill power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reportsformatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP Intelligence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and workflows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform UtSD Bl Tools Pages o/7Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Specd-of-Thought Analysis clap Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perform similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identity anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of e mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open .Access to Microsoft, Hvperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for todays leading, multidimensional database serversMicrosoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-form calculations and cube actions means that orgamzations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage of key enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who dont necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration LRSDBlToois Page 6 of?Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized informatinn and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. LRSDBIToois Page 7 of 7Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, October 20, 2006 7:06 AM CompRepoct06.doc: ComplyRep06oct19.doc FW: Re: compliance report From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:05 AM To: HELLER@fec.net Cc: Brooks, Roy G\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh Subject: RE: Re: compliance report Okay. I am enclosing two documents compiled by myself and the statisticians. From: Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:26 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Chris Heller Subject: RE: Re: compliance report Chris Heller will be in the office tomorrow. He would like to schedule a meeting but would like to be provided a written response in advance of any meeting. Brenda \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 10/19/2006 2:52 PM \u0026gt; Brenda/Chris, PRE has further discussed our concerns and we can provide the information requested. Let us know if you want to meet. Karen From: Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:38 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: Fwd: Re: compliance report Karen: I spoke with Chris again and he said to tell you he finds it hard to understand that PRE would have concerns about the Compliance Report when most of the report came from the Quarterly Updates that PRE prepared. In order to respond to the concerns PRE has, he would like to have the following as soon as possible: 1) Who exactly is concerned at PRE and what specifically is their concern\n2) Quote the language that is a concern\n3) Explain in detail the basis for each concern. It would also be helpful if you have any information or documents which supports PRE's concerns. 10/20/2006Page 2 of 2 Brenda \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 10/18/2006 3:33 PM Chris, \u0026gt; PRE staff members have concerns about your statements on the following topics included in the Compliance Report submitted to the Court on Monday: 1) 2) 3) Karen school portfolios, accuracy of data, and readable reports. 10/20/2006Paragraph \u0026amp; Subject Comments on Compliance Report October 19, 2006 Comments 2. Compliance demonstrated by [updates \u0026amp; evaluation^ irocess (mentioned below). 5-8 Personnel independence. Only dept without administrative support. 7. Testing coordinators Errors Omits deeply embedded evaluation I Net loss of personnel since fall 04. On^its demotion of PRE \u0026amp; lack of ] ___________________________ Olds was 0.5 FTE. LRSD has had non\nFT from Aug 05 to Oct 06. 10. Deeply embedded assessmerjt process LRSD lessened PREs independence (reorganization) \u0026amp; its resources. LRSD violated policy by keeping much of PREs S* update \u0026amp; Dr. Dreyfus magnet 3 report from B/D. [ 11. Portfolios poi Q irtfolios. 12. Portfolios portfolios. [ 13. Portfolio content LRSD has not deeply embedded assessment process.___________ I Any school portfolios? Dr. Bemhardtb name omitted. There are no school I Any school portfolios? Dr. Bernhardt^ name omitted. There are no school ___________________I Portfolio design includes validated clijnate surveys, which LRSD stopped, and wellness data, which LRSD opposes. 14. Portfolio infrastructure 15. Janis Group 16. Election of BO which PRE reacted. [ 17. Data errors What infrastructure? What did it accomplish? This was not in-house. There was no debate, only a decision to removing/correcting, deleting, \u0026amp; protecting data. I What has been the error rate, \u0026amp; what ib it now? LRSD has no overall plan for Is there any evidence for claiming that errors have decreased?______________________________________________ [ 28. Essential research question [ Evaluators \u0026amp; PRE chose programs whjich were not district-wide. ] ] Evaluated | programs were not implemented in schools throughout the district. Evaluations were not readily understood by a lay person. _______________________________________________ I 34. Disclosure of evaluations \u0026amp; [approval of assessment process failed to enroll new policy in its official file of policies. I Although B/D approved the process, LRSD [ Exhibit A Exhibit B quality of neither LRSD data nor its use. Included tvidce Why so much about a matter not in th\u0026lt;\n2004 compliance remedy? BO affects theDRAFT Comments Re: Compliance Report of October 2006 October 19,2006 After review of the Compliance Report, submitted to the U.S. District Court on October 16, 2006 by LRSD, members of the PRE Department have the following comments. School portfolios 11. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. [p. 5] 12. School and district data portfolios are an important part of the infrastructure. [p. 6] 14. ... LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. [p 7] 16. ... to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse ... [p. 7] 16. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. [p. 7] PRE has no documents to support assertions about school portfolios. PRE produced only a single draft portfolio of the district in 2005 and anticipates a second in 2006. PRE has prepared no LRSD school portfolios and knows of none prepared by anyone else for any schools of the district. During the workshop attended by three PRE staff at EFE, conducted by Dr. Vicky Bernhardt in summer of 2005, they took part in exercises related to school portfolios then launched the first draft of a portfolio for LRSD with the help of Dr. Bernhardt and her staff at EFF. Dr. Bernhardt described school portfolios and their utility to principals and others during her visit to Little Rock, arranged by PRE as part of embedding assessment in e districts operations. However, in reply to a principals desire to send a school team to EFFs 2006 Summer Institute to learn more about developing a school portfolio. Dr. Roberts stated, in Dr. DeJamettes hearing, No, schools are not yet ready to begin portfolios. The data warehouse design and construction appears to be carried out for the district by an external contractor rather than in-house. PRE has not dissented from use and improvement of Business Objects software. PRE did not participate in the decision to use Business Objects products for the data warehouse. Rather, as part of its plan for deeply embedding assessment, begun in October 2004, PRE recommended TetraData, which develops data warehouses for school districts, edits old data incorporated into them, and interfaces with the variety of software programs in use. TetraDatas proposal gave summer of 2006 as an expected completion date. PRE did express its opinion that this seemed superior to the districts choice.Accuracy of LRSD data 17. The accuracy of the data in LRSDs database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. [p. 8] PRE knows of no evidence which would support this claim. On the contrary, external evaluators impressions are that errors encountered during 2005-2006 evaluations exceed those of the previous year. In her recent magnet report. Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus remarked, The academic achievement of students enrolled in the schools with embedded magnet programs could not be tracked in Year I because the available data are not consistent and appear umeliable. [Executive Summary, p. 2] Moreover, during the same week of this compliance reports submission, two LRSD departments discovered that their counts of the current years enrolled students differed by several hundred. PRE is aware of neither a district policy nor a district plan for comprehensively managing its data and ensuring their accuracy, integrity, and security. Consistent with this, no evidence has come to light of attempts by LRSD to quantify the accuracy of its data\nalthough recent action possibly involved them. Absent results of such efforts, verifying the above claim is very difficult. While evidence might exist to support the statement, PRE is unaware of any\nand updates submitted to ODM and Joshua included none. Readability of evaluations 28. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. [p. 12] PRE staff found the evaluation reports submitted in 2005 by CREP to be written on a professional level. During the reviews of these reports with the evaluation teams and the authors, PRE asked CREP to simplify their language. CREP revised the reports with the addition of nearly equally complex summaries inserted at their beginnings. The reports were not formally rated for their reading levels, so far as PRE knows\nthus, how readily they were understood by lay persons is not known.\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_1015","title":"\"Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District, Research Report,\" , 2004-2005","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":["2004/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District, Research Report,\" , 2004-2005"],"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/1015"],"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\nIncludes attached notice of filing with the United States District Court on December 27, 2005\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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1086","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":["2004-01"],"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","Education--Arkansas","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/1086"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nRECEIVED JAN 2 1 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting Thank you, Dr. Martin Luther King January 2004 I. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING January 22, 2004 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call 11. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests B. Student Performance- M. L. King Elementary School 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: Division of Exceptional Children V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Special Meeting - 12-11-03 Regular Meeting - 12-18-03 B. Personnel Changes ,... n-.:i ,\na- -,~- r- - -4:I: Oz o  el~ m..,\n:a C: -z\n:an o'\"\" F~ (\")\"' ~ Regular Board Meeting January 22, 2004 Page2 VI. CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION: A. Second Reading: Revision of Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements VII. SCHOOL SERVICES: A. Magnet Schools Assistance Program Update B. 2004 Magnet Schools Assistance Program Grant Proposal VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report IX. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions X. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XI. ADJOURNMENT ,... O'\"O ,.\u0026gt;,. ..:...,:m._0.. - ii: Oz o\u0026gt; ~~ ::0 C: -z\non o-\u0026lt; F\nOU\u0026gt; ~ ~\n= mr-:-:oo gg iml:me -c: ~~ ~~ ~::l -mo:m:o ::0 u, i ,0. .. I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL 11. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS WELCOME/ STUDENT PERFORMANCL A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS C. LR CTA / D. JOSHUA INTEVENORS IV. REPORTS/ COMMUNICATIONS A. BOARD MEMBERS DATE: TO: FROM: '.\n4.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" January 22, 2004 Board of Directors ~Id M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: ~11 Goodman SUBJECT: January 2004 Construction Report- Bond Projects The move into the new forty-four (44) classroom building at Mann Magnet Middle School was completed on time. Except for a few problems, it went well and classes were held for the first time on January 5th . Pulaski County Special School District has purchased five (5) of the portable classroom trailers. The remainder will be sold through an auction on February 3rd . The buyers will have until February 27th to move the portable classroom trailers from the site. The move into the new administration and media areas at Mabelvale Middle School has been completed. This construction project is almost complete except for the completion of remodeling two (2) classrooms and dealing with some site drainage issues. The planning process continues for projects at schools that have had little or no work done up to now. The development of scopes of work and the selection of architects and engineers will be completed soon. If you have any questions, please call me at 447-1146. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !II \"O m ~ zz rm CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 22, 2004 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I I 1csrComplet1on Facilitv Name Project Description Cost Date .,B,,._ase_li_ne _______ ___,R__eno.:...v...a.c_ti-o-=n-_ _____________ $953,5~ Jul-04 Brady,______ Addition/renovation $973,621 Jun-04 Central Renovation_-_ln_ter~ _-_-_-_-_-___ $10,200,266 Dec-05 _Dun_ba_r _______ ..._R_e_n_o_v_at_io_n_/a_d_d_iti_on____ $6,161,950 , Aug-04 J. A. Fair 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music room addition $3,155,640 Feb-04 Mabelvale MS ~ R_e_n_o_v-at-io_n _____ ----- $6,851,621 De-c--0-3 I Partial Rep,_lac_e_m_e_n_t ______ ~::_-~-$11,500,000 Dec-03 Classroom Addition $2, 155,62_2__ Jul-04 Mann McClellan Parkvi~ - Addition-- ~ $2,121 ,226 Jun-04 Pulaski Hgts. Elem ____ Renovation _ _ __ _ _ $ ( 193,25fr Aug-04 Pulaski Hgts. MS .Rencivatfon _ ~ $3,755,041 Aug-04 Southwest ---Addition ~ $2,000,000 Aug-04 Tech C- t-r / M_et-ro_R_e-novation 'Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,7251000 Jun-04 Wa\"kefield ~ ebuild ---- $5,300,000 Jul-04 Williams Renovation - - - - - $2, 106,49_2 _ ---Jun-04 Wilson _____ _._Renovation/expansion - $1,263,876-- Dec-03 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - WINTER/ SPRING 2003-04 I I I Est. Comp1et1on Facilitv Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Date Mitchell __ Renovation $750,000 Aug-04 Rightsell Renovation $660,0~ Auq-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED I I 1 Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Booker Electrical Upgrade __ ___ Unknown Unk Booker Roof $48,525 Unk Carver Chicot Chicot Cloverdaie Elementary Fair Park Forest Heights Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Henderson Meadowcliff Pulaski Hgts. MS Western Hills Woodruff - - Media Center Expansion - - Unknown Sound Attenuation \u0026amp; Fire Alarm --- $50,783 - Electrical Upgrade - - Unknown- Addition Unknown~ Addition - Unknown Remodel Unknown Remodel - - Unknown Roof Repair - Unknown - Addition - Unknown Lockers - - $75,000 Addition - Unknown Energy monitoring system installation _ Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC ~ Unknown Parkinq addition $193,777 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Administration Administration Administration Administration Annex Alternative Learning Ctr. Alternative Learning Ctr. Badgett Badqett I l l csI. --Complet1on Project Description Cost Date Asbestos abatement $380,495 Mar-03 Fresh air system .. $55,000 Aug-03 Fire alarm $32,350- Aug-03 Energy monitoring system installation .,. _ May-02 Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Oct-01 Energy efficient lighting _ $82,000- Dec-01 Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Fire alarm - ~ $18,2~ Auq-02 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 22, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description Cost I Est. Completion Date Bale Classroom addition/renovation I $2,244,524 I Dec-02 Bale Energy monitoring system I Mar-02 Bale I Partial roof replacement $269,587  Dec-01 Bale ,HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 Booker I Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 I Mar-02 Brady I Energy efficient lighting I $80,593 Sep-02 Brady 1Asbestos abatement $345,072 I Aug-02 Carver I Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 May-01 Carver Parking lot ! $111 ,742 I Aug-03 Central Parking Student parking I $174,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair I $265,000 1 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 I Aug-03 Central Purchase land for school I Unknown - ~ ec-02 - -- Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 I Dec-02 Central 1Ceiling and wall repair I $24,ooo I Oct-01 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation I - $80,876 Aug-01 Central !Front landing tile repair $22,470 Aug-01 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS -- Energy efficient lighting $189,74~ Jul-01 Cloverdale MS- - -- -- _ Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1 ,393,822 Nov-02 Dodd Energy efficien!.J.!ghting - + --- -- --- $90,665 Aug-01 Dodd - - Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile - $156,299 --Jul-01 --- - Dodd Replace rciof top HVAC $215,570 ~ g-02 Facilities Servi~ Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Facility Services - - Fire alarm -- - --- 7 1Z:ooo Aug-03 - - --,.- Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Apr-02 -- ~ gy efficient lighting - .. $90,162 - Fair Park Aug-01 ---~ Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceili~ $59,310 Aug-01 - ... - J. A. Fair EnergL 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 ... $38,000 -- Athletic Field Improvement Jul-03 --+-- J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391 ,871 Aug-03 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Nov-03 Forest Park _piagonal 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 $1 { 950 +- Aug-01 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 - Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot + $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbright Roof repair-s -- -+ $200,000 Oct-02 Franklin R enovation - $2,511 ,736 - Mar-03 Gibbs Energy efficien.!..!!_ghting $76,447 + - -- Apr-01 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11 ,770 Jul-01 2 !II ~ ::0 z~ z ,m.. :n -I Pl % C:\ng ?i m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 22, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Proiect Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 I Sep-03 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Jul-01 Hall I Energy efficient lighting I $296,707 Apr-01 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 I Aug-01 Hall !Intercom Feb-01 Hall 1 Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 Henderson I Energy efficient lighting I $193,679 Jul-01 Henderson 'Roof replacement gym $107,835 I May-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I I $500,000 Aug-01 Henderson  Asbestos abatement Phase 2 I $250,ooo I Aug-02 IRC Energy efficient lighting I $109,136 - I Jul-02 Jefferson - Asbestos abatement ! $43,639 I Oct-01 Jefferson I Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm I $1 ,630,000 Nov-02 Laidlaw - Parking lot -I $269,588 Jul-01 --- Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation I $12,150 Aug-01 Mabelvale E-lem-. - Replace HVAC units I $300,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement I $107,000  Aug-02 -- - Mabelvale Elem. . Energy efficient lighting I $106,598 Dec-02 Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers $134,793 I Aug-01 -- Mann -- I Asphalt walks ! Dec-01 The total $1 .8 million Mann Walkway canopies is what has been I - - - -- Dec-01 Mann Boiler replacement used so far on the --Oct-01 - Mann Fencing projects listed _ Sep-01 Mann - . Partial demolition/portable classrooms ~ completed for Mann. Aug-01 - M- cClellan ~ Athletic Field lmprovem~ $38,000 Jul-03 McClellan _J_rrigation Syst~ $14,750 Jul-03 - - ~-- McClellan Security cameras $36,300 Jun-01 McClellan Energy efficient lighting -- $303,614 - May-01 - McClellan Stadium stands repair $235,000 Aug-01 McClellan - -- -- - $4(000 - Intercom Feb-02 McDermott Energy efficient lighting-- -- - $79,411 Feb-01 McDermott - Replace roof top HVAC uni~ - $476,000 Aug-02 ~ Meadowcliff Fire alarm $16, 175-,---- Jul-01 -- --+- Meadowcliff Asbestos abatement - $253,412 Aug-02 T Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Dec-02 Metropolitan Replace cooling tower $37,203 Dec-00 ~ - Metropolitan Replace shop vent system $20,000 May-01 Metropolitan Energy monitoring system installation + $17,145 Aug-01 Mitchell Energy efficient lighting - $103,642 Apr-01 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Jul-01 Mitchell Asbestos abatement - - $13,000 Jul-01 Oakhurst HVAC renovation $237,237 Aug-01 + Otter Creek Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 May-01 Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting +-- -- $81 ,828 Apr-01 Otter Creek Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 - Parking lot - -- $138,029 - Otter Creek Aug-02 Otter Creek 6 classroom addition -- $888,778 Oct-02  Otter Creek Parking Improvements . - $142,541 . Aug-03 $210,ooo - Parkview HVAC controls Jun-02 Parkvie-w Roof replacement $273,877- Sep-01 ~ Parkview - Exterior lights $10,784 Nov-00 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls -+-- $301 ,938 -- Parkview Aug-01 Parkview Locker replacement $120,000 Aug-01 Parkview Energy efficient lighting I- $315,000 Jun-01 3 Facility Name Procurement Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Romine Romine Security/Transportation Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 22, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I Project Description I Cost Est. Completion Date !Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 I Jun-02 I Fire alarm ' $25,000 Aug-03 !Move playground $17,000 Dec-02 I Energy efficient lighting -~$_84,_8_98-+ ____ A~p_r-_0_,1 I Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Mar-01 !Replace rooftop HVAC $539,175 Aug-01 I Parking addition $111,742 Aug-02 !Asbestos abatement $10,000 Apr-02 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 ____M ar-03... .. . Bus cameras $22,500 Jun-01 I Asbestos abatement I $28, 138 Aug-00 New roof $690,000 ' Oct-03 !Energy efficient lighting ___ ..___ $168,719 Jan-02 I Drainage/ street widenrr,g- 1 $250,000 Aug-03 t:S::-:-t-ud-:-e-n-:t--A:-s-s,ig-_nm_e_n_t ---r.:Ecn--e-rg-y=m- on-ci,t,.o..-ri:n-_g_s-ystem installation $4,830-+----A,...u~g~-.0,.2. ~ Student Assignment I Fire alarm 1 $9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 ' Dec-01 Technology Upgrade 1 upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data ---l--'_ __N ov_-02... .. Terry , Energy efficient lighting $73,850 I Feb-01 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Aug-02 Terry__ __ Media Center addition $704,932_ ___S e~1p. 02... .. Wakefield 1security cameras $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield _-=_-=_-_-_-_ Energy efficient lighting _ -r- $7-4~, 7- 7-6~ 1 ---Feb-01 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Nov-02 Washington - Security cameras -- + --$7,900 - Jun-01 Washington Energy efficient lighting -- + ~65,281~-- Apr-01 Watson ---~E_n_e-rg=y~monitoring system installation $8,530 Jul-01 Watson Asbestos abatement -r- ~82,241 __ ~_:Q!_ Watson Watson Watso_n __ Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Williams Williams Wilson Woodruff - __ E_n_ergy efficient lighting _ _ ~- _ $106,868 Aug-01 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 _ =-~Major renovation \u0026amp; addition --- -l-- ~00,000 Aug-02 Asbestos abatement - $191,946~ Aug-02 Intercom - - _______ - $7,100~- Dec-01 Energy efficient lighting - +- $106,000 - Jul-01 Parking expansions _ $183,717 Dec-03 Energy efficient lighting _ _ ~ $122,719 _ Jun-01 Parking Expansion ~ - $110,000 Aug-03 -Renovation $246,419 Auq-02 4 !\" z... m\n,o\n,o ~~\n10  ... C: 0 ::\n0 ~ .:.n. ~ ::c C: ~ ~ m Date: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 22, 2004 To: Board of Directors From:@Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - January This is the fifty-first communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two middle school and one elementary school to resolve financial issues in their activity 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) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology Training a) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of uts \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. !II ~ :\no is z z .m- .:.n. ~ :c C:\ng ?. m Audit Report - January 2004 Page 2 of 2 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) 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. Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring payroll for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Assisted with ShareFest 2003, Saturday, November 1, 2003. Report online at lrsd.org Participating in planning for Day of Caring (April 17, 2004). 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. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: January 22, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Information Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Technology Report  EETT grant funded online courses begin this week with 134 LRSD teachers, 46 NLRSD teachers, 70 PCSSD teachers, and 34 non-public teachers participating.  AETN and ADE have purchased rights to video clips that are correlated to Arkansas Frameworks. These clips are delivered over the Internet to all schools. We are currently testing the product on our network to determine the best way to implement without using too much bandwidth.  E-rate applications for 2004-2005 will be filed on or before the deadline of February 4. This year we will file for wide area network, local telephone service, long distance service, cellular phone service, phone system maintenance, LAN electronics, and television systems for schools with a high percentage of students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch.  To meet E-rate requirements, the state is requiring that each district revisit the approved technology plan in order to confirm that every project for which e-rate funds have been applied is thoroughly covered in the original technology plan. We are just beginning to evaluate our plan in light of the new requirements. Any addendum that we might submit is due March 5, 2004. To provide an update to the Board of Directors on the status of technology projects To continue to implement the approved technology plan NIA NIA Lucy Neal - Instructional John Ruffins-Technical December 18, 2003 - January 22, 2004 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 22, 2004 Board of Education J Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes 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) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. ~ :S-f!l 1:::i:: ~8 -ore: (/) -om 0\no ?\n?i mm (/) Personnel Changes Page 2 January 22, 2004 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/ferminations Certified Employees Hawkins, Matthew Spanish 8-14-95 Reason: Leaving City DUNBAR 1-16-04 Heffern, Susan Kindergarten 10-25-99 Reason: Personal STEPHENS 12-19-03 Nichols, Karisa Alt. Skills 1-3-96 Reason: Returning to School ACC 1-5-04 Nichols, Karita Physical Science 8-19-98 Reason: Returning to School ALC 1-4-03 Walker, Charles NONE New Certified Employees General Science ALC 1-5-04 Certified Promotion Certified Transfer 4-09 TCH925 1-05 K925 4-07 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 37700.00 29609.00 35658.00 35658.00 35658.00 annual 18386.16 prorated Chase, Diann from Day Treatment at Romine to Psyc. Specialist in Division of Exceptional Children Personnel Changes Page 3 January 22, 2004 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Bryant, Byron Custodian 10-24-01 1-02 Reason: Abandonment WILLIAMS 12-3-03 CUS12 Floyd, Stephen Custodian 8-27-03 1-01 Reason: Accepted Another SOUTHWEST 12-9-03 CUS928 Position Griffin, Robert Jr. Instr. Aide 9-2-03 1-10 Reason: Personal STEPHENS 1-4-03 INA925 Hall, Janet Bus Driver 9-10-01 3-05 Reason: Personal TRANS. 1-5-04 BUSDRV Mayweather, Louise Aide 8-26-91 1-10 Reason: Retired BOOKER 1-4-04 INA185 McTyer, Donald Security 8-22-94 30-14 Reason: Deceased HALL 1-10-04 ANl0 Millage, John Custodian 3-7-02 1-02 Reason: Leaving City CLOVERDALE EL. 12-17-03 CUS12 Rudkin, Pamela Secretary 12-12-00 31-20 Reason: Personal PARK.VIEW 1-8-04 CLK925 ANNUAL SALARY 13955.00 10329.00 14067.00 11899.00 14067.00 20712.00 13955.00 22656.00 .!J.,l z \u0026gt;z 0 ~ ti\u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt;o . C: ,~-~o c5c: -\u0026lt;:::\nu~ ~z ti\u0026gt; ti\u0026gt; oil zc: ti\u0026gt; .0.. . 0 z ~ \u0026gt;otn 1:::i:: .~,, 8,- C-,:, mti\u0026gt; ~~ mm ti\u0026gt; !Jl !I: ti\u0026gt; \u0026gt;.,, C) ~ ..z.,. ,.\nu 0 c3 ti\u0026gt; -,::. Personnel Changes Page 4 January 22, 2004 NAME Williams, Sarah Reason: Retired Bryant, Rodney MAglione, Yadina Smittie, Carol POSITION SCHOOL Custodian HALL START DATE END DATE 3-10-80 1-30-04 SALARY CLASS 1-08 CUS925 New Non-Certified Employees Instr. Aide CHICOT 1-5-04 Media Clerk 1-5-04 CLOVERDALE MID Care CARE 12-8-03 on-Certified Promotion 1-10 INA925 31-06 CLK925 1-14 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 13296.00 14067.00 annual 7375.67 prorated 14916.00 annual 7854.70 prorated 7.93 per hr. Carter, John 9.50 month district wide security to 12 month district wide security officer Non-Certified Transfer NONE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: January 22, 2004 To: Board of Education From: Through: Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent of Instruction Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Re: Second Reading: Revision of Policy IKF - General Graduation Requirements Arkansas Act 1748 of 2001 required students in grades K- 9 to meet a physical training requirement of no less than 20 minutes of physical activity three (3) times a week for all students who are physically fit and able to participate. Since that time, Act 1729 of 2003 was approved to change the grade grange from K - 9 to K - 8. Since the K - 9 grade span was written into the Board policy and regulations, revisions are required to bring our policy and regulations into compliance with state law. The policy was approved on first reading at the December 2003 meeting of the Board. The regulations were reviewed at that time. Policy IKF is presented at this time for second reading approval. bjg .!.I,' z \u0026gt;z 0 ~ ~ \u0026gt;eon !IC :c ~8 .,, r-e:.,, .,,m ~~ mm.,, 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. 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 24 units for the classes of 2002 and 2003\nor the required 26 units for the class of 2004 and after. 2. Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the Little Rock Scholars curriculum of 27 units for the class of 2003\nor 28 units, including at least eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses, for the class of 2004 and after. 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 21 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. Units of credit will generally be earned in grades nine through twelve, except that one unit of Algebra I (or higher-level mathematics) and Level I (or higher level) of foreign language may be earned in grade eight. High school courses taken before grade eight will not satisfy a unit of credit toward graduation. (See policy IKEC for list of creditearning options.) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) Transfer Students All transfer students must meet the graduation requirements of the Little Rock School District in order to receive a diploma. The LRSD high school will accept transfer credits and grades for students who previously attended Arkansas .high schools that are accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education or out-of-state high schools that are accredited by their state department of education and/or a regional accreditation organization such as the North Central Association of Schools and Colleges. Additionally, students who transfer into a Little Rock School District high school from a home school must attend at least two semesters in order to receive a high school diploma (see IKED and IKED-R). Former home school students must attend at least four semesters in order 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. Senior-Year Enrollment Requirements Students participating in dual-credit courses with local colleges/universities during their senior year must be enrolled in high school courses at least half time for their senior year (four units of credit) or full-time during the fall semester in order to receive a diploma from a Little Rock School District high school. This enrollment standard is required regardless of how many credits a student may need to satisfy graduation requirements. (See IKEC-R1 for regulations governing dual-credit enrollments.) 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 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. 2 lo\u0026lt; n 0 \"z' C) ~ i \"' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) 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 twoyear or four-year 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. Successfully completes 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 PreAdvanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. Other approved dual-credit courses 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. 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) 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 school, 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. Specific Course Requirements The following table specifies the required courses for graduation for each curriculum area. Revised: Adopted: July 22, 1999 4 High School Graduation Requirements Little Rock School District Required, Classes of 2002 and 2003 English-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, PreAP, or AP)\nand English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications-1 unit Communications I or Debate I Mathematics-3 units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or PreAP) or Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Concepts of Geometry (ESL or Regular) or Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Science-3 units Physics I (ESL or Regular) or Physics I Pre-AP\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Required, Classes of 2004 and After English-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, PreAP, or AP)\nand English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications IA (1/2 unit) English Language Arts-1/2 unit One-half unit from any English, Journalism, or Communications course. Modern Grammar (1/2) is strongly recommended. Mathematics--3 units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or PreAP) or Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or PreAP) Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP) will no longer substitute for Algebra II for the Class of 2007. Effective for the Class of 2007, four (4) units of mathematics are required in qrades 9-12. Science--3 units Physics I (ESL or Regular) or Physics I Pre-AP\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) 5 Required, ACC Students English-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, PreAP, or AP)\nand English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications IA--one-half unit Mathematics-3 units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or PreAP) or Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Concepts of Geometry (ESL or Regular) or Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Science-3 units Physical Science or or Physics I\nand Biology I\nand One additional unit Required, Classes of 2002 and Required, Class of 2004 and Required, ACC Students 2003 After Social Studies-3 units Social Studies--3 units Social Studies-3 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government or United States Government or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, World History (ESL, Regular, World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP or AP)\nand Pre-AP,or AP)\nand Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, United States History (ESL, United States History (ESL, Reoular, or AP) Regular, Pre-AP, or AP) Regular, or AP) Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education IA Physical Education IA Phvsical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety Health and Safety Health and Safety Fine Arts-1 unit Fine Arts-1 unit Fine Arts-1/2 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, One unit from art, dance, drama, or music or music Technology-1 unit Technology--1 unit None One unit from any of the One unit from any of the aooroved technoloov courses. aooroved technolooy courses. Career Focus-3 units Career Focus-3 units Career Focus-3 units Three units from any of the At least three units from any of Three units from any of the approved Career Focus the approved Career Focus approved Career Focus oroorams. oroorams. oroorams. Electives--4 units Electives-6 units (5 units, Electives-3 units effective for Class of 2007) A fourth year of both science and social studies is encouraged, as are at least two units of foreign lanouaoe. Total-24 units Total-26 units Total-21 units Although not required to do so, students graduating m 2004 through 2006 are encouraged to complete the requirements for the Class of 2007, especially the four units of mathematics in grades 9-12. 6 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, Class of 2003 Little Rock Scholars, Class of 2004 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, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand EnQlish IV (ESL, ReQular, or AP). Encilish IV (ESL, Reciular, or AP). Oral Communications-1 unit Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications I Communications IA English Language Arts-1/2 unit Any one-half unit from English, Communications, or Journalism. Modern Grammar is strongly encouraQed. Mathematics--4 units Mathematics--4 units (in grades 9-12, class of Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand 20071 Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Statistics (ESL, Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Regular, or AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Concepts of Geometry (ESL or Regular) or Geometry (ESL, Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One or more additional units of advanced One additional unit of advanced mathematics. mathematics for the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Science--4 units Science--4 units Active Physics (ESL or Regular) or Physics I Pre-AP\nand Active Physics (ESL or Regular) or Physics I Pre-AP\nBiology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand and Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One additional unit Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One additional unit Social Studies--4 units Social Studies--4 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP or AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nOne additional unit and One additional unit Foreign Language-2 units Foreign Language-2 units Two units of any one foreiQn lanQuaQe Two units of any one foreiQn lanQuaQe Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education IA Phvsical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safetv Health and Safetv Fine Arts-1 unit Fine Arts-1 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Technology-2 units Technology-1 unit* Two units from any of the approved technology courses. One unit from any of the approved technology courses. Career Focus--4 units Career Focus-3 units* Four units from any of the approved Career Focus Three units from any of the approved Career Focus oroarams. proQrams. Electives-0 units Electives-3 units Total-27 units Total-28 units *Students graduating m 2004 through 2006 are encouraged to take four units of mathematics m grades 9-12, although they are not required to do so since their plan only specified three units of mathematics. If they do choose to take the Class of 2007 plan, they may also reduce the requirements in Technology and Career Focus and have three electives instead of one. 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: TO: January 16, 2004 Board of Education FROM: Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: Dr. Debbie Price - Director of MSAP SUBJECT: Magnet Schools Assistance Program Report The Magnet Schools Assistance Program is in Year 3, the final year of the grant. The four schools involved are: Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, Cloverdale Magnet Middle School, J. A. Fair Magnet High School and McClellan Magnet High School. In each of these schools every child is in the magnet program and this grant has enabled these schools to implement programs both to attract new students, but also to provide an innovative program of study for the students in the attendance zone. The magnet programs for each school are: Mabelvale Magnet Middle School Medical Science Environmental Science Technology Technology Cloverdale Magnet Middle School School Engineering Economics Multimedia J. A. Fair Magnet High School Medical Science Environmental Science Systems Engineering and McClellan Magnet High Engineering Business and Finance Multimedia The report will be provided under separate cover. s ~\n= a, Cc: 0 C/1 Zz !:\nm i5 \u0026amp;l ~ i\u0026lt;l ~ m en ~ ?'\u0026lt; \u0026gt;::c ~,\n! 0::,::, C\ni::,Z ZC\u0026gt; :mI: \"' .z.. Date: To: From: Prepared By: Subject: Summary: Objectives: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 22, 2004 Board of Education Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development Submission of 2004 Magnet Schools Assistance Program Grant (MSAP) proposal The U.S. Department of Education has recently published the draft guidelines for the 2004 application for grants under the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). We are currently in the process of preparing for submission of a magnet schools assistance program proposal and seek Board support and approval. Attached are two documents required in the MSAP application process: 1) Voluntary Plan and 2) Board Resolution. The following schools are included in the proposal: J.A. Fair High, McClellan High, Hall High, Mabelvale Middle and Henderson Middle. The anticipated due date is March 5, 2004. 1) To eliminate, reduce or prevent minority group isolation 2) To develop and implement projects that will assist in achieving systemic reforms and providing all students the opportunity to meet challenging State academic content standards an_d student academic achievement 3) To develop and design innovative educational methods and practices that promote diversity and increase choices in public secondary schools and public educational programs 4) To provide courses of instruction that will substantially strengthen the knowledge of academic subjects and the grasp of tangible and marketable vocational, technological and professional skills of students attending the schools 5) To improve the capacity of the district, including through professional development, to continue operating these magnet schools is terminated 6) To ensure high quality education that will enable the students to succeed academically and continue with postsecondary education or productive employment ~?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:r: E~ g,!!\noz z C) J::U\u0026gt; m .z... . Population: Duration: Total school student population at the targeted secondary schools (Fair, McClellan, Hall, Mabelvale and Henderson) Three-year period: July 2004 - June 2007 Projected Request: $7,500,000 over the three-year period Other Agencies: Participating schools have established numerous community and business partnerships to support their magnet programs. Recommendations: We recommend approval for submission of the 2004 MSAP proposal\nprovide support by adoption of the MSAP resolution. Attachments: Voluntary Plan MSAP Board Resolution LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VOLUNTARY PLAN January 2004 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) plan meets the statutory requirements of Title VI of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, which authorizes the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). This plan approved by the Little Rock School District Board of Education in January 2004 will be submitted to the U.S. Department of Education for consideration in conjunction with the District's application for MSAP funding. Under this plan, dependent upon funding from the MSAP, the LRSD will support five magnet schools during the 2004-2007 MSAP funding cycle. One LRSD high school, Hall High School, will be redesigned as a school-wide magnet program. In addition, four existing magnet schools will be significantly revised to promote increased levels of student diversity and maximize students' access to innovative and rigorous coursework and programs: J. A. Fair Magnet High School, McClellan Magnet High School, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School and Henderson Magnet Middle School. These magnet schools will carry out the six objectives of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program. They will: 1) eliminate, reduce, or prevent minority group isolation\n2) develop and implement projects that will assist in achieving systemic reforms and providing all students the opportunity to meet challenging State academic content standards and student academic achievement\n3) develop and design innovative educational methods and practices that promote diversity and increase choices in public secondary schools and public educational programs\n4) provide courses of instruction that will substantially strengthen the knowledge of academic subjects and the grasp of tangible and marketable vocational, technological and professional skills of students attending the schools\n5) improve the capacity of the district, including through professional development, to continue operating these magnet schools at a high performance level after Federal funding for the magnet schools is terminated\n6) and ensure that all students enrolled in the magnet school programs have equitable access to high quality education that will enable the students to succeed academically and continue with postsecondary education or productive employment. Little Rock School District's 2004-2007 Voluntary Plan Strategies The linchpin of the District's voluntary plan strategy is to attract the significant numbers of non-minority students already residing in the Little Rock School District attendance zone -- who are currently attending non-public schools, being home schooled or attending public schools outside the LRSD District -- back into the district's federally funded magnet middle and high schools. All five of the federally funded magnet schools will be attendance zone specialty magnets. The federally funded magnet school programs serve every student enrolled in the school by virtue of their neighborhood attendance zone assignment. These schools are also available to students seeking school options or choices outside of their attendance zone schools: students from the neighboring Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) as ~?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:r:: ~~ g,!! ::oz ZG'l !CU) .zm.. . majority-to-minority (M-to-M) transfer students.1 The PCSSD continues to operate under an active desegregation court ordered plan that stipulates the M-to-M transfer process with the LRSD. The two-pronged strategy that the LRSD plans to use to achieve its ambitious voluntary plan goals and objectives is as follows:  Innovative, standards-based curriculum design and implementation, to include the development and school-wide infusion of the instructional themes, supported and complemented by an array of thematically focused high interest magnet courses, related professional development and parent involvement initiatives, and collaborations with outside partners  Aggressive and targeted outreach and recruitment campaigns designed to attract a more diverse student body than is currently attending these schools. The LRSD schools are comprised of 73 percent minorities (Black, Hispanics, others (including American Indians and Asians) and 27 percent non-minorities (White). In contrast, the Little Rock community is comprised of a much larger percentage of nonminority residents (65 percent) and a much smaller percentage of minority residents (35 percent) than the LRSD. LRSD Students Attending Non-Public Schools. Research was also conducted on the non-public (private and parochial) schools in the area encompassed by the LRSD. There are 26 non-public schools located within the boundaries of the LRSD (parochial and non-denominational). According to the 2000 census data, these schools enroll a total of 6,405 of the city's 13,223 total white student population. As a whole, Little Rock private schools have added 135 students each year since 1970, according to the Census Bureau.2 The Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported on October 26, 2003, that since the census was taken, the LRSD lost almost 600 more white students. Among the 250 largest U.S. cities, Little Rock now ranks 9th with the largest proportions of their white students in private schools (48%).3 The 2000 Census data reveal that among blacks, 4 percent attend private schools. Substantial numbers of parents are electing not to take advantage of the public education system, and are instead incurring the expense of a private school education for their children. By choosing a private school education for their children, many nonminority families in the Little Rock community have segregated their children from the predominantly minority and relatively poor students attending the public schools. 1 The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986 provides agreement between the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District for voluntary majority-to-minority interdistrict transfers. 2 Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3 Source: 2000 Census Compliance with Civil Rights Requirements The Little Rock School District assures the United States Department of Education and the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) that the District's Voluntary Plan and the accompanying MSAP proposal complies with requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that its use of race in the selection of students to attend its five magnet schools is \"narrowly tailored.\" The following section specifies how the Voluntary Plan -- and the Little Rock School District Magnet Schools Assistance Program overall -- is responsive to the five considerations established by the Office for Civil Rights. Whether the district tried or seriously considered race-neutral alternatives and determined that those measures have not been or would not be similarly effective, before resorting to race-conscious action The Little Rock School District MSAP initiative includes zoned attendance specialty magnets (J.A. Fair High, McClellan High, Hall High, Henderson Middle and Mabelvale Middle). The student admissions process for these magnet schools is designed to recognize attendance zone school precedence and to provide educational choice options that maintain student diversity to the extent practicable as stated in the LRSD Board of Education policy, School Choice - NEPN: JCA (see attachment). Zoned attendance magnets have clearly delineated attendance zones from which they draw their student populations, such that race is not used at all as a criterion in admissions. Every student residing within the attendance zone is admitted to the school should they so choose to enroll. The linchpin of the strategy in the case of zoned attendance magnets is to design, conduct, and monitor a targeted and aggressive outreach and recruitment effort to attract the populations of students needed to achieve the school-specific enrollment goals. This outreach and recruitment strategy is described in great depth in the Plan of Operation, and again in the Quality of Project Design section. Providing students with choice is a key component of the plan. School choice is viewed as a healthy method of providing opportunity for students to take advantage of unique curriculum offerings, special emphasis and program activities. The attendance specialty magnet schools are available to students seeking school options or choices outside of their attendance zone schools. Students from the neighboring district of Pulaski County may participate in these specialty magnets as M-to-M transfer students. If the number of out of zone applicants exceeds the number of seats available, a weighted random assignment process will be used to identify those students who will be assigned. Criteria indicators considered in the weighted random process include the student's race, achievement test performance and economic status (free and reduced lunch). A computerized lottery will identify the student population of these specialty magnet schools' attendance zones and then increase the likelihood that students of opposite attributes will be selected thereby diversifying the school's population. The selection process will be random. Academic examinations are not used in the selection of students for the specialty magnet programs. The scope and flexibility of the use of race, including whether it is subject to a waiver There are several aspects of the LRSD student assignment process that demonstrate its flexibility. First, because in our District we believe that from time to time students face situations beyond their control, Appeals Committee transfers are considered for \"Medical Hardship or Extenuating Circumstances.\" An appeals committee composed of five volunteers meet monthly to consider any requests submitted. The members serve staggered 3-year terms. The committee is composed of parents, teachers, or community representatives. Second, staff preference transfers are provided to children of LRSD employees who reside in the LRSD. Children of LRSD employees will be permitted to transfer to the school in which the employee is assigned. These assignments are based on space availability. Third, Act 624/1105 transfers provides students of any person who is a public school employee in one district and a resident of another school district the opportunity to be enrolled in and to attend school in the district in which the parent is an employee. The manner in which race is used, that is, whether race determines eligibility for a program or whether race is just one factor in the decision making process We have established earlier that in the case of our zoned attendance magnets, race is only one criterion for admission in the weighted lottery process. The duration of the use of race and whether it is subject to periodic review The Little Rock School District assures the Office for Civil Rights that it will formally review, on a periodic basis, any steps it may take which involve the use of race to determine whether the use of race is still needed, or should be modified. The degree and type of burden imposed on students of other races As noted above, the LRSD MSAP magnet initiative has designated five sites as federal magnet schools for the 2004 - 2007 program cycle, representing a broad array of program options and educational levels. In the event that a magnet school becomes significantly over-enrolled, parents may exercise the school choice options for other specialty magnet schools, stipulation/original magnet schools, or other attendance zone schools. Procedures are established that enable students to make application to enroll in a school outside of their designated attendance zone. Parents and students are informed of available options. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, improving the academic achievement of all students and maintaining an equitable, nondiscriminatory learning environment will forever be the core of the Little Rock School District's mission\nand WHEREAS, despite past efforts, there remain schools within the District where minority group enrollment exceeds 75%, thus constituting minority group isolation\nand WHEREAS, school choice is viewed as a healthy method of providing opportunity for students to take advantage of unique curriculum offerings, special emphasis and program activities\nand WHEREAS, magnet schools expand educational choices, provide meaningful courses of study to which students can relate and set high expectations for all students for further education and the world of work\nand WHEREAS, magnet schools enhance parental and community involvement and encourage the use of community resources, thus improving the effectiveness of education in our District\nand NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Little Rock School District Board of Education endorses and approves the Voluntary Plan for submission with the LRSD 2004 MSAP proposal to the U. S. Department of Education. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands on behalf of the Little Rock School District Board of Education on this 22nd day of January, 2004. Michael Daugherty, Secretary Tony Rose, President ~?\u0026lt;  ::c er\n: g2!! ::oz z Cl 31: (I) zm.. . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: January 22, 2004 Board of Education FROM: ~l Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: School/Department Central High School Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Wilson Elementary School Woodruff Elementary School Item $500.00 cash to be applied toward the completion of the reflecting pool $240.00 gift card Food coupons in the amount of $200.00 $400.00 cash to be used to purchase supplies for students in need $100.00 cash as a match for volunteer hours from Woodruff parent, Tamela Warren, who is also a Wal-Mart employee. Funds will be used to provide \"good conduct\" incentives for students. Donor Central High School \"Class of 1993\" Wal-Mart Super Center Burger King Elite, Inc. Wal-Mart #126 ~ n 5 \"z' C\u0026gt; i \"' Board of Education January 22, 2004 Page 2 School/Department Little Rock School District Copy of the book \"The Search for the Smell of Christmas\" to each student in 23 of the District's elementary schools. The estimated value of this donation (7,010 books @ $14.95) is $104,800.00. Aromatique, Inc. It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. LittCe 'lwck Centra{ J-fffJli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, ..'A.rkansas 72202 'Phone 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 December 5, 2003 To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Nancy Rousseau, Principal {'V Re: Donation to Little Rock Central High School The Class of 1993 very graciously donated $500 to Central High School. Their desire is that the donation goes toward the completion of the reflecting pool, with the understanding that the school will have a bench erected along the pool with a plaque stating \"Donated by the Class of 1993.\" It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. 0c. c , -. ,,..,., . . l.  0 _, .... i, Date: To: From: Through: Subject: School/Department December 15, 2003 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. Angela Munns, Principal Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Dorothy Davis, Title 1 Liaison Donation of Gift Cards Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Gift Card ($240.00) Wal-Mart Super Center 8801 Baseline Road Little Rock, AR 72209 Jason Mans, Store Manager .... I L\"\" : a- t .    -,.,l. ,,, Date: To: From: Through: Subject: School/Department December 15, 2003 Darr al Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. Angela Munns, Principal Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Dorothy Davis, Title 1 Liaison Donation of Food Coupons Donor Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Food Coupons ($200.00) Burger King Allied Food Industries, Inc. 3300 So. University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72204 Jeffery Williams, District Manager r.. , ,.., , ~ ,n- 0 \"z' c\n, i \"' ~ ?\u0026lt;  ::c ~~ O\n:o C:- ::oz zc\n, 3m1: \"' ~ WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL '\"F,zceffence ancl 'Equity in 'Ecfocation\" DATE: November 20, 2003 TO: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement Dept. FROM: Beverly Jones, Principal of Wilson School SUBJECT: Donation Elite, Inc. of P.O.Box 4922, Little Rock, AR 72204, graciously donated $400.00 to Wilson Elementary to be used to buy supplies for students in need. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. 4015 Stannus Road  Phone (501) 447-7200  Fax (501) 447-7201  Little Rock. Arkansas 72204 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (~n 'E?(tenaea :fear 'Eaucation Schoo{' To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: December 8, 2003 Re: Donations Wal-Mart #126 has donated $100.00 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 7204 - ..\n'.\":- r,:~:. C-..- L  1,-\u0026lt;0'- ~ .. ,f L~ .... . ~.:!\n'\\\n.\n-i:-: .... _~ ... ~~_.\"'~,~,\n,:-a .. _ t (..\nj -  ' ~ ~t ... : ... ::,.\n301 0 West 7th Street  Phone 671 -6270  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 ~?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:c ~~ O\n,o C:\n, oz zc\n, 3: en .zm.. . Little Rock School District Department of Instructional Technology 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 December 15, 2003 TO: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management FROM: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services SUBJECT: Donation of Books Aromatique, Inc. of Heber Springs donated a copy of the book The Search for the Smell of Christmas to each student in 23 elementary schools. The value of the donation is $104,800. The contact information is as follows : Patti and Dick Upton Aromatique, Inc. P.O. Box 6000 Heber Springs, AR 72543 It is recommended that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. \\ ::~. :::~ ... , .-::- ~ ........ , .. .. ,...,.. . -_\n~. , ... --.~ ~ . -~~~._. - .... ~ ,: ... : ,\\ ....... i  Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1086 Fax: (501) 447-1158 DATE: January 22, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: ~ark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes  Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending December 31 , 2003. To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial condition. NIA NIA Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved one  Expectations of District N/ A  Needed Staff IA  Comments None ------------ ------  Recommendation Approval of the December 2003 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. \\ ~?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;::r:: ~~ g2!! ::oz ZC'l\ni:\"' .zm.. . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2002/03 12/31/02 COLLECTED 2003/04 12/31/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% 57,547,800 55,681,497 96.76% DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 7,108,960 88.86% 10,100,000 8,793,799 87.07% 40% PULLBACK 29,400,000 29,600,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 210,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 180,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 220,757 163.52% 150,000 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 219,948 64.69% 380,000 225,933 59.46% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 68,627 24.96% 200,000 64,666 32.33% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 136,431 85.27% 240,000 142,937 59.56% TOTAL 97,432,000 64,902,502 66.61% 98,607,800 64,908,833 65.83% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 11,170 46.54% 21,000 11,594 55.21% TOTAL 24,000 11,170 46.54% 21,000 11,594 55.21% REVENUE-STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 25,092,813 45.73% 53,226,139 24,193,699 45.45% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 3,891,937 51 .28% 8,300,000 3,373,820 40.65% VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 512,285 38.23% 1,400,000 521,646 37.26% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 320 0.02% 1,675,000 271,285 16.20% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 136,486 49.93% 273,358 135,094 49.42% TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 1,226,542 33.28% 3,875,562 1,243,841 32.09% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 1,396,152 42.76% 3,900,000 1,473,688 37.79% ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 273,287 27.17% 920,337 311 ,832 33.88% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 329,297 50.00% 560,545 267,486 47.72% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 142,636 50.00% 285,245 142,623 50.00% AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 57,386 8.83% 360,000 193,739 53.82% TOTAL 75,441,106 33,059,140 43.82% 74,776,187 32,128,752 42.97% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 13,857 1.23% 1,350,000 18,519 1.37% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 554,813 1,632,430 544,143 33.33% TOTAL 3,410,671 568,670 16.67% 3,752,430 562,662 14.99% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,m 98,541,483 55.89% 177,157,418 97,611,841 55.10% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 6,212,729 24.70% 24,075,790 7,040,060 29.24% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 2,073,471 52.10% 4,000,000 2,368,924 59.22% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 9,202,775 36.71% 24,689,351 9,316,330 37.73% TOTAL 54,198,923 17,488,975 32.27% 52,765,141 18,725,314 35.49% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 116,030,457 50.34% 229,922,559 116,337,155 50.60% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2002/03 12/31/02 EXPENDED 2003/04 12/31/03 EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 38,613,023 38.28% 100,684,982 38,826,959 BENEFITS 24,838,361 9,597,788 38.64% 26,483,772 9,621,831 PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 8,031 ,646 40.57% 19,719,297 8,107,685 MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 3,485,453 41.76% 8,1 85,459 4,165,135 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 486,437 30.08% 1,575,580 549,257 OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 2,892,930 34.00% 8,384,567 2,957,578 DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 4,880,555 39.95% 12,098,342 4,699,176 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176,189,538 67,987,831 38.59% 177,131,999 68,927,621 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 5,908,341 22.60% 26,056,193 7,038,023 DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 1,082,832 27.21% 4,000,000 2,157,873 MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 8,567,693 34.18% 24,689,351 8,613,259 TOTAL 55,194,668 15,558,866 28.19% 54,745,544 17,809,156 TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 83,546,697 36.11% 231,877,543 86,736,777 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 32,483,759 (1 ,954,984) 29,600,377 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,645,440 3,558,580 3,558,580 OPERATING 8,557,652 8,557,652 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 3,575,548 1,578,177 4,474,738 OPERATING 8,675,891 39,111 ,304 9,052,274 37,711 ,075 TOTAL 9,325,586 42,686,852 10,630,451 42,185,813 - % EXPENDED 38.56% 36.33% 41.12% 50.88% 34.86% 35.27% 38.84% 38.91% 27.01% 53.95% 34.89% 32.53% 37.41% ~?\u0026lt; ,. :c E~ g2:!\noz Z Cl :I: \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; zm ..... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 12-31-03 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,219.02 77,219.02 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 110,501.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110,501 .92 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 87,000.00 62,375.74 57,426.63 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 190,056.00 9,130,717.54 8,409,848.55 1,264,035.31 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 2,153.87 511 .33 39,608.77 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 7,679.00 22,190.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 1,520,796.00 2,199,600.26 532,441 .69 1,557,333.86 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31,306,506.59 166,300.00 10,725,369.02 10,332,104.46 10,415,333.11 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 939,378.26 9,913.56 1,385,727.42 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 1,964, 152.00 23,067,273.69 19,284,819.59 14,741,655.66 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 1,000.00 445,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 (1 ,964,152.00) 20,110,447.23 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 590,584.17 7,879,361 .06 SUBTOTAL 31,107,082.11 591 ,584.17 (1 ,964,152.00) 0.00 0.00 29,734,514.28 GRAND TOTAL llli\ni~z lll!l l!Z ~Ill ~~ lZ Q.l2!l i~ !lliZ in fill ll! i~,llll! ~I! :li ~llli liZl llli I Fund j Purchase Date t L Operating 07-19-03 Operating 12-30-03 Operating 12-19-03 Operating 12-19-03 Operating 12-19-03 Operating 12-19-03 Total Food Service 12-22-03 Activity Fund 12-19-03 Total Bond Account 09-08-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 10-15-03 Capital Projects Fund 01 -29-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 11 -18-03 Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-22-03 Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 Capital Projects Fund 12-01-03 Capital Projects Fund 09-15-03 Capital Projects Fund 12-19-03 Total Deseg Plan Scholarship 12-05-03 Total Rockefeller Scholarship 06-24-03 Total Risk Management loss Fund 12-16-03 lN3WN~morov Ix SONIMV3H x LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003 - - - - - - l - - - -- Maturity Institution Interest Rate Type Principal I - - Date - - - - -  -- - -- 01 -19-04 Regions 0.945% Money Market - 20,000.00 I TFN Bank of America 0.820% Repo 17,725,000.00 01-15-04 Twin City Bank 1.350% CD 5,000,000.00 02-02-04 I Twin City Bank 1.350% co 9,500,000.00 I 02-13-04 Twin City Bank 1.350% CD 5,000,000.00 03-01-04 Twin City Bank 1.400% CD 9,600,000.00 __ 46,845,000.00  - i - TFN Bank of America 0.710% Repo 910,000.00 i!._0,000.00 -- TFN Bank of America 0.780% Repo 1,280,000.00 f- - - 1,280,00.Q,00  - - - 03-08-04 Regions 1.094% CD 400,000.00 01-16-04 Metropolitan 1.930% CD 1,000,934.31 01-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 2.250% CD 5,116,598.09 02-13-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD 5,000,000.00 01-29-04 Bancorp South 2.000% CD 2,058,896.90 01-16-04 Superior 2.250% CD 2,500,000.00 04-15-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.300% CD 6,000,000.00 08-16-04 USBANK 1.420% - CD 11,000,000.00 01-16-04 Bank of America 1.240% Treasury Bills 5,299,646.43 05-14-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% CD 9,000,000.00 05-03-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD 3,060,648.33 03-15-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.430% CD 10,221,001 .82 TFN Bank of America 0.780% Repo 4,840,000.00 - _ 65,497,725.88 - 06-15-04 Bank of America 1.020% Treasury Bills 668,325.28 668,325.28 - -- 01-15-04 Bank of America 0.760% Treasury Bills 250,909.40 I 250,909.40 - - - - TFN f Bank of America 0.780% Repo 500,000.00 500,000.00 S\u0026gt;tMVW3M ONIS01:\u0026gt; \"XI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003 I PROJECT I ENDING ALLOCATIONS EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE ENCUMBERED ALLOCATION PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 12-31-03 2000-01 2001-02 I 2002-03 THRU 12-31-03 THRU 12-31-03 SUBTOTAL 12-31-03 . I I ADMINISTRATION 673,846.55 889,772.32 I (485,325.77)1 149,597.63 62,375.74 0.00 616,419.92 57,426.63 NEW WORK PROJECTS i 35,509. 116.80 I 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11,671,442.11 9,130,717.54 8,409,848.55 34,245,081.49 1,264,035.31 SECURITY PROJECTS ' 265,814.17 113,930.47 109,609.73 2,153.87 511.33 226,205.40 39,608.77 LIGHTING PROJECTS ' 4,883,405.13 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661 .38 7,679.00 0.00 4,861,214.57 22,190.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 12,754,406.51 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 2,199,600.26 532,441 .69 11 ,197,072.65 1,557,333.86 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51,655,707.04 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 10,725,369.02 10,332,104.46 41,240,373.93 10,415,333.11 - TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 11 ,735,611.78 575,016.53 I 4,325,201.40 4,500,374.61 939,378.26 9,913.56 10,349,884.36 1,385,727.42 I - UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 21,404,268.20 I 21,404,268.20 TOTAL 138,882,116.18 I 5,852.669.42 I 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 23,067,273.69 19,284,819.59 102,736,252.32 36,145,923.86 r I . - j I -  f 1 - - - - - 1 - .. - -\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information 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_640","title":"Program evaluation","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":["2004-01/2005-12"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation"],"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/640"],"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\nFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1932-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR. F.A. JOE D. BELL, F.A. JAMES A. 8UTTRY, F.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM HI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR. F.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. F.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. F.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER F.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR. F.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. F.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. F.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. F.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. F.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER F.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR. F.A. J. LEE BROWN. F.A. JAMES C. BAKER JR. F.A, HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. F.A. PRICE C. GARDNER P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. F.A. JEFFREY IJ. MOORE. F.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. F.A. R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, F.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirfn.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722013493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 479-685-2011 FAX 479-605-2147 FRAN C. HICKMAN. F.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. F.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. F.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIEL L HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. P.A. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS. P.A. JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL JOSEPH F. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. E2:ELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON KRISTEN S. ROWLANDS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA Caffs rose BRANDON J. HARRISON STEVEN L. BROOKS H. WAYNE YOUNG. JR JAMIE HUFFMAN JONES KIMBERLY DICKERSON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. FATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. F.A. 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1506 FAX 501-244-5344 halUrQfec.nac January 12, 2004 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Jan 13 2004 Received Re: Little Rock School District Dear John: Two recent evaluations which were done in compliance with Judge Wilsons Order are enclosed. They are: Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation, November 2003 and An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to December 2003. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns about these evaluations. Yours very truly, CJH/bk ist6pher Heller cc w/enc.: Ms. Ann Marshal Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Morris HolmesJOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received MAR ^1? 2004 Via Facsimile \u0026amp; U.S. Mail OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENEY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendesson Ro.ad Little Rock, Akkans.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F. (501) 372-3428 EiVAIL: mcheiiryd@swbell.net  J March 8. 2004 Mr. Cliristopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Chris\nI have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. Very truly yours, /\nI I : i/ L b' L  John W. Walker '-6- JWW\nlp cc: Ms. Ann Marshal Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. MarK Burnette-fo fa.)C CP received MAR 1 200't OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 9NW01IN0WN0llVD3aD3S30 d030HJ0 ^00? J I yvw JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS a3A3O3a Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, P.A. DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: Now that we have the 8*** Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our belief is that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work hand in glove to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the Districts obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the Districts representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose of followup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004,1 received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation\nand 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSDs program evaluation. 1We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to No Child Left Behind mandates or State accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its compliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the Districts use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Courts Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the Districts intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5* grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the surprising notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed Afiican American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 25) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the Afncan American students during 2002-2003 in 4* grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4* graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesleys data. I read that the Courts Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use of this data, i.e., LRSD now has over three years of testing data. JJ 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the Districts ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the participation of Afncan American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address Afncan American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the Districts tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving Afiican American performance. 10) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of T* or 8* grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA). 12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3The foregoing list is merely suggestive\nit is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wilson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the Districts compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you kindly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. Sincerely, iy John W. Walker ' .\u0026gt;4^^ I 1 / c \\ JWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE OUU W. CAPI lUL, ROOM 423 i-iTTLc nOCK, Bill WILSON JUDGE Ov4-5i|UU Pscsimiiv (ovi) 604-5 i45 March 10, 2004 Tho Wz^nz^rahlQ Oav/ ( (UI LJ U ICppQI l/UI LI (UUOC 500 West Capiioi, rsucrn i45 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Ray ECEIVE, MAR 1 0 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR?!: Enclosed iS s copy of Mr, Walker's March 10, 2004 fax iexter to Ms. Marshall. by copy of this letter I remind Mr. Walker and other counsel of record to copy you with correspondence and other matters. ^//// / i/^ /I/1 b't / /A' I Wn\u0026lt; R. Wilson, Jr. Tiginal.' Athor r'O Mr. JaiTiSS W. lerk \u0026amp; 1----------- COURT eastern DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION MAR 1 1 2004 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK ____________ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAR 1' 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS 1. ORDER I have received a copy of Mr. Walkers March 10, 2004 letter to Ms. Ann S. Marshall. A copy of the letter is attached to this Order. The letter appears to be an anticipatory objection to a report that has not been filed\nand a request for facilitation by Ms. Marshall as the Director of the ODM. 2. When the LRSD report is filed, in the next few days, if Joshua perceives deficiencies in it, I would anticipate that, at that time, appropriate objections would be made, which might or might not include the points mentioned in the March 10 letter. J. I note parenthetically that the meeting in Ms. Marshalls office, referenced in the first paragraph of the March 10 letter, does not give a date of the meeting, and does not mention what compliance issues were discussed, nor does it identify the numerous areas of disagreement. Any objections filed after the LRSD report is in existence should be shot through with specificity and precision. 'I8- 4. Any suggestion of facilitating at this point, if there is such a suggestion to be read into the letter, is late  far too late. I am going to take the LRSD report, the objections, if any, by Joshua, and decide the issues presented on April 27, or soon thereafter. 5. Consistent with the specific directions given to the ODM, 1 would expect that office to file a report on the progress under  2.7.1. soon, so that the parties will have ample time to study it, and determine whether they want to rely on it at the April 26 - 27 hearing, or want to object to it or parts of it. 6. As I think can be discerned from the above, I expect reports and objections from the parties and the ODM to be timely filed, so that we can wrap the matter up during the April hearing. To this end, I invite your keen attention to my letter dated March 9, 2004. I point out that this letter contains directives, not goals or suggestions. rfH- IT IS SO ORDERED this / /^day of March, 2004. ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG| UNITED Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, pa. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbelLnet Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ^4/? / Re: Little Rock School District nsa\n's Dear Ms. Marshall: Now that we have the 8* Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our belief is that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work hand in glove to that end. When we last met -with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the Districts obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the Districts representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose of followup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004,1 received two lengthy reports from the District entitled\n1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation\nand 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSDs program evaluation. 1 We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter aha, the evaluations are keyed to No Child Left Behind mandates or State accountabihty mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the exphcit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its comphance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the Districts use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Courts Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the Districts intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for Afiican American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5* grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the surprising notation that substantial difierences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed Afiican American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 25) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated fi-om the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the Afiican American students during 2002-2003 in 4* grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4* graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesleys data. I read that the Courts Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use of this data, i.e., LRSD now has over three years of testing data. 57 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the Districts ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the participation of African American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address Afiican American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the Districts tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving Afiican American performance. 10) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for AlBrican American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of 4* or S'** grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA). 12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3The foregoing list is merely suggestive\nit is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wilson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the Districts compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you kindly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW\njs cc\nHonorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel 4 CHECK LIST FOR ENGLISH CLASSROOMS r Observed in class Top Ten Things That Should Be Seen Comments 1. Teacher engaged with students. 2. Students' creations on walls. 3. Students often seated in groups or pods._________________ 4. Students who can discuss their work.. 5. Students interacting with peers. 6. Classroom libraries and sustained reading time._________ 7. Students able to relate benchmarks, standards, assessments.__________ 8. Use of rubrics and performance-based assessments. 9. Benchmarks clearly displayed in room. 10.Teacher reading and writing with students. Observed in class Top Ten Things That Should Not _________________Be Seen____________ 1. Teacher sitting behind desk. 2. drab, boring, or \"old\" classroom. 3. Students in rows all the time. 4. Rote skill, drill or busy work. 5. Worksheets and packaged materials. 6. Prolonged silent periods of time. 7. One objective on board. 8. All multiple choice or \"canned\" tests. 9. Students who do not know how they are doing or waiting for overdue papers. 10. Paper grading in class by teacher while students are working. Comments Date Signature\ns c o 1 CQ cS  CQ o o o co \"S g 6 o O d Constructive and Effective Evaluation Granimar/Mechanics Taught in Context at Editing Stage Collaboration-------------------------------- Process Writing ------------------------- Scoring Guides\nRubrics --------------- Phase Questions\nWriting Writing before/after reading Teacher Modeling  Reading  Writing Silent Reading\nDiscussions Independent Reading Active Reading I (P \u0026gt; O (U -H Minilessons ______ Skills Taught in Context of Meaningful Literature  Grammar i Spelling/ Vocabulary Mugshots Dates IPrograms on Page 148, -intertm Compliance Report 2001-02 Evaluation Outcome of evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Date 2002-03 evaluation completed 2003-04 1* semester evaluation completed PreK-3 Literacy National Science Foundation Project Middle Schools Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Program SEDL Program-Southwest Middle School Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Vital LinkPrograms on Page 148, -tntertm Compliance Report 2001-02 Evaluation Outcome of evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Date 2002-03 evaluation completed 2003-04 1 st semester evaluation completed PreK-3 Literacy National Science Foundation Project Middle Schools Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Program SEDL Program-Southwest Middle School Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Vital LinkPrograms listed in Interim Compliance Report to improve student performance Evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Outcome of evaluation Title I Programs PLATO Labs Accelerated Learning Center Alternative Learning Center Summer School Tutoring Programs 21 Century Community Learning Centers Project ACT Tutoring Career Orientation Block Scheduling High School Advisory Program Personalized Education Plan K-12 Science Professional Development for Science Teachers Citizenship and Character EducationPrograms listed in the final Compliance Report to improve student performance Evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Outcome of evaluation Achievement Level Tests Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 3-5 Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 6-12 Criterion-Referenced Test (End if Unit/Modual Exams) Mathematics and Science State Benchmark Exams, Grades 4, 6, and 8 Stanford Achievement Test, g Edition Professional Development Instructional Standards Language Arts Mathematics Science Social Studies Staffing Curriculum Guides Teachers of Tomorrow AP World History Pilot Progrm in Grade 8 American History Citizenship Assessment Professional Development Social Studies ResourcesFine Arts Summer School Tutoring Programs Extended Year Education Pathwise Badgett Charter School Safe Schools/Healthy Students Grant Project 21 Century Community Learning Carters Grand Project Carnegie Planning Grant for High School Reform Proposal for Magnet School Grant for Cloverdale Middle School, Mabelvale Middle School, Fair High School, and McClellan High School Charter School Planning Grant to Expand the Accelerated Learning CenterRECEIVED First Quarterly Progress Update December 1, 2004 NOV 3 2004 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.l ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Outline Purpose This update is of actions taken with respect to the new Compliance Remedy: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. 9? B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. ... the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction C. program. 99 During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. 99 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals LRSD has hired three new professionals with knowledge and experience in assessment evaluation, and statistical analysis: As of October 1, 2004, the Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation team consists of: Karen DeJamette, PhD, Director (cite date of hire and bio) Maurecia Malcolm, Statistician (cite date of hire and bio) James C. Wohlleb, Statistician (cite date of hire and bio) Continued employment of Ed Williams, PhD, Statistician (cite bio) Yvette Dillingham, Testing Coordinator (cite bio) Irma Shelton and Malinda administrative assistants (cite years of experience)B. Devise and imbed a comprehensive program assessment process. In late September the reinvigorated PRE began devising the comprehensive program assessment process that will be deeply imbedded in LRSDs educational operations. Dr. Dejamette and staff continued cooperation with Dr. Steve Ross to review the draft Policy IL-R2 and to redefine the policy to include a comprehensive program assessment process that fits the needs of the Little Rock School District: Discussion of Drs. Brooks and Dejamette and Mr. Heller: Telephone conference between Drs. Dejamette \u0026amp; Ross: October 5 conference of Drs. Brooks, DeJamette, \u0026amp; Ross in Memphis: October 7 introductions to Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; general discussion. October 26 telephone conference of Drs. DeJamette \u0026amp; Ross \u0026amp; Mr. Wohlleb: Agreement by Dr. Ross: C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare four formal step 2 evaluations. LRSD has begun negotiations to hire Drs. Ross \u0026amp; Catterall to perform the following tasks... Drs. Ross and Catterall were contacted late September for preliminary conversations regarding the 4 step 2 evaluations for 2004-2005 [List dates and times of conversations with superintendent, school board, ODM, intervenors] Process of selecting programs for evaluation, including PRE staff efforts to initially review all programs currently operating and then to discuss possibilities with Ross and Catterall to determine selection of 4 programs to formally evaluate Design of Evaluation studies (mini-proposals?) Schedule of evaluations and reportsAppendices Resumes of staff Memo from Ross related to IL-R2 Schedule of tasks \u0026amp; assignmentsLittle Rock School District Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Evaluation Designs for Programs Greater Second Baptist Church 5615 Geyer Springs Road February 16, 2005 Agenda 7:45 a.m. Dr. Karen DeJarnette \u0026amp; PRE team welcome Drs. Steve Ross, Anna Grehan. Dan Strahl. \u0026amp; Aaron McDonald from U/Memphis \u0026amp; Drs. Gail Weems \u0026amp; Linda Dorn from UALR 8:30 a m. Drs. Lloyd Sain, Roy Brooks \u0026amp; Sadie Mitchell address principals 8:50 a m. Presentation of evaluation designs to principals by Dr. Steve Ross 9:30 Dr. Ross \u0026amp; team meet with directors of programs: 9:3010:15 Reading Recovery\nDr. Linda Dorn from UALR, Pat Busbea, \u0026amp; Krista Underwood 10:1511 Smart/Thrive: Vanessa Cleaver \u0026amp; Marcelline Carr 12:00 Center) Lunch Compass Learning: Lucy Neal \u0026amp; Travis Taylor (Tech 2 p.m. Wrap-up of PRE \u0026amp; Dr. Ross teams8: 00 - 8:25 LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING Greater Second Baptist Church Wednesday, February 16, 2005 8\n30 A.M. - 3\n00 P.M. Continental Breakfast 8:30 Call to Order Dr. Lloyd Sain 8:30 - 8:50 Organizational Chart Dr. Roy G. Brooks Dr. Sadie Mitchell 8:50-9:20 Evaluation Designs for Programs Dr. Steve Ross 9:20 -10:30 A.M. Constructivist Teaching in the Literacy Classrooms Dr. Olivine Roberts Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Suzi Davis Krista Underwood Elementary Principals - Downstairs Secondary Principals - Classroom #8 - Upstairs 10:30 -10:45 Break 10:45 -12:05 Part I: Constructivist Teaching Continued 12:05 -12:40 Lunch (On-site) 12:45 - 2:30 Part II: Constructivist Teaching 2:30 - 2:45 Break Return to Fellowship Hall for a General Meeting 2:45 - 3:05 Maculaitis Assessments Dr. Karen Broadnax 3:05-3:15 Wrap-up/Evaluation Drs. Sain and Mitchell Evaluation of heading Eecovey in the Uttle V^ock School System x=: Conducted by R\u0026amp;' j FEB i . CREP \u0026gt; Center for Research in Educational PolicyPrimaiy YLvaluation Question... a Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievements of African-American students? JJSupplemental Pivaluation Questions...  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the participating schools?  What is the level of participation in reading Recovery by African-American students?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other students in Reading Recovery in improving achievement?  What are the perceptions of the Reading Recovery teachers and principals?  What are the perceptions of regular first-grade teachers and other teachers regarding Reading Recovery?  What are the perceptions of parents of Reading Recovery students?Evaluation Procedures,..       DRA or Dibels 2004-05 Reading and Math Subtests Reading Recovery Teacher Phone Interviews Reading Recovery School Teachers Survey Reading Recovery Principal Interview with Randomly Selected Principals. Reading Recovery Achievement Profiles Tutoring Observations School Records/Archival Data (e.g. Participation) Reading Recovery Parent Survey    The Tutoring Observations will consist of Reading Recovery experts observing tutoring sessions.ILvaluation Timeline... February March-April May-June  Begin observations  Interview Reading Recovery Teachers  Survey Reading Recovery teachers and parents  Complete Reading Recovery teacher interviews  Profile Reading Recovery achievement  Analyze records/archival data analyses July-September October November  Analyze achievement data, survey and interviews  PRE reviews draft reports  PRE submits report to Little Rock School District for approval  Draft reports for reviewSchoolparticipation guidelines...    Promote the importance of the research among faculty and students Administer surveys at faculty meetings Facilitate researcher visits to schools It is important to remember that this study does not evaiuate individuai teachers or schools.Evaluation of the Smart! Thrive Programs in the Tittle Tock School District Conducted by CREP received FEB 1 . 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION uOHlTOWNG \u0026gt; Center for Research in Educational PolicyPrimary Evaluation Question... (( Have the Smart/Thrive programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African/American students? JJSupplementary Questions...  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 tutors regarding the program?  What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding the Smart/Thrive program?  What are the perceptions of participating students regarding the Smart/Thrive program?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Smart/Thrive students regarding the program?Iivaluation Procedures...  Achievement Analysis  Quasi Experimental  School Records/Archival Data (e.g. Participation)  Observations of Tutoring Sessions  Smart/Thrive Tutor Questionnaire  Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire  Smart/Thrive Student Questionnaire  Smart/Thrive Parent Questionnaire Observation of tutoring sessions wiii consist of visits to the Saturday Aigebra ci asses.ILvaluation Timeline... February March-April May-June  Observe Thrive Sessions  Administer Teacher, Tutor and Parent Questionnaire  Complete Focus Groups and Observations  Begin Focus Groups  Analyze records/archival data July-September October November  Analyze achievement data, survey and interviews  PRE reviews draft report  PRE submits report to Little Rock School District for approval  Draft reports for reviewSchool Participation Guidelines...  Promote the importance of the research among faculty and students  Facilitate researcher visits to schools It Is important to remember that this study does not evaiuate individual teachers or schools.Evaluation of Compass Eearning in the Uttle Eock School System Conducted by RECEJVED FEB 1 '1 2005 OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION I.iONlTORlNG CREP Center for Research in Educational Policy \u0026gt;Primary Evaluation Question... \"Has the Compass Learning program been effective in improving and remeditating the academic achievement of African-American students?\" Supplemental Questions...  What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of Compass Learning at the participating schools?  What is the level of participation by African-American students?  What are the perceptions of teachers and technology specialists?  What are the perceptions of parents?Evaluation Procedures... 1^      Student Level Achievement Analysis  Quasi Experimental Compass Learning Teacher Survey Technology Specialist Phone Interview District Compass Learning Program Coordinator Phone Interview 10 Two Hour Compass Learning Laboratory Observations 5-Twenty Minute Student Focus Groups Compass Learning Parent Survey School Records and Archival Data (e.g.. Participation)    Observations will be conducted by trained observers using CREP observation instruments validated through extensive research.Evaluation Timeline... February March-April May-June  Begin observations  Survey teachers \u0026amp; Parents  Analyze records/data analysis  Phone interviews of tech specialists  Complete observations, interviews and student focus groups. July-Sep tember October November  Analyze achievement data, survey and interviews  PRE reviews draft reports  PRE submits report to LRSD for approval  Draft report for reviewSchool participation guideline...    Promote the importance of the research among faculty and students Administer surveys at faculty meetings Facilitate researcher visits to schools 'J- It is important to remember that this study does not evaluate individual teachers or schools.Sent from to p2/ll F, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO COURTS OCTOBER 31, 2005 ORDER - LRSDS WITNESS SUMMARIES In response to the Courts Order of October 31, 2005, LRSD submits the following summaries of the expected testimony of its witnesses. LRSD estimates that the direct examination of each witnes.s will take thirty minutes. LRSD does not expect to call Dr. Brooks a,s a witness, a.s the PRE witnesses who report to Dr. Brooks can provide the same information he would provide. 1. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock. AR 72201 Mr. Jones is expected to testify that he had primary responsibility within the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor LRSDs implementation of the Courts June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy\nthat LRSDs Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) was cooperative and helpful\nthat he had access to all relevant documents and notice of all relevant meetings with the possible exception of a recent visit by Dr, Catterall which took place on October 17,2005\nthat LRSD hired qualified experts to perform the required S tep 2 program evaluations\nthatSent 03/11/2005 at 11:57:15 from to p3/ll PRE worked diligently to support those experts in their work\nthat LRSD also hired experts to perform additional program evaluations not required by the Courts compliance remedy\nthat he provided regular reports to the Court concerning the status of LRSDs compliance\nthat PRE, as far as he knows, provided Joshua access to relevant documents and notice of relevant meetings concerning the Step 2 evaluations with the possible exception of a recent visit by Dr, Catterall which took place on October 17,2005\nthat LRSD changed the subject of one proposed Step 2 evaluation at the request of the Joshua intervenors\nthat the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 require data from the Arkansas benchmark exams for their completion\nthat such data was not available in a form useful to LRSDs experts before October 1\nthat the reporting of Arkansas benchmark results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education\nthat there is nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the reporting of benchmark exam results\nthat in late 2004 and early 2005 LRSD considered seeking and extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for four Step 2 evaluations\nand that by March, 2005 LRSD had decided to wait to see if the State supplied the test scores from the Spring 2005 testing in time for the District to meet the deadline\nthat LRSD notified him of that decision and that he notified the Court. 2. Dr. Karen DeJarnette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 3ff'' \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Karen DeJarnette is expected to testily that she i.s director of PRE and has been since September 17,2004\nthat implementing the compliance remedy has been PREs top priority during the time she has been its director\nthat she and her staff at PRE have worked diligently to implement the compliance remedy\nthat LRSD hired Dr. James S. Catterall. a qualified expert, to evaluate its 2Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:57:43 from to P4/11 Year-Round Education (YRE) prognim\nthat LRSD hired Dr. Steve Ross, a qualified expert, to pertorm the Step 2 evaluations ot SMART/THRTVE, Compass Learning, and Reading Recovery\nthat Drs. Catterall and Ross were provided copies of the compliance remedy and that they each signed a Memorandum of Understanding on February 1, 2005 agreeing to conduct the Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the compliance remedy\nthat they were actively involved in the design and planning of Step 2 evaluations beginning in 2004\nthat PRE worked cooperatively with ODM and Joshua, providing them access to documents and notice of meetings so that they would be constantly aware of LRSDs progress in meeting the requirements of the compliance remedy\nthat. beginning in December 2004 through March 2005, LRSD considered the question of whether to seek an extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for submission of the Step 2 evaluations so that PRE and the LRSD Board of Directors would have more time to review the evaluations prior to their submission to the Court\nthat those discussions were predicated on the belief that benchmark exam results would be available in July 2005\nthat during February or March, 2005, LRSD raised the question of additional time with the Joshua Intervenors and was told that Joshua would oppose any such request\nthat LRSD decided in March 2005 not to make a request for an extension of time and notified ODM of that decision\nthat the LRSD Superintendent and Board of Directors expected PRE to meet the requirements of the Compliance Remedy\nthat the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 required data from the Spring 2005 administration of the Arkansas benchmark examinations\nthat in order to be useful to Drs. Catterall and Ross, that data must be in digital form\nthat the benchmark examination results were not available in digital form before October 1, 2005 although PRE had a good faith belief that they would be available in July 2005\nthat the reporting of Arkansas benchmark examination results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas 3Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58:14 from to p5/ll Department of Education\nthat there was nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the reporting of the necessary benchmark examination results\nand that no one in PRE or anywhere within LRSD did anything for the purpose of avoiding or delaying compliance with the Compliance Remedy\nthat the requested extension of time was made in good faith based on a belief that it is necessary to secure high quality evaluations in accordance with the Compliance Remedy\nand that the delay will not reduce the usefulness of the evaluations to LRSD - they will be used to make any indicated program changes for the 2006-07 school year, just as they would have been used had they been received on October 1, 2005, 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. O. Box 951521 Lo.s Angeles, CA 90005 Dr. Catterall is expected to testify in accordance with his Affidavit which was previously filed in this case. Dr. Catterall will be available by telephone on November 7, 2005 at 310-455- 2720. 4. Dr. Steven M. Ross Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Dr. Ross is expected to testify that he was hired to perform three Step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year in accordance with the Courts June 30,2004 Compliance Remedy\nthat he has been hired to conduct three Step 2 evaluations for the 2005-06 school year in accordance with the 4Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58:36 - from to p6/ll Courts June 30. 2004 Compliance Remedy\nthat PRE has been cooperative and responsive in supporting his work and providing him any requested assistance\nthat 2004-05 final benchmark examination results (not raw data) in a usable digital format are necessary for him to complete the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005\nthat such information is not yet available\nand that LRSD has done nothing to hinder or delay his efforts to perform Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the requirements of the June 30,2004 Order. He will further testify that all of the field work necessary to accomplish the evaluations was completed in a timely manner and that he wax waiting for the benchmark examinations so that the work of integrating these tests scores could complete the evaluations\nthat it was only the receipt of the exam results which prevented him from completing his assignment. 5. Jim Wohlleb Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation JO\"* \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Jim Wohlleb is expected to testify that he began work for LRSD on October 1, 2004 as a statistical research specialist within the PRE Department. Beyond that, his testimony is expected to be substantially the same as that of Dr. Karen DeJamette. 6. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 72201 5Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58:59 - from to p7/ll Dr. Gayle Potter is expected to testify that she is Associate Director for Academic Standards and Assessment at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE)\nthat she is the person within ADE primarily responsible for testing in general and the Arkansas benchmark examinations in particular\nthat the benchmark examination results for the 2004-05 school year were originally expected to be released in July 2005\nthat on June 23, 2005 ADE issued an informational memo to Arkansas Superintendents notifying them that committee.s were working to reset the cut score.s for each performance level of the Benchmark Exams and consequently the examination results would be issued in two phases\nthat Phase I would consist of cds containing raw score reports which would be shipped to districts no later than July 1, 2005\nthat assumptions about whether a student is proficient cannot be made based on raw scores\nand that Phase 11 Reports placing students into new performance levels will be issued in the fall of 2005\"\nthat the digital benchmark data necessary for statistical analysis will be released in mid-November\nthat release of the benchmark examination results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education and its contractors\nthat LRSD has done nothing to delay the release of the results\nand that there is nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the release of the digital data required by its experts to complete their Step 2 evaluations. 7. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 Christopher Heller wilt testify that he filed a Motion to Extend Time on September 29,2005 based on a good faith belief, after reasonable inquiiy, that the matters presented in that Motion were 6Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:59:25 - from to P8/11 true\nthat he filed a response to the Courts September 30,2005 Order on October 4,2005 based on a good faith belief, after reasonable inquiry, that the matters presented in that response were true\nthat, having now had the opportunity to review hundreds of emails and other documents, he believes that the conversation with counsel for Joshua described at page 2 of \"LRSDs Response to Order probably occuned in February or March rather than June or July, The principal reason for not tiling LRSDs Motion to Extend Time sooner than September 29, 2005 was counsels intense involvement on behalf of LRSD in Lake View v. Huckabee-, that matter was scheduled as follows\nMay 5,2005 Arkansas Supreme Court issues Per Curiam Order scheduling oral argument on May 19, 2005\nMay 19, 2005 Oral Argument\nJune 9, 2005 Mandate recalled and Masters reappointed\nJuly 8, 2005 Disclosure of witnesses and exhibits\nJune 28, 2005 Case conference with Masters\nJuly 19, 2005 Multiple daily depositions begin and continued for several weeks\nJuly 26,2005 Date of hearing as originally scheduled is rescheduled to begin on August 29, 2005 because parties cannot complete preparations\nAugust 29 through September 9, 2005 Hearings\nSeptember 20, 2005 Post Hearing Briefs due. Counsel and PRE had anticipated that electronic data from the State of Arkansas would be available 7Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:59:47 from to p9/ll in July and that the October 1,2005 deadline could, therefore, be met. Counsel did receive an e-mail from Dr. DeJamette on June 30, 2005 setting forth that the state benchmark scores could not be available in July. Counsel did not respond or react to that e-mail in a timely fashion because of his involvement in the Lake View case. Counsel did not recognize until September 2005 that the critical information would not be available, and it was then that the Motion to Extend Time was filed. Counsel will testify that it was an inadvertent but important omission on his part for which he accepts responsibility. Respectfully Submitted. Philip E. Kaplan (68026) Kaplan. Brewer, Maxey \u0026amp; Haralson P.A. 415 Main Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 372-0400 Pkaplan @kbmlaw.net /sZ Philip E. Kaplan 8Sent 03/11/2005 at 12:00:02 from to plO/11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 3, 2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following\nClark-hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sionesft'mwsgw.com siQiies@ili.cotn iohawalkeranv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Sheet Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Philip E. Kaplan 9VQ/XX/Z.UVO dL ii:uo:oa rom to p2/5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Pagel of4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4\n82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REPLY TO THE DIRECTIVE OF THE COURT DATED OCTOBER 31.20GS The Court seeks as explanation for LRSDs failure to promptly inform the Court that it needed an extension of time in which to meet the October 1,2005 requirements of e Courts June 30, 2004 Order. The burden is on the District to explain why delay was not promptly sought The active parties have submitted extensive lists of witnesses through whom the Courts limited concern would be addressed on November?, 2005. Joshua acknowledges its initial witness list to have had a broader agenda than the issue to be addressed at the hearing. Accordingly Joshua reduces its witness list to the persons called by the defendants and to the following other persons with a summary of their anticipated testimony if they are not called by the LRSD\n1) Dr. Roy Brooks: his involvement in the process was minimal, not an agenda item for him or the Board and he did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did impress upon him the significance or importance of the 1X X um CU po/ O Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 2 of 4 2) 3) 4) time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1,2004 and October 6,2005 on other matters. 20 minutes Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh\nhis involvement in the process was also minimal, not an agenda item for him or the Board and he, too, did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did not impress upon him the significance or importance of the time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1,2004 and October 6,2005 on other matters. 15 minutes Dr. Olivine Roberts: (a) the interaction between herself, Dr. DeJamette, the Joshua Intervenors, the State Department of Education, the PRE staff, the expert witnesses. Drs. Brooks and Hattabaugh and Mr. Chris Heller\n(b) her minimal involvement in the process\nand, (c) her failure to ever meet and discuss any evaluation issue including the need for additional time for compliance with Joshua, the ODM or the State Department of Education. 45 minutes Joy Springer\n(a) will address Mr. Hellers contentions in his reply dated October 4, 2005. She will establish that Mr. Heller infonned Joshua in February 2005 that the Benchmark results would not likely be prepared prior to September 2005\n(b) that when Mr. Heller appeared before the Eighth Circuit on April 12,2005, he presented Dr. DeJamette and Dr. Brooks as he indicated that the district was complying with this Court's Order while appealing\n(c) Joshuas efforts to be involvedin the process\n(d) that LRSD and Mr. Heller knew long before September 29, 2005 that LRSD would not likely be able to meet the deadline\nand (f) LRSD did nothing to advance receipt of the data from the processing sources. 30 minutes 2a c XI um ro Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 3 of 4 5) 6) Mr. Dennis Glasgow: he will address his efforts to prevent Dr. Steve Ross further participation in the evaluation process, and his efforts to delay compliance activities. 30 minutes Mr. Gene Jones: will address the knowledge of ODM regarding the process, the advice given by ODM regarding extending the Court ordered time, and the response of the LRSD to that advice. 30 minutes Respectfully submitted, /s/John W. Walker______________ John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Facsimile) Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781)862-1955 3UJtill b X/ X.UVU a. L irom to pb/b Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 4 of 4 XX\nlu:uo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that on this 2' day of November, 2005,1 electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which shall send electronic notifications to all counsel associated with this case and by other means to counsel listed below. Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NA.ACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney Generals Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 /s/John W, Walker 4John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS received MAR 2005 ' OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION InONlTORlNG Via Facsimile March 8, 2005 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 mar o 2C05 RECEiVi 0 Re: LRSD Program Evaluations DESEGREGADON I'.iONlTORING Dear Margie: When we met in my office in November, 2004,1 was left with the understanding that you would prepare notes of our meeting. If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies. Sincerely, W. Walker JWW:jsrm I JOHN W, walker SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. Walker, PA. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Bock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-376S Fas (501) 374-4187 I I Via Facsimile -447-7609 March 17,2005 OP COUNSEL ROBERT MsKENSy, P.A DONNAJ. McHENKY 8210 HfiNDSRSON ROAD Little mnwn 70010 PbonT\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email\natcheniydgswbeiiMt Karen DeJamette, PhD. Director PRE Little Rock School District 3001 Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. DeJamette: RECEIVED MAR 1 8 2005 S: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING jESEGhui\n. I am advised by Ms. Springer that you promised to share with us, as you did with all other participants, by email copies of all documents, i.e. data collection instruments, discussed during the meetings on February 16,2005 prior to final print. To date, we have not received any of the final drafts for comments. You will recall that there were discussions regarding the survey forms for parents and teachers and other data collection documents where feedback was given. None of the final documents have been shared with us. I note that you have reported to the Court That counsel for Joshua Intervenors provided feedback and assisted with the final design of data collection instruments.' Would you also provide all documents including agendas, notes and any documents disseminated during the parent and teacher meetings held on or about February 24,2005. Finally, this is to request that you provide to this office any and all documents that you have shared and intend to share in the future with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Your cooperation is appreciated. I lincerely, 1 .'Walker I 'b JWWijs cc: Mr. Gene Jones, ODMptg^ Mzz Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge April 21,2005 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Associate Monitors Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 received APR 2 1 2005 OFFICE OF DBSESRE6M10H MOHnOWHO Dear Mr. Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Powell: On Friday, May 6, at 2 PM we are convening the four teams participating in the Step-2 Evaluations of Little Rock School District programs. This session will occur in room 19 of the Instructional Resource Center at 3001 South Pulaski Street. We expect about an hour and a half duration. In addition to notifying you of this event, we invite you in case you would like to learn our progress evaluating Compass Learning, Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, and Year- Round Education. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, mette, Ph.D. Director, PRE xc: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032MAY. 2.2005 2:i3Pn JOHN W WALKER P A NO.459 P.2 JOHN W. walker SHAWN CHILDS JOHN w. Walker, p.a, ATTORNEY AT Law 1723 BaoALiWAy IJTTLS Sees, 72206 Tblrphone CROI) 374.375fi FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile Mw2,2005 OFCOIJNSEL ROBERT McHENRY PA DONNA J. McHENRY 82X0 RoaD LrmE Rock. Askans-as 72210 Phone\n(SOl) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Eil-z.: mdiemyd^wtejlirt K^en DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PSE Little Reek Sehuul District ^iO West Markham Little Rode, AR 72201 Dear Dr. DeJamette: I am in recent of your letter April 21,2005. This is to fiir\u0026amp;er advise that we have not received the requested iafonnation per our letter to you dated March 17,2005. Sincerely, W. Walker J^W\njs ce\nOffice of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Gene Jones 124 West Capitxri Avenue, Suite 1S95 Little Rode. AR 72201 Catterall 5/11/2005 Draft Questions for Parent Interviews Target parents. Identify parents of an YRE student or students where at least one of these students spent two or more years in a traditional calendar year school. The main goal is to interview parents who have seen the same student (or students) in both the traditional and YRE school setting. Randomly select 20 of these parents from each of five YRE schools. Conduct a phone interview with each parent. A. Explain the purpose of the inten'iew. We are interested in how Year Round Education sckaobng in Lillie Rock is working, especially when it comes to student leaning. Since you have experience in both YRE and traditional calendar schools, wed like to asK you a few questions  X number questions to he exact. Your name will be confidential. It will not appear in any of our reports and only your school name will remain with our notes from this interview. B. Confirm that a child in this family attended both YRE and traditional calendar schools. 1. What was the reason your students change from traditional calendar to YRE education? a. The school changed to YRE./_/ b. My child transferred to a YRE school/_/ c. Multiple children  both reasons apply. Capture the essence of responses, but always check\na,, b., or c. You may spark talk of rationales for changing schools here  e.g 1 wanted my student to learn more, wanted access to inter-sessions, didnt like previous school, etc. If parent claims to be dissatisfied with prior school, hear parent out here and bring this oack up when asking about differences between YRE and traditional calendar schools faelow. Record worthwhile quotes.2. What are the main differences you see between YRE and traditional calendar year schools? Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. Retrospectively group into categories in for reporting. 3. Lets focus particularly on how different schools help kids learn If applicable, solicit elaborations of any school effectiveness differences reported in Question 2. (Remember to focus on comparisons between YRE and traditional calendar year schools.) Or if learning did not come up in response to Question 2, ask parent: Whar do you see as (he main differences in student learning in YRE vs. traditional calendar year schools? Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. 4. (If learning-related differences seem not well addressed in responses to Question 2, push harder on ieaming differences through the following question. If learning- differences were well-covered, skip to question 5.) Are there things about the YRE calendar that help kids learn better? (Draw out parent on perceptions of learning differences, YRE to traditional calendar.) You will probably get these sorts of responses, so check-off if you hear any of these\na. Kids are in school more. b. Shorter breaks/vacations. i- Kids forget less academic content iii. Shorter gaps in teaching. iv. Kids remember better how to behave in school. c. Inter-sessions help kids leam more. d. Teachers seem to like YRE better, and are happier in their jobs. e. Others (specify each). Also\nCapture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. Retrospectively group into categories in for reporting.5. In comparing YRE to traditional calendar schools, do you think that children feel differently about school or about themselves in one type versus another? Yes, a lot. Yes, a little. No. Check one that best describes main response. If No, interview is done. If Yes, probe for what kinds of differences and why they might exist. Pay attention to claims that specific aspects of being an YRE school affect how kids feel about school. their motivation for school. their outlook. And other effects mentioned. Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. 6. Does your child/children talk about the fact that the they are in an YRE school? If yes, what kinds of things do they say? Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes.A.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge May 26, 2005 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3522 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Chris: This accompanies three copies of the third quarterly update, in compliance with the June 30, 2004 memorandum opinion of the U.S. District Court, due June 1,2005. Tucked inside the front of each is a copy of Dr. DeJamettes letter to Mr. Walker today indicating our interest in evaluating the 2U Century Learning Communities as the Joshua intervenors recommended in his letter of May 24 (previously copied to you). Please let us know if you would like more information. Thank you for your advice in preparing this update. Sincerely yours, James C. Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation (PRE) Enc. xc: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 810 W. Markham - Lithe Rock. Arkansas 72201  wwrw.irsd.K12.ar.us .501-32200C r\n50- 24-20t Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 received may 2 7 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.l ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge May 27, 2005 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: We received your letter of May 24 as a facsimile on the same day acknowledging your receipt of lists of programs from us. Primarily from them, we selected the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross are evaluating this year. Your recommendation, in your May 24 letter, to evaluate the 2E Century Community Learning Centers interests us. After discussing it with Dr. Ross and others, we propose to evaluate it rather than PLATO Learning during the coming school year. Because our quarterly update for June 1 has already been printed (which we are delivering to you with this letter), the next update can report this change for next years evaluations. We understand that 2E Century Community Learning Centers will end within a year or so at several of the sites you named. Limiting our evaluation to a few sites where the programs support is secure for at least a couple more years makes sense to us. We will keep you informed of our progress and invite your further ideas. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further comments or questions. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJarneoe, Ph.D. Director, PRE xc: Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell, ODM Mr. Chris Heller, Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 810 W. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  vrv.rv.irsd,kl2.ar.up 501-324-200C'  fax\n501 -32^-2032C'- An Individual Approach to a World o/Knoivledge May 27, 2005 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 Dear Mr. Pressman\nMr. Walker requested that we furnish you the accompanying quarterly update of June 1 and future updates. You might also like a copy of my recent reply to Mr. Walker regarding evaluation of the 2D' Century Learning Communities. If you did not see the article, you might want to find the article about the program by Sue Shellenbarger in The Wall Street Journal of May 26, 2005. We will keep you informed of our progress and invite your further ideas. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further comments or questions. Sincerely yours, Director, PRE xc: Mr. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 g 810 W MarKham  Littie Rock. ^irKansas 72201 * www.ifsd.ki2.ar.us -2000 ra::\n501RECEIVED JUN -6 2005 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSDS NOTICE OF FILING QUARTERLY UPDATE Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Quarterly Update dated June 1, 2005 states: 1. The attached document is the third quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. It has been provided to the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004). 2. LRSD is filing this Quarterly Update so that the Court may be aware of the compliance work done by LRSD to comply with the Courts Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update as required by the Court.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY\nChristopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 1 day of June, 2005: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Buildin\"o Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 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 Christopher 2 I 'si! DATE: June 23, 2005 TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda BACKGROUND: LRSD policy requires an annual Evaluation Agenda proposed to the Board of Directors outlining Li xwUz UUllvy I  **- ---- --- -------------- - I I J X. external evaluation activities with projected costs. During 2004-2005 PRE has engaged tvvo outside consultants to evaiuate four District programs. The 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda consists of five external evaluations:  4 Step-2 program evaluations mandated by Judge Wilson in 2004, and  1 non-mandated evaluation recommended by the PRE department RATIONALE: LRSD is complying with U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67) to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. In December 2004, the Board of Directors approved this process. It provides for a range of educational program evaluations with respect to their scientific rigor and complexity, and it  ___ .\u0026gt; I __I__ .x: requires participation by LRSD stakeholders in the design and execution of evaluations. In the same Opinion, the Court ordered, During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations.\" By step 2\" the court meant for evaluations to delve into underlying .... ri. ___ -ruz, rir^or r,,that thp Cmift rfirected ths District to examine is reasons for outcomes. The primary outcome that the Court directed the examine the academic achievement of African-American students. The Opinion also instructs the PRE with the outside consultants and encourages it to evaluate additional Department to cooperate District programs. Court-Mandated Evaluations for 2005-2006: For siep 2 evaluations in 2005-2006, Dr. Ross has identified four 2.7 programs, named on the following page.1. Arkansas A+ Schools Network, at Woodruff Elementary School, incorporates the arts in teaching language and mathematics. Projected Cost: $30,000 2. Knowledgepoints is a Supplemental Educational Service (SES) selected at Bale, Brady, Chicot, Wakefield, and Watson Elementary Schools and offered there as an after-school program. Projected Cost: $30,000 3. 21' Century Learning Centers offer a broad array of out-of-school support services, programs, and activities designed to help students meet academic standards and to increase student achievement. Projected Cost: $30,000 4. Pre-kindergarten (PreK) literacy development will be evaluated in the 31 schools with classes for 4-year-old children. These young students participate in developmentally appropriate and fun lessons and activities intended to nurture essential language skills. Projected Cost: $50,000 Dr. Catterall will evaluate Arkansas A+, while Dr. Ross will evaluate KnowledgePoints, 21 Century Learning Centers, and PreK literacy. st Data for schools where these programs operated this year (2004-2005) are in the tables below. Additional schools may participate next year, particularly schools chosen per the school choice option of No Child Left Behind regulations. Schools in these tables which are on the Arkansas School Improvement List are so noted by an asterisk (*). Proposed Programs Evaluations 2005-2006 2004-2005 School Data Schools Number of Teachers Number of Students Percent of Students African- American Percent of Students Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch Woodruff* A+ I 235 I 91 86 Bale* Brady* Chicot* Wakefield* Watson* Mabelvale Middle* McClellan* Henderson* Hall* 27 28 44 29 34 Knowledgepoints 319 318 536 451 456 82 78 73 78 96 21*' Century Community Learning Centers 57 75 60 105 634 925 630 1464 81 92 82 75 86 80 86 92 93 75 56 70 52 77^ I These schools are designated for School Improvement.LRSD Schools Offering PreK Classes for Four-Year-Old Students No. of No. of Max. Enroll- No. of Per cent School Bale* Baseline* Brady* Carver Chicot* Cloverdale* Dodd Fair Park* Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M. L. King* Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller* Romine Stephens* Terry Wakefield* Washington* Watson* Western Hills Wilson* Woodruff* Teachers Aides Students 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 . 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 40 40 40 20 80 40 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 40 20 40 40 40 80 40 40 80 40 20 20 40 ment 38 39 37 20 59 40 36 37 40 55 40 36 40 80 38 40 40 39 20 38 39 39 78 35 39 75 36 37 18 36 AAf 32 32 27 NAt 46 32 22 28 2 52 8 35 5 46 31 27 35 22 6 38 24 31 72 18 29 67 34 20 16 32 AA 84.2 82.1 73.0 NA 78.0 80.0 61.1 75.7 5.0 94.5 20.0 97.2 12.5 57.5 81.6 67.5 87.5 56.4 30.0 100.0 61.5 79.5 92.3 51.4 74.4 89.3 94.4 54.1 88.9 88.9 t AA is African American. NA is not available. * These schools are designated for School Improvement.  In the 2005-2006 school year, Fair Park Elementary converts to a preK center with eight or more classes\nwhile the other elementary schools keep their current preK capacity.Non-mandated Evaluations: In addition to four court-mandated studies, PRE recommends a fifth external evaluation that will focus on Magnet Schools and Schools with Specialty Magnet Programs. Projected Cost: $60,000 The proposed Magnet School evaluation includes the study and evaluation of 18 magnet schools and specialty magnet programs within the Little Rock School District - six Stipulated Magnet Schools, four Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) Schools and eight Specialty Magnet Programs. Stipulated Magnet Schools and Themes - 2004-2005 Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Magnet School Theme Percent of Students African-American Percent of Eligible Students Free/Reduced 1 Lunch Elementary Schools Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Middle Schools Mann * High Schools Parkview Arts Magnet Basic Skills/Math-Science International Studies/ Foreign Languages Traditional Magnet Arts and Science Arts and Science 53 52 53 52 52 51 63 53 44 34 37 22 Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools and Themes - 2004-2005^ Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Middle Schools Cloverdale * Mabelvale * Magnet School Theme Percent of Students African-American Percent of Eligible Students Free/Reduced Lunch^ Engineering, Multimedia \u0026amp; Economics Medical Studies, Environmental Science and 82 86 81 75  Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances. 2004-2005 was the fourth and last year of MSAP funding for these four schools Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude 3 indicator of family economic circumstances.information Technology High Schools J.A. Fair* McClellan * Science and technology Systems Engineering, Multimedia and Business Finance 85 92 Special Magnet Program* Themes - 2004-2005 54 56 Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Elementary Schools King Rockefeller Romine Washington * Middle Schools Dunbar * Henderson * High Schools Central Hall* 4 5 Magnet School Theme Percent of Students African-American Percent of Eligible Students Free/Reduced Lunch International, High Intensity Learning Early Childhood Computer Science and Basic Skills (Interdistrict) Basic Skills Math-Science Magnet (Interdistrict) Gifted and Talented, International Studies Health Science International Studies University Studies 60 67 76 76 61 82 51 75 55 66 76 80 57 70 28 52 These Specialty Programs are special programs which these schools offer. Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances.All five external evaluations will seek to answer the following Primary Evaluation Question: Have the Programs been effective in improving students academic achievement? How effective have they been among African-American students? To ensure that a full range of quantitative and qualitative data is collected, the evaluators will use a variety of data collection tools and activities. They are:  classroom observations and protocols  surveys of parents, teachers, and students  interviews of students, administrators, parents, teachers  focus groups  student work portfolios  district data, e.g., demographic data, standardized test scores  site- and district-generated program documents The evaluators will be required to adhere to Professional Standards for Program Evaluation and to provide a complete list of standards used. FUNDING: Total projected costs for five studies: $200,000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board will approve the 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda. i ! IJuly 22, 2005 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for your request for ACTAAP \u0026amp; ITBS disaggregated test results by school, race and gender from last school year. We have received such data related to the ITBS, however, ACTAAP data received by LRSD consists only of raw scores for individual students and is not yet normalized by the Department of Education. Our PRE Department will prepare a set of ITBS data for you in the format you requested and furnish it to you within two weeks. Please let us know whether this satisfies your request. Si^erely yours. Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 10/03/2005 08:51 5016045149 WILSON PAGE 02/02 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern district of ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 800 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3326 (501)604-5140 Facaimila (501) 604-5149 October 3,2005 FAX LETTER Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Mr. Robert Peter Pressman Attorney at Law 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD. et al, 4:82-cv-866-wrw Dear Counsel: I realize that this is short notice, but if possible, I would like to get the Joshua Intervenors response to LRSDs Motion for Extension of Time by 5 p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, October 4,2005. If tomorrow afternoon is not enough timely, please file your response as soon as practicable  at the latest, by the deadline set by the rules. Cordially, Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Other Counsel of Recordreceived IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 3 2005 I,.- OFFICE Of desegregation MONITORJNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states\n1. In accordance with the June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy in this case, LRSD has engaged experts to prepare four Step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year. The progress of those evaluations has been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD, the most recent of which was filed on August 31, 2005. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 1, 2005. 2. The four Step 2 program evaluations cannot be completed without the results of the benchmark examinations administered by the State of Arkansas for the 2004-05 school year. The benchmark examination results are not yet available and will not be available until October 1 or later. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. James Catterall, the experts hired by LRSD to conduct the four Step 2 program evaluations, estimate that if they receive the benchmark exam results in early October that they would be able to deliver completed program evaluations by early January 2006. Letters from Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall explaining the need for more time are attached to this Motion. 3. The requested extension of time is necessary to ensure the delivery of useful programevaluations which will fulfill the purposes of the compliance remedy. The requested extension of time will not delay any decisions about whether to continue, expand, modify or discontinue programs. Those decisions will be made in the Spring and will be effective for the 2006-07 school year. 4. LRSD has attempted to contact the Joshua Intervenors to secure their agreement to the requested extension of time, but has not yet received a response. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the attached letters from Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall, Plaintiff Little Rock School District requests an extension of the time within which it must file four Step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year to and including Monday, January 16, 2006. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Zs/ Christopher Heller 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 29,2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CMZECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@aK.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw-com siones@ili.com iohnwalkerattv@aol.com and I hereby certify that on September 29,2005,1 mailed the document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CMZECF participants: Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. 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 ZsZ Christopher Heller 3UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES BERKELEY* DAVIS  IRVINE  LOSANCELES  RIVERSIDE  SAN DIEGO  SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA  SANTA CRUZ UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies P.O. Box 951521 Los Angeles. CA 90095-1521 September 26,2005 Karen DeJarnette, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206-2873 Dear Karen: According to Dr. Julian, Assistant Commissioner for the state Department of Education, her agency will receive results of the Benchmark test scores \"around the first of October\", and your experience with release of digitally formatted data indicates that you may not receive data to pass on to me and my research staff until several weeks after the state receives it. At any rate, we do not have data in hand necessary to complete our report on Year-Round Education, certainly not by the present due date of October 1, 2005. Assuming you can deliver correctly formatted data by early November, I can furnish a draft in early December and the final report by early January 2006. This schedule should permit analyzing the data, composing a complete draft, and producing the final report. Anything you can do to confirm the date of data delivery will help our team plan the balance of the work. Sincerely, (e-mailed September 26, 2005 - Signed original sent express) jsc James S. Catterall, Ph.D. Professor Voice: (310) 825-5572 Fax: (310)206-6293 E-mail: jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Center of Excellence 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Office: 901.678.2310 Toll Free: 866.670.6147 Fax: 901.678.4257 September 23,2005 www.memphis.edu/crep Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206-2873 Dear Dr. Dejamette: I have been informed that the State of Arkansas will receive student-level Benchmark test scores at the beginning of October this year and release them to the school districts some time after that. I further understand that the digital version, which we need for computer analysis, will be available after the State sends printed versions to the districts. Thus, the data may not be available to my research staff until perhaps late fall. Whatever the actual delivery date, it typically takes us about six to eight weeks to run, verify, and interpret the analyses and then produce the draft report. I am asking you to take this time requirement into account in projecting when our final report could be ready following the release to us of Benchmark data. Given the dates above, we believe a reasonable date for delivery of the final report is early January 2006. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opportunity  Affirmative Action UniversityRECEIVED OCT 3 2005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS ORDER Pending is Little Rock School Districts Motion to Extend Time (Doc. No. 3938), the first paragraph of which, reads as follows: In accordance with the June30, 2004 Compliance Remedy in this case, LRSD has engaged experts to prepare four Step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year. The progress of those evaluations has been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD, the most recent of which was filed on August 31, 2005. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 1, 2005. For emphasis I note that the above quoted paragraph correctly reflects that the June 30, 2004 order directed (not suggested) that the subject evaluations were to be filed on October 1, 2005 (actually, the Order directed that the evaluations were to be filed no later than October 1, 2005, but this is a small point). Late yesterday (at 4:34 p.m., to be specific), September 29, 2005, with one working day left before the October 1 deadline, LRSD filed this Motion to Extend Time. It appears from the other matters set forth in the motion, that LRSD cannot meet the October 1 deadline because of uncompleted tasks. 1Before writing anything else I feel compelled to quote my complete order of July 26, 2004: Regardless of an appeal, LRSD is required to continue full speed ahead, on all points, with respect to the compliance remedy set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of June 30,2004 (Doc. No. 3875). As was noted in the June 30 Memo, LRSD is required to do only what it volunteered to do. I assume that I am stating the obvious, but, as folks are wont to say nowadays, I wanted to make sure that we are all on the same page. LRSDs Motion to Extend Time also contains this paragraph: LRSD has attempted to contact the Joshua Intervenors to secure their agreement to the requested extension of time, but has not yet received a response. Since the current motion by LRSD presents a weighty matter (at least my view), it seems that it would be important to have a response from Joshuas lawyers before the deadline passes. Is it possible that both lawyers of record for Joshua are traveling out of the country sans omnipresent cell phones? If what I have said above has not made it clear, I will now state it plainly - I am not happy with the Johnny-come-lately motion. These things, among others, are on my mind: 1. How long has LRSD known that they were not going to comply with the Courts direct, specific order? 2. Why was the motion not filed until the 11th hour? 3. Does this last minute filing demonstrate that LRSD is treating the Courts directives with studied neglect? 'Doc. No. 3890 (emphasis in original). 24. 5. Is LRSD playing for time in the hope that the Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse, thereby relieving LRSD of what it was plainly obliged to do, regardless of the appeal? Why should a last minute motion like this be granted? LRSD is directed to file a plenary response to each of the above questions by 5 p.m. next Tuesday, October 4, 2005. I note that sixty-nine page Order entered on June 30, 2004 was so long and detailed because LRSD pled that it did not understand exactly what its obligations were under earlier orders. It seems that this detailed order of June 30, 2004 did head off pleas of misunderstanding. but not a last minute motion to avoid its plain obligations, at least until a much later date. A hearing on LRSDs Motion to Extend Time will be set forthwith. The exact nature of that hearing will be determined after I receive LRSDs document in response to this Order (due next Tuesday, October 4, 2005, by 5 p.m.). IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2005. Zs/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr._____________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 C,' Filed 10/04/2005 Paget of4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 OCT 5 2005 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS LRSDS RESPONSE TO ORDER For its response to the Courts September 30, 2005 Order directing the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to file a plenary response to each of five questions, LRSD states: Question No. 1: How long has LRSD known that they were not going to comply with the Courts direct, specific order? Response: LRSD, Joshua and ODM have known for months that benchmark examination results had not yet been reported. LRSD has known since September 19, 2005 that the Arkansas Department of Education would receive the results of the benchmark examinations from its contractor around the first of October. LRSD has now received hard copies of the reports, but the electronic data necessary for the evaluations is not likely to be available for two or three weeks. Question No. 2: Why was the motion not filed until the 11* hour? Response: The Motion was not filed earlier for at least three reasons, all of which were influenced by the fact that both Joshua and ODM were aware that benchmark examination results had not yet been reported and that the experts could not complete the Step 2 evaluations without them. First, LRSD did not know until September 19 when the 2004-05 benchmark scores would be released, and consequently would have had to request an indefinite extension of time. Second,Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 2 of 4 LRSD discussed the situation with Joshua in June or July and was told by Joshuas counsel that Joshua not only would oppose any motion to extend time but would also seek to litigate other issues upon LRSDs filing of such amotion. LRSD decided that there was no point in provoking additional litigation during the pendency of its appeal. Finally, the need for the extension of time was dictated by matters beyond LRSDs control. The timing of the motion would not alter the facts that the experts need the benchmark results and that LRSD could do nothing to hasten the delivery of those results. Question No. 3: Does this last minute filing demonstrate that LRSD is treating the Courts directives with studied neglect? Response: No. Question No. 4: Is LRSD playing for time in the hope that the Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse, thereby relieving LRSD of what it was plainly obliged to do, regardless of the appeal? Response: No. LRSD believes in the merits of its appeal or it would not have filed it, but LRSD is not playing for time. The requested extension of time is not based on anything LRSD did or failed to do or anything that LRSD has any control over. LRSD hired outside experts to complete four Step 2 program evaluations in accordance with the Courts Order. Those evaluations cannot be completed in any useful form without the benchmark examination results from the 2004-05 school year. Those results are only now becoming available. LRSD has no authority over the grading or reporting of benchmark examination scores. Those things are entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education. 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 3 of 4 Finally, whether or not the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals relieves LRSD of its future obligations under the compliance order, LRSD has contracted for four Step 2 evaluations which have been substantially completed. LRSD intends to receive completed evaluations in accordance with its contracts with Drs. Ross and Catterall and to use the evaluations to help judge the effectiveness of the academic programs which are the subjects of the evaluations. Question No. 5: Why should a last minute motion like this be granted? Response: The motion should be granted for the reasons set forth in response to question four above, and for the reasons set forth in the motion, including the letters from Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall. If the motion is denied, LRSD would be compelled to file the evaluations immediately. even though they would contain no analysis of the benchmark results and consequently would not be of much use in evaluating the effectiveness of academic programs. Drs. Ross and Catterall would be extremely reluctant to have their work publicized before they had the chance to complete the evaluations by incorporating and analyzing the results of the benchmark exams. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 4, 2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@ili.com iohnwalkerattv@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. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Black stock 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 Zs/ Christopher Heller 4Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3945 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501)604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 RECEIVED October 5, 2005 OCT 6 2005 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, Motion for Extension of Time Dear Counsel\nA hearing will be held on your Motion to Extend Time (which was filed Thursday, September 29, 2005) on Monday, November 7,2005, commencing at 8:30 a.m. It is very likely that other questions will be addressed at this hearing. An order setting forth the exact nature of the hearing will be entered forthwith. It is likely that I will want to hear testimony from the persons mentioned in your last two filings\nso please arrange to have them available, as well as other witnesses you may want to call. Cordially, /s/ Wm. R.Wilson.Jr. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, other lawyers of record, ODM.RECEIVED OCT 11 20115 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE In the June 30, 2004 Order, I held that the LRSD had again failed to comply the desegregation obligations in  2.7.1 of the January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.' This Order, in part, reads: The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2004.^ At the risk of being redundant, I entered a July 26, 2004 Order which read: Regardless of an appeal, LRSD is required to continue full speed ahead, on all points, with respect to the compliance remedy set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of June 30,2004 (Doc. No. 3875). As was noted in the June 30 Memo, LRSD is required to do only what it volunteered to do.^ Late on September 29, 2005, with one working day left before the October 1 deadline. LRSD filed a Motion to Extend Time to submit the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 'A September 13, 2002 Order held that LRSD had substantially complied with all of its desegregation obligations except those contained in  2.7.1. ^Doc. No. 3875. Doc. No. 3890 (emphasis in original). 1school year. Because of uncompleted tasks, LRSD requested an extension until January 2006 to submit the evaluations. To date, the motion has not been granted and no evaluations have been fded. Accordingly, LRSD and its counsel are directed to appear at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, November 7, 2005 and show cause, if any there be, why they should not be held in contempt of court (civil) for violating the June 30, 2004 Order ~ specifically, the directive to file the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year no later than October 1, 2004. With respect to LRSDs Motion to Extend Time, filed on September 29, 2005, and with respect to LRSDs Response to Order filed on October 4, 2005, LRSD and its counsel are directed to also show cause, if any there be, why they should not be sanctioned, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the representations and omissions contained in these two documents. Among others, I would like for the following to appear, some of them to give testimony: A representative from the ODM\nDr. Karen DeJamette\nDr. James S. Catterall\nDr. Steven M. Ross\nDr. Jim Wohleb\nEach member of the Little Rock School District School Board\nDr. Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of the Little Rock School District\nThe persons at the Arkansas Department of Education who oversee benchmark examinations\nSuch other person as any party may want to call as a witness. By 5 p.m., Wednesday, October 12, 2005, the LRSD is directed to file a list of the witnesses who it will call at the hearing (these persons will be expected to appear unless excused 2by the Court). Within ten (10) days after the LRSD provides its witness list, Joshua must file its witness list (these persons will be expected to appear unless excused by the Court). IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson.Jr._____________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 31010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818Case: 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Message-Id:\u0026lt;494232@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; Bcc: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order to Show Cause\" Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.\u0026lt;!- rcsid='\\$Header: /ecf/district/html/TextHead,V 3.1 2003-04-25 07:56:43-04 loy Exp \\$' U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/6/2005 at 4:23 PM CDT and filed on 10/6/2005 #ident 'rcsid=\\$Header: /ecf/district/server/TextBody,v 3.1 2003-04-25 07:52:35-04 loy Exp \\$' Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl726052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3948 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?394 8, 2 6052,,MAGIC, Docket Text: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Hearing set for 11/7/2005 08:30 AM in Little Rock Courtroom #431 before Judge William R. Wilson Jr. LRSDs Witness List Due by 5 P.M. 10/12/05\nJoshua witness list due 10 days after. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/6/05. (dac ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=10/6/2005] [FileNumber=494231-0] [4646454cc4bl35abdb59d2a8725c86222adf016dafacc9cl63al7c4660244fe41e95a3f7826fca4 10e22clf65bbdab9c82f54fe63aa303249d72d80de59f8d3a]] \u0026lt;! rcsid='\\$Header: /ecfZdistrict/server/TextAtyList,v 3.2 2003-06-02 17:37:56-04 bibeau Exp \\$' \u0026gt; 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@inbbwi.com. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us, Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fee.net\ntmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com. kate.jonesS jlj.com Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com\njspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers S Sneddon, PLLCCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Pagel of3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSDS WITNESS LIST For its witness list for the hearing scheduled for November 7,2005, the Little Rock School District provides the following: 1. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 3 2005 2. Dr. Karen DeJamette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 30 \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. O. Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90005 4. Dr. Steven M. Ross Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 2 of 3 5. Jim Wohlleb Planning, Research and Evaluation 30 \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 6. Dr. Roy Brooks Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 7. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 72201 8. All witnesses listed by other parties and witnesses who may be necessary to provide rebuttal testimony Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 12, 2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@ili.com iohnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 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 /s/ Christopher Heller 3RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS ORDER i Pending is LRSDs Motion to Excuse Dr. James Caterall (Doc. No. 3951) from the November 7,2005 Hearing. For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. However, Dr. Caterall must provide Mr. Heller with a phone number where he can be reached, if necessary, the day of the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE fl- 1Case: 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_supportgared.uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Message-Id:\u0026lt;504296@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; Bcc: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order on Motion for Order\" Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/20/2005 at 4:01 PM CDT and filed on 10/20/2005 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl726052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3953 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?3953,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005214 Docket Text: ORDER granting [3951] Motion for Order to excuse Dr James Caterall from 11/7/05 hearing. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/20/05. (dac, ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=10/20/2005] [FileNumber=504295-0] [4b2f98b5ddl9c8ac9280f4eaf8bb25dc3f01ed0ec0146298ffebef5b9ee992dl8df64af85b5cc32 dce34e54ebb7f6e2f592c6d7bf2628da7d0c5605el7f75c42] ] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, beleda.bledsoe@arkansasag.gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net\nttniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com\njspringerggabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense S Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson StreetSuite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818\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_1440","title":"\"2003-04 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2003-12-16"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["\"2003-04 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1440"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["24 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1059","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":["2003-12"],"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--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/1059"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda RECEIVED DEC l ~- 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting HAVE A SAFE \u0026amp; HAPPY WINTER HOLIDA YI DECEMBER 2003 ,.. n-., \u0026gt;::o ,i.-..~_ cil o\u0026gt; :,,::o C-\u0026lt; m-., ::0 C: -:ozn ,o...- i\u0026lt;5 r-z ~ en 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 REGULAR MEETING December 18, 2003 5:30 p.m. Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Booker Arts Magnet School - Cheryl Carson \u0026amp; Vivian Johnson Wonder State Odd Fellow Lodge #1 - Eddie \u0026amp; Carolyn Ward Dodd Elementary School - Faith McLaughlin \u0026amp; Teresa Knapp Greater Friendship, Inc. - Pat Williams, Rev. B. E. Bennett \u0026amp; Dr. M. Dee Bennett Gibbs Magnet School - Felicia Hobbs Heifer International - Ann Owen Mann Magnet Middle School - Jim Fullerton Heifer International - Ann Owen Jefferson Elementary School - Roberta Mannon Twin City Bank, Kavanaugh Branch - Pris Skarda Otter Creek Elementary - Janis Tucker \u0026amp; Michelle Young Bank of the Ozarks - Lisa Smith C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors 0 \"D \u0026gt;.r.-.X p_:I! cii o\u0026gt; XI XI mc--\u0026lt;., XI C: -z XI 0 o--\u0026lt; ... i5 r-z gen Board of Directors Meeting December 18, 2003 Page2 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 B. Personnel Changes VI. CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION: A. Revision of Policy IKF: General Education Graduation Requirements Revision of Regulations ID-R: Student Schedules Revision of Regulations IMP-R: Physical Education and Training B. Revision of Regulation IKC-R: Class Rankings \u0026amp; Grade Point Averages C. Program Evaluation for Mathematics and Science VII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Employee Request to Conduct Business with the District B. Donations of Property C. Financial Report VIII. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions IX. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS X. ADJOURNMENT I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER I ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS WELCOME TO GUESTS 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS D. LR.CTA E.JOSHUA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 December 18, 2003 Board of Education Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education~ Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships 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. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Booker Arts Magnet School and Wonder State Odd Fellow Lodge #1 David 0. Dodd Elementary School and Greater Friendship, Inc. Gibbs Magnet School and Heifer International Horace Mann Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet School and Heifer International Jefferson Elementary School and Twin City Bank-Kavanaugh Branch Otter Creek Elementary School and Bank of the Ozarks !.z.\". m ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ Booker Arts Magnet 2016 Barber Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Principal: Dr. Cheryl Carson Counselors: Vivian Johnson \u0026amp; Tammy Ringler Booker Arts Magnet School offers students an environment of spontaneity, freedom of expression, individuality and creativity. The goals of Booker Arts Magnet School are: - To nurture the students' learning To encourage personal expression To use the arts to motivate student achievement To foster self-discipline inherent in artistic achievement To instill within students an understanding of the relationship of the arts in their daily lives. We the Booker Arts Magnet Team would like to develop a partnership with the Wonder State Odd Fellow Lodge # 1. The purpose of this partnership is to enhance the educational programs of our school. Booker Arts Magnet Team plans to contribute the following in return for your partnership: a) Enhanced public image and the opportunity to be recognized for making a significant contribution to the community. b) Gain insight into our public school system and the contemporary education process. Wonder State Odd Fellow Lodge # 1 The Independent Order of Odd Fellows And Rebekahs Odd Fellowship is a Fraternal Organization, based on the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man. It does charitable work on various projects in the community. Through its teachings and ceremonies, it seeks to elevate the character of man, and thereby make this world a better place in which to live. The Odd Fellowship Fraternal Organization would like to enhance the educational experiences of the students and staff of Booker Arts Magnet. We would like to enter into a partnership with Booker Arts Magnet. Listed below are some of the partnership activities we plan to assist in: a) Provide school supplies for needy students. b) Support the students and staff in school events. c) Members will volunteer their time for school events. d) Meet regularly with the School Team to assess progress. e) Promote ongoing recognition and appreciation of the staff at Booker Arts Magnet. !\"!=' lesn .! ii :en ~ David 0. Dodd Elementary School and Greater Friendship, Inc. Partnership Proposal Greater Friendship, Inc. will contribute the following to the partnership:  Encourage employees to volunteer as readers on VIPS Reading Day  Provide resources for the after-school tutoring program  Provide resources for parent workshops  Provide resources for student workshops  Oversee and direct the 21 st CCLC-Dodd David 0. Dodd Elementary will contribute the following to the partnership:  Acknowledge GFI, Inc. as a Partner in Education  Provide resources for grant proposals as needed  Implement and Organize the 21 st CCLC-Dodd Gibbs Magnet Elementary School and Heifer International Partnership Proposal Heifer International will contribute the following to the partnership:  Participate in ViPS Reading Day at Gibbs by providing readers and donating books to the library  Look for opportunities to bring together students from Heifer's three partner schools--Gibbs, Mann and Central-in projects to benefit and/or promote Heifer and its work  Look for ways to connect Gibbs students with children in orphanages that Heifer works with around the world Gibbs will contribute the following to the partnership:  Serve as the kick-off school for the Read to Feed challenge  Provide a delegation for Heifer celebrations, such as the groundbreaking, 60th anniversary, grand opening, public service announcements, etc.  Provide student artwork  Encourage Gibbs students to buy an animal for a family as a community service project  Look for ways to invite Heifer's international staff and visitors to the school !.z.'\". m !l! 'f! \u0026gt; C: C a\no Partnership Outline Heifer International and Horace Mann Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet Horace Mann students have experienced many educational opportunities while working with Heifer International. Our school has raised funds as service projects to benefit others through Heifer International. Many students have visited the Ranch at Perryville while on field trips and the children always return excited about what they have learned. We would like to continue to work in these areas with our students and provide an outline of additional suggestions and recommendations that will strengthen our relationship and partnership with Heifer Internationa I. Suggested opportunities for Horace Mann Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet and Heifer International:  Science related activities that would expose our students to the implications of lacking sciences in developing countries  Opportunities to gain practical experience of how others live as well as specific cultural experiences  Support and assistance with our annual Multicultural Celebration  Heifer International fundraising advisement opportunities for our school  Assistance in developing a writing/pen pal program with a foreign country  Development of a long-term project with the selected country/region. The school will display items specific to the country/region and provide instructional activities that will include all academic disciplines  The school will dedicate a display case in our new building to showcase our partnership with Heifer International Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank - Kavanaugh Branch and Jefferson Elementary School Twin City Bank - Kavanaugh Branch 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 students and listen to students read  Job Shadowing  Provide speakers for topics such as economics, saving money, etc.  Sponsor Special Olympics Team T-shirts  Provide refreshments for staff functions Jefferson Elementary School commits to the following activities:  Provide artwork for display in bank lobby  Provide choir to perform on holidays and special occasions  Acknowledge Twin City Bank - Kavanaugh Branch as a Partner in Education  Invite the Bank to school events  Work together with the bank for community service projects !II (.\"..)..,., ID C:: c::c 8~ !!l\n: c::\u0026lt;n ~~ \u0026gt;z ril ~ .z.. . !'I .z... m I c\u0026gt;:: C i ~ BANKof the OZARKS 13415 Otter Creek Parkway Little Rock, AR 72210 (501) 978-3545 (501) 978-3546 (fax) Partners in Education Proposal with Otter Creek Elementary School Bank of the Ozarks commits to the following partnership activities:  Breakfast for teachers for the first day of school.  Reading for ViPS  Assistance with Book Fair (Deborah Pike works with Lisa Booth to prepare for the book fair in the fall and spring)  Christmas donation for teacher recognition  Morning Muffins - help serve periodically  Volunteers to assist in the year-end field day activities  Roll the pennies from the \"Pennies for Pasta\" drive  Ask peer helpers to make Christmas cards for a local retirement center as a joint community service project Otter Creek Elementary School commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide artwork for bank  Acknowledge bank as partner in education  Assist bank with community service projects  Provide opportunities for bank employees to become involved in public education '.\n4n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: December 18, 2003 Board of Directors Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Bill Goodman~~ December 2003 Construction Report - Bond Projects On December 20th, the move from the portable classrooms to the new classrooms will begin at Mann Magnet Middle School. Generally, those students and teachers that were displaced to the portable classrooms will move into the new forty-four [ 44] classroom building. The move will take place during the holidays and will be completed by the start of school on January 5, 2004. This will be an exciting time for all of the Mann students and staff. I hope you have an opportunity to visit the new building soon. I know you will be proud and impressed. The last construction phase at Mabelvale Middle School is complete except for two [2] classrooms. The move to the new office area and media center is in progress. Please note in my report that the planning process has started for schools that have had little or no work done up until now. The list is not complete but should be in January. The drawings and cost estimates for remodeling Mitchell and Rightsell will be complete this month. I hope you have a wonderful holiday season. Please call me at 447-1146 if you have any questions. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !ll ~ is zz rm- !\" .z.. m ~ ~ \u0026gt; C: 0 i :..,., nm ::c C: ~ m Facility Name Baseline CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 18, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Project Description Cost Renovation $953,520 -- ~ady --- Addition/renovation - .. $973,621 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Dunbar Renovation/additi~ $6,161,950 J. A. Fair 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/mus~ room addition $3,155,640 Est. Completion Date Jul-04 Jun-04 Dec-05 Aug~ ---- Feb-04 Renovation --- M-ab-elv-al-e M-S -- - $6,851,6~ Dec-03 -- Mann - - _J'artial Replacement $11,500_,_0QQ___ Dec-03 - - -McC-lellan -~Cl assroom Addition $2,155,622 Jul-04 -- - - --$2,121,226 Parkview Addition Jun-04 -- - -- Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Aug-04 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation - -----,- $3,755,041 Aug-04 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 . Aug-04 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Jun-04 -Wa-kefie~ --- --R- ebuild -~I- $5,300,000 I Jul-04 Williams 'Renovation I $2,106,492 Jun-04 Wi-lliams -- Parking expansions $183,717 Jun-04 --- Wilson Renovation/expansion $1 ,263,876 Dec-03 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - WINTER/ SPRING 2003-04 t:st. 1_\nompIeuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Mitchell Renovation $750,000 Aug-04 -- Rightsell Renovation $660,000 Aug-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:si. 1..,ompIeuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date B-ooke-r -- Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Carver Media Center Expansion ' Unknown Unknown Chicot Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Cloverdale Elementary Addition I Unknown Unknown Fair Park Addition Unknown Unknown Forest Heights Remodel Unknown Unknown Garland IRemodel I Unknown Unknown Geyer Springs Roof Repair I Unknown Unknown Gibbs Addition Unknown Unknown Meadowcliff ,Addition Unknown Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS 1 Energy monitoring system installation I Unknown Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC Unknown ' Unknown Woodruff Parking addition $193,777 Unknown BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED t:st. 1_\nompIet10n Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Mar-03 Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Aug-03 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Aug-03 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Aug-02 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Dec-02 Bale Energy monitoring system Mar-02 Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 18, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Booker Energy efficient lighting ~ $170,295 Apr-01 Boo_ker_______ Energy monitoring system installation 1 $23,710 Oct-01 Booker Asbestos ab_a_te_m_en_t __ _ ______ $_1_0~,9_00 Feb-02 Booker Fire alarm I $34,501 ~ 02 Brady I Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement -------c--,------,------$-3=--4-,-5-,-,-0-c7-c-2 __ Aug-02 Carver 'Energy monitoring system installation 1 $14,480 1 May-01 1--=-----------i-=--c-~ -,---~ Carver Parking lot I $111 ,742 ' Aug-03 Central Parking - ---Student parking i $174,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley  Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair 1 ___ $265,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley - ~ hletic Field Improvement $38,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Irrigation System --- I $14,500 --=-=-- Aug-03 Central -- -i=\u0026gt;urchaseland for school Unknown I Dec-02 Central --- Roof \u0026amp; exterior renov~ -~ I $2,000,000 Dec-02 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Oct-01 C_e_n_tra_l -- Fire Alarm System Design/Installation _ _,_ __ $80,876  Aug-01 Central 'Front landing tile repair ' $22,470 Aug-01 C_lo_v_e_rd_ale Ele_m_. ____ E_n_ergy efficient lighting $132,678 Jul-01 _C_lo_v_erdale MS_ _______En e_r=g,y__effi_cie_nt l_i,g,'-h-_tin_g,\"----------- $189,743 1 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1 ,393,822  Nov-02 Dodd -----,--,,E~n~e-rg_y_e~ff~i,c-ie_n_t-li-gh- t-in_g_ ______ ,_ --$90,665 Aug-01 Dodd Dodd Facilities Service Facility Services Fair Park ~stos abatement-ceiling tile-- 1 $156,299 i Jul-01 Replace roof top HVAC- $215,570 Aug-0~ Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 I Fire alarm 1 $12,000 I Aug-03 HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Apr-02 Fair Park ---~Ene_r=gy~effi_ci_ent_l~ig~h_tin~g~ _________ $90,162 ~ -Q!_ - --+Asb-es-tos- a-ba-tem-en-t-c-eil-ing $59,310 , Aug-01 '-----+----,---'----\"---,------\"---l Fair Park --- J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Apr-01 ------+-~ '----\"'--'\u0026lt;--------l-------'--,---\"--.,___ ___ _,__-l J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 Nov-00 J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair Forest Park Forest Park Is ecurity cameras ____ ,_ _____ __$\n__12_,,'5-_00-'_ ___J_ u_n_-0--11 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 Roof repairs $391,871 Aug-03 Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 I Nov-03 Diagonal parking $111 ,742 Aug-03 ----~ --'---~ ---------+-------+----~ --. Forest Park I Energy efficient lighting $119,788 May-01 Fulbrig_!,t ---+E_n_ergy efficient lighting I $134,463 Jun-01 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 1 Aug-01 Fulbright _ Replace rooftop HVAC units $107,835 Aug-02 Fulbright ____ ---+P_a_r_ki_n=g_lo_t _________- +---~$14_0_,00_0_ ____S_ ep-_0-2-. Fulbright _ -----+-R_o_o_f_re...,p_a_ir_s __________ ,__ _ ~$-'-2_0_0-'-,0_0_0-+-____ O_c_t-_02-1 Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Mar-03 --- Gibbs 1Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Apr-01 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 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 Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Apr-01 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 ' Aug-01 Hall Intercom Feb-01 Hall Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 2 !II\nll\no ~ z z ,m... !\" -z, m s! ~ \u0026gt; C: 0 ~\no :-n, m 0 ::r:: C: ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 18, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Descriotion Cost Henderson Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Henderson Roof replacement gym $107,835 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000  Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 IRC Energy efficient lighting I $109,136 --- - Jefferson Asbestos abatement $43,639 Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 I Laidlaw Parking lot $269,588 Mabelvale Elem. -- ~ ergy monitoring~ystem installation $12,150 Mabelvale Elem. _ Replace HVAC units $300,000 I --- Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting -1---$106,598 Mabelvale MS , Renovate bleachers $134,793  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 ___J projects listed Mann . Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. I McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 McClellan ---- Irrigation System I $14)50 McClellan Security cameras I $36,300 I McClellan Energy efficient lighting I $303,614 McClellan 1 Stadium stands repair I $235,000 McClellan 'Intercom $46,000 McDermott Energy efficient lighting $79,411 I McDermott --- - 1 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 I Meadowcliff Fire alarm $16,175 I Meadowcliff Asbestos abatement $253,412 Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting I $88,297 I Metropolitan 1 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Metropolitan Replace shop vent system $20,000 Metropolitan I Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Mitchell I Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Mitchell .Asbestos abatement I $13,000 Oakhurst I HVAC renovation $237,237 Otter Creek , Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting I $81,828 Otter Creek 'Asbestos abatement I $10,000 Otter Creek I Parking lot $138,029 I Otter Creek 16 classroom addition $888,778 I Otter Creek I Parking Improvements $142,541 Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 I Parkview I Roof replacement $273,877 Parkview I Exterior lights $10,784 Parkview I HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 ' Parkview I Locker replacement $120,000 Parkview Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Procurement !Fire alarm $25,000 Pulaski Hqts. Elem Move playground $17,000 Est. Completion Date Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Jul-03 - Jul-03 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Aug-03 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Aug-03 Dec-02 3 Facility Name Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Romine Romine Security/Transportation Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Student Assignment CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 18, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date , Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Apr-01 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Mar-01 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Aug-01 'Parking addition $111,742 Aug-02 Asbestos abatement $10,QQQ 1 Apr-02 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 I Mar-03 Bus cameras $22,500 Jun-01 Asbestos abatement $28,138 Aug-00 New roof I $690,QQQ 1 Oct-03 Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Jan-02 Drainage I street widening ---1- $250,000 Aug-03 Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Aug-02 -- Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Dec-01 Technology Upgrade 1Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data I Nov-02 Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Feb-01 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking I $83,484 Aug-02 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Sep-02 Wakefield  Security cameras I $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting I $74,776 I Feb-01 Wakefield - Demolition/Asbestos Abatement I $200,0001 Nov-02 Washington Security cameras I $7,900 Jun-01 Washington Energy efficient lighting I $165,281 I Apr-01 Watson Energy monitoring system installation ! $8,530 Jul-01 Watson - IAsbestos abatement I $182,241 Aug-01 Watson Energy efficient lighting I $106,868 I Aug-01 Watson !Asbestos abatement I $10,000 Aug-02 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 I Aug-02 Western Hills !Asbestos abatement I $191,946 Aug-02 Western Hills .Intercom $7,100 Dec-01 Western Hills 1 Energy efficient lighting $106,000 I Jul-01 Williams Energy efficient lighting I $122,119 I Jun-01 Wilson I Parking Expansion I $110,0001 Aug-03 Woodruff  Renovation $246,419 I Auq-02 4 !I' ~\no ~z z m r- !'\" -z, m s! ~ \u0026gt; C: 0 ~ Date: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS December 18, 2003 To: Board of Directors @ From: Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - December This is the fiftieth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two middle school and one elementary school to resolve financial issues in their activity 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) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology Training a) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. 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. !Z'\nll\na:, is z z,m.. . Audit Report - December 2003 Page 2 of 2 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) 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. Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring payroll for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Assisted with ShareFest 2003, Saturday, November 1, 2003. Report online at lrsd.org Participating in planning for Day of Caring (April 17, 2004). 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 501-44 7-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: December 18, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Information Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Technology Report  Read180 software by Scholastic has been implemented at 5 secondary schools: Central, Hall, McClellan, Southwest and Mabelvale Middle. This software supports the Arkansas curriculum frameworks and is designed for students whose reading achievement is below the proficient level. It is integrated into classroom instruction in a way that allows plenty of time for literature and writing. The eleven teachers who are using the Read180 intervention strategies are participating in continuing professional development activities.  Technology issues related to construction projects continue to keep both departments busy. This month we have been working on Mann, Central, and the Technology Center.  The Safari Media Retrieval System will be installed in the new Mann building and teachers will receive training in January and February on the use of the system in instruction.  This month we applied for E-rate funding for the 2004-2005 school year for the wide area network, telephone service (including local, long distance, cellular and paging), network electronics and video distribution systems. To provide an update to the Board of Directors on the status of technology projects To continue to implement the approved technology plan NIA NIA Lucy Neal - Instructional John Ruffins-Technical November 21, 2003 - December 18, 2003 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. !II ~ z~ z m r- !II ,0 m C) C s 0z ,0 m !!:, U) \u0026lt;z5 DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKA SAS December 18, 2003 Board of Education w Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes lt 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) years. Teachers with an effecti ve date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. s  :. a, me:\ni:: (/)\nE z om -\u0026lt; (/) m\"' mv, :,om omS\"' C: (\") mm (/) (/) - Personnel Changes Page 2 December 18, 2003 NAME Ammons, Janice Reason: Leaving City Griffin, Laurie Reason: Leaving City Fall, Libasse Hemphill, James 0 E NONE POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Special Ed 8-13-01 6-14 WOODRUFF 11-15-03 SPE925 Elem I 8-9-00 5-08 CHICOT 12-1-03 TCH925 New Certified Employees Spanish 10-28-03 1-02 CENTRAL TCH925 Spanish 11-20-03 1-05 MCCLELLAN TCH925 Certified Promotion Certified Transfer ANNUAL SALARY 45587.00 38057.00 27056.00 29609.00 ammal 18197.20 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 December 18, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations on-Certified Employees Blythe, Edith Child utntlon 6-11-87 3-16 Reason: Retired CHICOT 12-31-03 FSMGRS Colbert, Harriette Child utrition 12-5-01 3-03 Reason: Personal BALE 12-5-03 FSH550 Davis, Lee Occupational Ther. 8-12-99 60-18 Reason: Health Reasons SPECIAL ED 12-5-03 AN925 Farn1er, Gilbet1 Custodian 9-19-02 3-05 Reason: Personal FAIR 12-11-03 CUS12 Ha1Tis, Paula Child Nutrition 9-1-99 1-05 Reason: one Given HENDERSON 11-11-03 FSH5 Hill, Jerryline Care 1-7-02 1-05 Reason: None Given CARE 10-31-03 CARE Jones, Everett Custodian 1-20-99 1-06 Reason: Tem1inated FRANKLJN 11-17-03 CUS928 Matts, Glenda Instr. Aide 9-26-94 1-10 Reason: Returning To School CHICOT 12-19-03 lNA925 Palmer, Jerry Custodian 1-1-01 1-04 Reason: Personal WOODRUFF 11-13-03 CUS12 Shaw, Al Instr. Aide 2-12-01 1-03 Reason: Personal FAIR 12-15-03 lNA925 ANNUAL SALARY 15030.00 8188.00 50712.00 18381.00 7504.00 6.68 per hr. 12481.00 14067.00 15092.00 11635.00 \u0026gt;,.s.. . a, m c: :I:(/) ,\"-llzo-\u0026lt; m (/) m\"' :mx,\"m' m\n:r:, oS c:O mm \"...' \"' !D 8 z .\u0026gt;.. iz5 (/)\ns \u0026gt;o . C: ~~ ,-0 n c: -\u0026lt; ~\n:r:,i!\n~z \"i5' \"\ni'l z C: (/).0.. 0z !D\n:r:, m Cl C: \u0026gt;... 0z\n:r:, m e\u0026lt;n iz5 0 \"ll\" 8~ ~~ :I:~ i~ r- ~ Personnel Changes Page 4 December 18, 2003 NAME Smith, John Reason: one Given Staggers, Marjorie Reason: Deceased Stokes, Tamara Reason: None Given Taylor, Tannie Reason: None Given Warner, Charlotte Reason: None Given Wight, Linda Reason: Personal Woodus, Sherri Reason: Personal Wyatt, Joyce Reason: Retired Anderson, Leamon POSITION SCHOOL Custodian FOREST HGTS. Child utrition MCCLELLAN Child utrition MCDERMOTT Care CARE Child Nutrition DUNBAR Instr. Aide FRANKLIN Child Nutrition CHILDNUTR. Clerical WILSON START DATE END DATE 4-2-03 12-31-03 9-27-99 11-15-03 8-14-03 11-3-03 11-3-03 11-10-03 9-2-97 10-6-03 8-28-78 11-19-03 8-15-03 10-31-03 8-2-99 1-24-04 SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS928 3-12 FSH550 3-01 FHS550 3-03 CARE 3-07 FSH550 1-10 INA925 2-01 FSMEAL 39-20 CLKl0 New Non-Certified Emplovees Child Nutrition CHILDNUTR. 11-13-03 1-01 FSH4 ANNUAL SALARY 10329.00 8471.00 8130.00 7.12 per hr. 8316.00 14067.00 11593.00 28764.00 7121.00 annual 4760.67 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 December 18, 2003 NAME Carpenter, Michael Denham, Nickila Garcia, Martha Hall, Michelle Hervey, Stephanie Jones, Amy Jones, Mary POSITION SCHOOL Care CARE Custodian WILSON Custodian CHICOT Child Nutrition CHICOT Child Nutrition BALE Nurse NURSES Instr. Aide FOREST HGTS. START DATE END DATE 11-17-03 I 0-29-03 10-29-03 10-31-03 10-31-03 11-10-03 11-21-03 SALARY CLASS 4-01 CARE 1-01 CUS12 1-01 CUS928 3-01 FSH550 3-01 FSH550 1-08 NURSES 1-10 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 6.25 per hr 13399.00 annual 8723.60 prorated 10329.00 annual 7241.53 prorated 8130.00 annual 5775.41 prorated 8130.00 annual 5775.41 prorated 32672.00 annual 21441.00 prorated 14067.00 annual 8744.35 prorated s \u0026gt;: a:, m c: 3:(1) ,\"D- z- om -\u0026lt; (/) m\"' m\"'\nom m::O oc:Sn mm \"...' \"' !Zl 8 z .\u0026gt;.. 0z (/) ~ \u0026gt; (\") . C: ~~ r- (\") oc: -\u0026lt;:: ::o~ ~z \"c5'\"\n' z C: (/)(.\".). 0z !Zl ::0 m C\u0026gt; C: \u0026gt;... 0z ::0 m s (/) cz5 (\") \"D. e: ~ C\u0026gt; ... ~~ !I: 14 i~ r- ~ Personnel Changes Page 6 December 18, 2003 NAME Jordan, Enna Ke1medy, Jarvis Parker, Raushanah Sistrunk, Daplme Smith, Mickie Todd, Freeman Walker, Matthew POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition DUNBAR Custodian CENTRAL Child Nutrition GEYER SPRINGS Child Nutrition MCCLELLAN Instr. Aide MABEL VALE EL. Care CARE Custodian CENTRAL START DATE END DATE 10-31-03 10-6-03 11-3-03 11-10-03 11-10-03 11-17-03 10-6-03 SALARY CLASS 3-01 FSH550 1-01 CUS928 3-01 FSH4 3-01 FSH550 1-10 INA925 1-03 CARE 1-01 CUS928 ANNUAL SALARY 8130.00 annual 5775.41 prorated 10329.00 annual 8088.57 prorated 5751.00 annual 4038.62 prorated 8130.00 annual 5597.70 prorated 14067.00 annual 10036.99 prorated 6.43 per hr 10329.00 annual 8083.57 prorated Personnel Changes Page 7 December 18, 2003 NAME Woods, Teresa POSITION SCHOOL Child utrition HALL START DATE END DATE 11-3-03 Non-Certified Promotion SALARY CLASS 3-01 FSH550 Downs, Queen From School Based Security To District Wide Security Non-Certified Transfer Phillips, Penny From Child Nutrition To Financial Services NONE ANNUAL SALARY 8130.00 annual 5730.98 prorated :s ,... . a, m c: il::(I)\nEZ om -\u0026lt; (I) m\u0026lt;n m\u0026lt;n ~m o:S C: (\") mm .(.l.) CI\u0026gt; Personnel Changes Page 8 December 18, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS ANNUAL SALARY Personnel Changes Page 9 December 18, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS ANNUAL SALARY :s \u0026gt;,' mIX c!: :I: en ,\"0- -z om -m\u0026lt; eenn men\nom m\no o:S C: C') mm .e.n.. en 8 ! ~ ezn TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 December 18, 2003 Board of Directors ~nnis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent of Instruction Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Revision of Policy IKF and Regulations ID-Rand IMP-R to Reflect Change in Arkansas Law Short Summary-Arkansas Act 1748 0f2001 required students in grades K-9 to meet a physical training requirement ofno less than 20 minutes of physical activity three (3) times a week for every student who is physically fit and able to participate. Since that time, Act 1729 of 2003 was approved to change the grade range from K-9 to K-8. Since the K-9 grade span was written in one Board Policy and two (2) Regulations, those three documents are being corrected to reflect the revised requirement of Act 1729. Objectives-To adjust Board Policies and Regulations to reflect changes in State Law Expected Outcomes-Board Policy IKF and Regulations ID-Rand IMP-R will conform with State Law Population-K-8 Student Population ofLRSD Manager-NI A Duration-NI A Long Range/Continuation- NI A Other Agencies Involved-NI A Expectations of Staff-The K-8 staff will continue with current expectations\nhowever, the high schools will no longer have the physical training requirement for grade 9 students. ,.,.s.. . a, m c: -i:.c,,, ,- z om -m\u0026lt;\"\"'' me,,\nom m\n,o 0~ c:m m.... \"' 8 z ~ iz5 \"' !D\n,o 2l C: s iz5\n,o m s \"i5' z Needed Staff- NI A Comments- NI A Recommendations- we recommend approval of these changes in Board Policy and Regulations on first reading to reflect changes in Arkansas Law. Copies of the revised Policy IKF and Regulations ID-Rand IMP-Rare attached. The changes in the policy and regulations were submitted through Linda Austin, who serves as the clearinghouse for Board policy issues. 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. 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 24 units for the classes of 2002 and 2003\nor the required 26 units for the class of 2004 and after. 2. Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the Little Rock Scholars curriculum of 27 units for the class of 2003\nor 28 units, including at least eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses, for the class of 2004 and after. 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 21 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. Units of credit will generally be earned in grades nine through twelve, except that one unit of Algebra I (or higher-level mathematics) and Level I (or higher level) of foreign language may be earned in grade eight. High school courses taken before grade eight will not satisfy a unit of credit toward graduation. (See policy IKEC for list of creditearning options.) s  : CD m c: !-I:, ,en ,-z om -m\u0026lt; eenn men\nom m\no oS c:0 mm e..n. en !II !II ill C) C: ~ 0z\no m \u0026lt; en 0z LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF ( continued) Transfer Students All transfer students must meet the graduation requirements of the Little Rock School District in order to receive a diploma. The LRSD high school will accept transfer credits and grades for students who previously attended Arkansas high schools that are accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education or out-of-state high schools that are accredited by their state department of education and/or a regional accreditation organization such as the North Central Association of Schools and Colleges. Additionally, students who transfer into a Little Rock School District high school from a home school must attend at least two semesters in order to receive a high school diploma (see IKED and IKED-R). Former home school students must attend at least four semesters in order 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. Senior-Year Enrollment Requirements Students participating in dual-credit courses with local colleges/universities during their senior year must be enrolled in high school courses at least half time for their senior year (four units of credit) or full-time during the fall semester in order to receive a diploma from a Little Rock School District high school. This enrollment standard is required regardless of how many credits a student may need to satisfy graduation requirements. (See IKEC-R1 for regulations governing dual-credit enrollments.) 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 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. 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) 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 twoyear or four-year 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. Successfully completes 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 PreAdvanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. Other approved dual-credit courses 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. 3 s ,... . a, me -:l.:,u-, ,..z o-\u0026lt; m (J) mU\u0026gt; m\u0026lt;J\u0026gt;\n:om om:S\"' cO mm u...,.U \u0026gt; !\"' ~ C s 6z\n:o ~ (J) 6z LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) 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 school, 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. Specific Course Requirements The following table specifies the required courses for graduation for each curriculum area. Revised: Adopted: July 22, 1999 4 High School Graduation Requirements Little Rock School District Required, Classes of 2002 and 2003 English-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, PreAP, or AP)\nand English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications-1 unit Communications I or Debate I Mathematics-3 units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or PreAP) or Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Concepts of Geometry (ESL or Regular) or Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Science-3 units Physics I (ESL or Regular) or Physics I Pre-AP\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Required, Classes of 2004 and After English-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, PreAP, or AP)\nand English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications IA (1/2 unit) English Language Arts-1/2 unit One-half unit from any English, Journalism, or Communications course. Modern Grammar (1/2) is stronQIY recommended. Mathematics--3 units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or PreAP) or Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or PreAP) Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP) will no longer substitute for Algebra II for the Class of 2007. Effective for the Class of 2007, four (4) units of mathematics are required in Qrades 9-12. Science--3 units Physics I (ESL or Regular) or Physics I Pre-AP\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) 5 Required, ACC Students English-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, PreAP, or AP)\nand English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications IA--one-half unit Mathematics-3 units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or PreAP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or PreAP) or Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Concepts of Geometry (ESL or Regular) or Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Science-3 units Physical Science or or Physics I\nand Biology I\nand One additional unit :s ,.. . a, me i:c,, ,-,-:z,om -\u0026lt;\"' m\"' me,, ,:,m m\"' 0~ cm m\"' -\u0026lt; 8 ~ cz5 \"' Required, Classes of 2002 and Required, Class of 2004 and Required, ACC Students 2003 After Social Studies-3 units Social Studies--3 units Social Studies-3 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government or United States Government or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, World History (ESL, Regular, World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP or AP)\nand Pre-AP,or AP)\nand Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, United States History (ESL, United States History (ESL, Regular, or AP) ReQular, Pre-AP, or AP) ReQular, or AP) Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education IA Physical Education IA Physical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety Health and Safety Health and Safety Fine Arts-1 unit Fine Arts-1 unit Fine Arts-1/2 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, One unit from art, dance, drama, or music or music Technology-1 unit Technology--1 unit None One unit from any of the One unit from any of the aooroved technoloqy courses. approved technoloqy courses. Career Focus-3 units Career Focus-3 units Career Focus-3 units Three units from any of the At least three units from any of Three units from any of the approved Career Focus the approved Career Focus approved Career Focus proQrams. proqrams. proqrams. Electives-4 units Electives-6 units (5 units, Electives-3 units effective for Class of 2007) A fourth year of both science and social studies is encouraged, as are at least two units of foreiQn language. Total-24 units Total-26 units Total-21 units Although not required to do so, students graduating in 2004 through 2006 are encouraged to complete the requirements for the Class of 2007, especially the four units of mathematics in grades 9-12. 6 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, Class of 2003 Little Rock Scholars, Class of 2004 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, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand English IV /ESL, Reaular, or AP). English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications-1 unit Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications I Communications IA English Language Arts-1/2 unit Any one-half unit from English, Communications, or Journalism. Modern Grammar is strongly encouraged. Mathematics-4 units Mathematics-4 units (in grades 9-12, class of Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand 20071 Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Statistics (ESL, Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Regular, or AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Concepts of Geometry (ESL or Regular) or Geometry (ESL, Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One or more additional units of advanced One additional unit of advanced mathematics. mathematics for the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Science-4 units Science-4 units Active Physics (ESL or Regular) or Physics I Pre-AP\nand Active Physics (ESL or Regular) or Physics I Pre-AP\nBiology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand and Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One additional unit Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One additional unit Social Studies-4 units Social Studies-4 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP or AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nOne additional unit and One additional unit Foreign Language-2 units Foreign Language-2 units Two units of any one foreign language Two units of any one foreign language Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education IA Phvsical 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 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Technology-2 units Technology-1 unit* Two units from any of the approved technology courses. One unit from any of the approved technology courses. Career Focus-4 units Career Focus-3 units* Four units from any of the approved Career Focus Three units from any of the approved Career Focus proarams. oroarams. Electives-0 units Electives-3 units Total-27 units Total-28 units *Students graduating m 2004 through 2006 are encouraged to take four units of mathematics m grades 9-12, although they are not required to do so since their plan only specified three units of mathematics. If they do choose to take the Class of 2007 plan, they may also reduce the requirements in Technology and Career Focus and have three electives instead of one. 7 :s ~  IXI m c: :-I:c en ,...z om m-\u0026lt; eenn men\nom m\no o:S c:O mm en en -t 8 ~ cz5 en .f.\u0026gt;, z \u0026gt;z n ~ \"' !l0\no m Cl C: s 0z\no m s en cz5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ID-R STUDENT SCHEDULES Grades 9-12 Students in grades 9-12 must be enrolled for four units (eight courses) each semester in a school with an NB 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). 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 Proficient/ 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.) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ID-R (continued) 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\nMathematics Science Social Studies Music or Visual Art Physical Education At least 2 hours daily at grades 4-5 At least one hour daily Daily instruction\nmay be interdisciplinary 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 2 \u0026gt;,.s..  co m c: !-I.:,(/-) ro-mz -\u0026lt; (/) m\"' m\"' :,om m:,o oS C: 0 mm \"-\u0026lt;' \"' !IJ :,0 m C) C: ~ 0z ~ \u0026lt; 1ii iz5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ID-R ( continued) 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: 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 the four units of credit required each semester or eight units of credit required for the year. 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 s  : CD m c: :-I:, ,en ro-mz -m\u0026lt; eenn men :am m :a o:S C: 0 mm .e.n. en 8 ~ z en ?' ~ C\u0026gt; C: ~ 6z :0 ~ en \u0026lt;z5 Sample Pre-K Schedule ID-R: Attachment 2 Time Monday 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 today'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 Develooment Develooment Develooment 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 Play Dramatic Play 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: IMP-R PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to principals and school-level staff on the implementation of Act 17 48 (2001) and Act 1729 (2003). The legislation specifies that: Goals Every kindergarten through grade eight (K-8) public educational institution in this state shall require no less than one hour per week of physical training and instruction which includes no less than twenty minutes of physical activity three times a week for every student who is physically fit and able to participate. The State's goals for this program are as follows:  Improve the health of the state's school children.  Increase knowledge about the health benefits of physical activity and exercise.  Develop behavioral and motor skills that promote a lifelong commitment to healthy physical activity.  Promote health-focused physical activity among children and adolescents\nand  Encourage physical activity outside of physical education. Required Plan for Implementation Each LRSD school must submit a plan to the Associate Superintendent for School Services during check-out in June of each school year for the implementation of this requirement. The plan should be submitted on the attached form. Schools are advised that their compliance with this law will be monitored both by the District and the Standards Review team from ADE. The law requires that \"each school will develop a physical education program which fits effectively and efficiently into the school's existing organization while incorporating the goals of this act.\" Staffing The law does not require that any school or district hire staff who are certified in physical education to supervise students' participation in these activities. Guidelines for Schools According to the ADE Director's memorandum of August 21, 2001 , the following activities are acceptable in complying with the law:  general calisthenics during a home-room period\ns  a=, m c: .ii.l,:C -J\u0026gt; or-mz -\u0026lt; Cl) m\"' mCJ\u0026gt;\nom m::O oS c:O mm \"-I' \"' 8 z g z Cl) .f.l, z  nz ! !:D ::0 !!l c:: s 0z ::0 m \u0026lt; cii cz5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IMP-R ( continued)  organized activities during recess periods or lunch periods (if scheduled for at least 20 minutes)\n organized school athletics\n organized play that engages all students in ways to meet legal requirements\n walking nature trails. Elementary School Elementary schools will design their master schedules to ensure that all K-5 students participate in physical training according to the requirements of Act 17 48. Middle School Middle schools may meet the requirements of Act 17 48 in one of the following ways: A. All grade 6 students will continue to be required to take a full year of physical education/health. Students in grades 7-8 who are not eligible for a waiver from the list below will be enrolled in a physical education course. B. One semester equivalent of physical education (taught on alternating days throughout the school year) and paired with Keyboarding in grade 6, Arkansas History in grade 7, and Career Orientation in grade 8 will be required of all students in grades 6-8. Schools with block schedules will split one 90-minute class on alternating days between the physical education course and the appropriate one-semester required course. C. One semester equivalent of physical education (taught on alternating days throughout the school year and paired with Keyboarding in grade 6, Arkansas History in grade 7, and Career Orientation in grade 8 will be required of all students in grades 6-8 who are not eligible for one of the waivers listed below. D. All students in grades 6-8 will participate in a school-organized physical training program for a minimum of twenty minutes three times per week or a total of one hour per week. The following categories of students may be waived from participation in the scheduled activities in either Plan A or Plan C above, provided that the identified activities for the waiver involve a minimum of one hour per week of physical activity, not an average of one hour per week. The waiver is in effect only for the duration of the students' participation in the identified activities. 1. Students participating in marching band during the fall semester. 2. Students enrolled in dance courses at Mann Magnet Middle School. 3. Students who are participants in organized cheerleading activities. 4. Students who are participants in a drill team during the fall semester. 5. Students engaged in an in-school or after-school athletic program. 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IMP-R (continued) 6. Students who walk to and/or from school, if the walk requires at least one hour per week and provided that the parent/guardian documents each week that the student walked to and/or from school. 7. Students who are engaged in an after-school recreational program sponsored by the school or other organization, if physical activities are scheduled for at least one hour per week. 8. Students who provide written documentation from the provider of at least one hour per week of physical activity or training in a private or community-based program. Students with Disabilities The law requires that \"suitable modified courses shall be provided for students physically or mentally unable or unfit to take the course or courses prescribed for other students.\" Adapted activities must be included in the students' IEP or 504 plans. Revised: Date: February 28, 2002 3 s ,.... 'Ill me: .31,: ,en ,-z om -m\u0026lt; eenn men\nom m:O oS c::O mm e-n. en f\u0026gt; 'Tl z ~ (\") ~ \"' !J' ~ c:: ~ 0z\no m \u0026lt; en cz5 School Plan for Implementation of Act 1748 Physical Education Training and Instruction Name of School School Year ----------------- ---- Signature of Principal _______________ Date ____ _ 1. Describe below, by grade level (K-5 or 6-8), how your school will provide the mandated physical education training and instruction each week for all students who do not have waivers. 2. State, by grade level, who the staff members are who will supervise the activities at the elementary or middle school level. 3. What is your school's plan for documenting the following? A. Students with waivers (middle and high schools) B. Students requiring adapted activities ________________ _ Approved, Assoc. Supt. for School Services Date Approved, Assoc. Supt. for Instruction Date 4 Application for Waiver of Act 1748 Physical Training Requirements Middle School, 2002-2003 Student- ------------------ID Number- ------ Grade Level- --------- Team Name- ----------- In 2001 the Arkansas General Assembly passed and the Governor signed legislation (Act 1748) which specifies that \"Every kindergarten through grade 8 public educational institution in this state shall require no less than one hour per week of physical training and instruction which includes no less than twenty minutes of physical activity three times a week for every student who is physically fit and able to participate.\" I request that my child be allowed to waive required participation in a physical education course/activity designed to meet Act 1748 requirements. I have checked below the activity in which my child participates that would make him/her eligible for this waiver: 1. Students participating in marching band during the fall semester. 2. Students enrolled in dance courses at Mann Magnet Middle School. 3. Students who are participants in organized cheerleading activities. 4. Students who are participants in a drill team during the fall semester. 5. Students engaged in an in-school or after-school athletic program. 6. Students who walk to and/or from school, if the walk requires at least one hour per week and provided that the parent/guardian documents each week that the student walked to and/or from school. 7. Students who are engaged in an after-school recreational program sponsored by the school or other organization, if physical activities are scheduled for at least one hour per week. 8. Students who provide written documentation from the provider of at least one hour per week of physical activity or training in a private or community-based program. I agree to notify the school immediately ifmy child ceases to participate in the activity (which I checked above) to make him/her eligible for this waiver. Parent/Guardian Signature ____________________ _ Date ________________ _ 5 \u0026gt;~  a, me: ~~\"z' om -m\u0026lt;\"\"'' men\n,om m\n,o 0~ c::m r...n. \"' !:D ill Cl C: ~ 0z\n,o ~ \"cz5 ' TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 December 18, 2003 Board of Directors Wenrus Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent of Instruction Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Revision of Regulation IKC-R to Clarify Section on Re-taking a Course that was Originally Passed and to Add a Section on Translating Grades of Transfer Students Short Summary-the proposed revision will clarify Regulation IKC-R for Policy IKC on Class Rankings/Grade-Point Averages. Previously, Regulation IKC-R stated that students who make a \"C\" or \"D\" may retake a course to strengthen understanding and skills needed for advanced study and that \"the second grade will replace the first grade in the calculation of the grade-point average and rank-in-class.\" The proposed revision will change that language to, \"the higher grade will be used in the calculation of the grade-point average and rank-in-class.\" Rarely, but occasionally, a student will retake a class and make a lower grade or even fail the class the second time. The regulation, as currently written, would disallow the first grade and would record the lower grade or failed grade on the transcript and use it in calculating GP A. If the class is failed the second time, the current regulation would require the student to retake the course a third time to gain a passing grade even though the original grade was passing. The proposed revision will give more encouragement to students to improve their understanding and skills in a course without fear of losing credit for the passed course or having the GP A lowered. The second part of the revision will add a section to clarify how transfer grades are to be recorded if they are not reported to us in the same format used by LRSD. Some schools report grades in percentages rather than in letter grades\nconsequently, those percentage grades must be translated for calculating grade point average and class rank. The percentage grades will be translated using the LRSD grading scale. Objectives-!) to allow students to count the higher grade for a course re-taken to strengthen understanding and skills\n2) to provide a procedure for translating grades reported to LRSD in a format different from the one used in the district. s ,..... . a, m c: 31: en ,\"-Dz- om -m\u0026lt; eenn men\n,om m:io oS C: C') mm en en -\n.r.\u0026gt;, z  z C') ~ en Expected Outcomes- 1) to be more \"user friendly\" to students who are willing to retake a course passed with a grade of\"C\" or \"D\"\n2) to give schools direction on translating transfer grades reported in a different format from that used by LRSD. Population-Grades 8-12 Student Population of LRSD Manager-NI A Duration-NI A Long Range/Continuation- NI A Other Agencies Involved-NI A Expectations of Staff- N/ A Needed Staff-NIA Comments-NI A Recommendations-we recommend approval of these changes in Board Regulation IK.CR A copy of the revised Regulation IKC-R is attached. The changes in the regulation were submitted through Linda Austin, who serves as the clearinghouse for Board policy issues. 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, s . a=, m c:\nl:CI) ,-...,.z- om -\u0026lt;\"' m\"' m\n,om\"' omS\"' c:n mm .\"..' \"' 8 z ~ i5 z \"' .~., z  nz ~ \"' 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 Effective fall 2004, 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,\" including mathematics and foreign language courses taken for high school credit in grade 8. The grade will be recorded on the transcript, and the higher grade will be used in the calculation of the grade-point average and rank-in-class. 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, or summer school\nearn credit for a failed course through credit-by-examination\nand/or retake the failed course through correspondence, on-line, or distance learning. In any 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R (continued) case, both the grade for the failed course and the grade for the retaken course or creditby- examination will be recorded on the transcript, but only the higher grade will be used in calculating the grade-point average and rank-in-class. 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 s ,... . a, m c: :-1a1:c-n ,-z o-\u0026lt; m Cl) mme\"n'\nam m\n:a o:S c:O mm .\"..' \"' !II 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 O 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-inclass, 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. Class of 2003 and Beyond Effective for the Class of 2003, 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 (PreAdvanced 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 s :,,.:. a, m c: :-l.:.u-, or-mz m-\u0026lt; \"\"'' mu,\nom m::O oS c:O mm \"-\u0026lt;' \"' 8 ! iz5 \"' .f\u0026gt;., z z\u0026gt; 0 ~ u, 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. Revised: 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 TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 December 18, 2003 Board of Directors --::6ennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Program Evaluation for Mathematics and Science Short Summary-The Board is asked to review and approve the Program Evaluation for Mathematics and Science. Objectives-1) to improve the education for all students by evaluating selected programs each year to determine their impact on student achievement, 2) to comply with the requirement of section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan to submit for District Court Approval the program evaluations listed. Expected Outcomes-Programs will be maintained, adjusted, or eliminated based on the recommendations of these long-term program evaluations. Population-The Mathematics and Science Program Evaluation Team consisted of Dr. Don Wold, Vanessa Cleaver, Dennis Glasgow, and Dr. Ed Williams. Dr. Steve Ross, external program evaluation consultant, reviewed the Program Evaluation and provided feedback. Staff and teachers will use this evaluation as a benchmark for future program decisions. Budget Amount/Source of Budget-Staff members' time and materials are included as a part of the regular operating budget for the Math/Science Department. Dr. Ross' consultant contract is included in the PRE budget. Managers-Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Instruction, and Dr. Ed Williams, Statistician Duration-Formal end-of-year evaluative reports have been submitted to the National Science Foundation for the past five years. The Program Evaluations for the four years, 1998-99 through 2001-02, were submitted to the Board and approved in December, 2002. The evaluation process has continued through the first semester of SY 2003-04, and this s ~ o:, m c: -:I:,: ,en ,-z om -m\u0026lt; eenn men\nom m\no oS C: C') mm en en -\u0026lt; report reflects 5-6 years of data, although the past three years were used to measure student achievement goals for the CPMSA Project per guidance from NSF. Analysis of and response to the program evaluations will continue through the spring semester of 2004 and for the next few years as additional data is gathered. Long Range/Continuation-all program evaluations are used as a benchmark for program planning in future years. The current formal Mathematics and Science Program Evaluation will conclude with the approval of the Board and the District Court. Other Agencies Involved-The Office of Desegregation Monitoring has monitored the program evaluation process. Expectations of Staff-Staff members from the Mathematics and Science Departments, the CPMSA Office, and PRE served on the evaluation teams for this program evaluation. Program evaluation is embedded in the job expectations of staff\nconsequently, this is an ongoing commitment for our staff. An important job of the mathematics/science evaluation team is to read the evaluation report, analyze it, and use that information to help decide our future direction in the areas of mathematics and science. Needed Staff-Dr. Wold was employed as the CPMSA Program Evaluator using funds from the NSF grant. Dr. Ross' review of the evaluation was part of his consultant contract. Mathematics and science staff members participated in the evaluation as part of their day to day job duties. Comments-the two literacy evaluations approved by the Board in November and the math/science program evaluation currently under consideration are the three remaining evaluations from section 2. 7 .1 of the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Dr. Steve Ross was contracted as a program evaluation specialist to develop the program evaluations of the two literacy program and to review the mathematics and science program evaluation. All three program evaluations provide useful information for staff as we chart our future course in these curricular areas. Recommendation-we recommend approval of program evaluation for Mathematics and Science. The Executive Summary is attached. The full report will be provided for Board Members at the Agenda Meeting. Dr. Don Wold, Program Evaluator, will be available for a presentation to the Board and to answer questions. Executive Summary This report examines student assessments over a five-year period in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) from 1998 to 2003. The report also looks at course taking and completion trends over the five years in mathematics and science courses, along with policy issues and curriculum changes. The five year period was selected because LRSD had a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) over that period of time to create systemic change in mathematics and science programs that would lead to increased student achievement and preparation of more students to pursue undergraduate programs of study in mathematics, science, and engineering. The LRSD program, funded by NSF, was Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). The effective date of the CPMSA program was September l, 1998, and the expiration date for this program was August 31, 2003 . The program evaluation was oriented around the following questions concerning all students and African-American students in particular:  Was the CPMSA program effective in improving the achievement of African American students?  Have levels of achievement changed for all students and for African American students who perform at or above basic, at or above proficient, and at or above the advanced achievement level?  Have enrollments and completion trends changed for all students and for African American students in 8th grade Algebra 1?  Have the enrollments and completion trends changed for all students and African American students in G 9-12 mathematics gate-keeping courses (Algebra I, Geometry, Trig/Pre-Cale., \u0026amp; Calculus)?  Have enrollments and completion trends changed for all students and for African American students in G 9-12 science gate-keeping courses (Biology 1, Chemistry 1, and Physics I)?  Has the number of students with SEM proficiency changed? How has the number of African American students with SEM proficiency changed? (SEM proficiency is defined as students who have completed a minimum of pre-calculus, biology, and chemistry and/or physics courses).  What policy changes have promoted equal access by all students, including African American students to high quality education?  What policy changes were made to support student success in mathematics and science during CPMSA implementation?  What curriculum and instruction changes were made to support student success in mathematics and science during CPMSA implementation?  What professional development policy and program changes were made to support teachers during CPMSA implementation?  What standards-based assessment system changes were made during CPMSA implementation? Method The evaluation design was based on quantitative student achievement data from over 100 examinations in twenty-four different assessment groups, which took place in LRSD from 1998 to 2003. The cooperative agreement with the NSF (Amendment No. 3) states that assessment data for the CPMSA Program for Years 3, 4, and 5 will be used to determine annual increases in performance\nconsequently, the primary focus was on achievement data for SY 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003. Literacy \u0026gt;,..s..  a:, m c: :I: CJ) \"rD- -z om -\u0026lt; CJ) men men :om m :o oS C: 0 mm u,CJ\u0026gt; -I 8 ! lz5 CJ) ~ 0 5 CJ) z C) ~ I CJ) ?\u0026lt; o\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ._::c 0~ C: :0 ~z :I: C) men :!i assessments were included along with mathematics and science assessments since literacy is a critical component to achievement in mathematics and science. The analysis follows procedures used in evaluative studies by Systemic Research, Inc., which has been funded by the NSF. Systemic Research has identified and tabulated indicators of systemic change for use in program evaluations. Following terminology of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), student performance on the assessments was described in terms of achievement levels. The NAEP described student performance in terms of percentage at or above one of three achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, or Advanced. These achievement levels are shown below. 100 Advanced Range (75-99) Advanced Achievement Level (75) Proficient Range (50-74) Proficient Achievement Level (50) Basic Range 25-49) Basic Achievement Level (25) Below Basic Range {0-24) 0 Performance at or above Basic achievement level (25-99) Performance at or above Proficient achievement level (50-99) Performance at or above Advanced achievement level (75-99 For each assessment each year, the percentage of students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level, and the percentage of students who performed at or above the Proficient level were computed. In subsequent years two additional quantities were computed: (1) the CHANGE in percentage of students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level and (2) the CHANGE in the percentage of students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level. In terms of student performance, a positive change in (1) indicates movement from below the Basic achievement level to or above the Basic achievement level, the Proficient achievement level, or the Advanced achievement level. A positive change in (2) indicates movement from below the Proficient achievement level to or above the Proficient achievement level or above the Advanced achievement level. In addition, enrollment in mathematics and science courses and completion trends were examined for the five years. Completion as defined in the CPMSA Cooperative Agreement is the number of students who completed the course with a grade of A, B, or C. Special attention was given to \"gate-keeping\" and higher-level mathematics and science courses. \"Gate-keeping\" courses are those that students must successfully complete as pre-requisites to higher-level, more rigorous courses. Finally, the adoption of policies, curricula, and assessments necessary to foster the implementation of standards-based mathematics and science programs was examined. Standards-based programs are those that are very closely aligned with local, state, and national standards. High-stakes mathematics and science assessments, such those that are part of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program are aligned with state and national standards\ntherefore, program alignment with standards is a powerful means of improving student achievement. Results Achievement Student data from over 100 examinations were used in the study of twenty-four assessment groups to determine whether a percentage increase in the number of students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level or above the Proficient achievement level or both above Basic achievement level and above Proficient achievement level occurred for all students, for Caucasian students, and for AfricanAmerican students. The assessment groups are summarized below: 1 English G8 EXPLORE 9 Mathematics G8 Benchmark 17 Reading G8 EXPLORE 2 English G 10 PLAN 10 Mathematics G8 EXPLORE 18 Reading G 10 SA T-9 3 Literacy G4 Benchmark 11 Mathematics G 10 SAT-9 19 Reading Gl0 PLAN 4 Literacy G8 Benchmark 12 Mathematics G 10 PLAN 20 Science G5 SA T-9 5 Mathematics G4 Benchmark 13 Algebra I G7-10 Benchmark 21 Science G7 SA T-9 6 Mathematics G5 SA T-9 14 Geometry G9-11 Benchmark 22 Science G8 EXPLORE 7 Mathematics G6 Benchmark 15 Reading G5 SA T-9 23 Science Gl0 SAT-9 8 Mathematics G7 SAT-9 16 Reading G7 SAT-9 24 Science G 10 PLAN The Annual Change in Percentage Points of Students Who Performed at or Above the Basic Achievement Level Table 32 shows only the change in percentage points of students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level for all students in the District, for Caucasian students, and for African American students. Here we see that in 16 out of 24 assessments. the change in percentage points of African American students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level was greater than the change in percentage points of Caucasian students who performed at or above the Basic achievement level. These results may be seen in Figure lS below. The Annual Change in Percentage Points of Students Who Performed at or Above the Proficient Achievement Level Table 33 shows only the change in percentage points of students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level for all students in the District, for Caucasian students, and for African American students. Here we see that in 18 out of 24 assessments. the change in percentage points of African American students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level was less than the change in percentage points of Caucasian students who performed at or above the Proficient achievement level. These results may be seen in Figure 2S below. From the assessments in Tables 32 and 33, we conclude that, although there are increasing numbers of African American students at or above the Proficient achievement level, the greatest movement in African American student performance is upward from below the Basic achievement level into the region between the Basic achievement level and the Proficient achievement level. If the current momentum is maintained, student performance of African American students will continue to move upward to or above the Proficient achievement level. In the SMART/THRIVE 2002-2003 program, we found 52 percent of those students performing above the Basic achievement level but below the Proficient achievement level. With such a large number of students performing just below the Proficient achievement level, many more students could reach the Proficient achievement level with reasonable additional effort on the part of the students and teachers. From these data we conclude that the performance of African-American students on district assessments improved substantially and consistently between 2001and 2003. s ,....  a, m c: 31:(1) \",D.. .-z o-\u0026lt; m(/) m(I) m(I)\nom m::O o:S C: (\") mm (..I.) (/) !D .f.\u0026gt;, z  z (\") ~ ~ (\") 0 (/) z C\u0026gt; Rl I u, Memorandum Date: To: From: Through: December 18, 2003 Little Rock School District Board of Directors Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools ~art, Chief Financial Officer Prepared By: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management Subject: Employee Request to Conduct Business with the District Subject Employee Request to Conduct Business with the District in compliance with AR Statute 6-24-101:119 (Act 1599 of2001)-Ms. Jennie Cooper, Central High School. Summary: The statute above precludes a school district employee from contracting with the public educational entity employing him or her if the employee has knowledge that he or she is directly interested in the contract. \"Directly Interested\" means: receiving compensation or other benefits personally or to a business or other entity in which the individual has a financial interest. \"Financial Interest\" means: 1. Ownership of more than a five percent (5%) interest\n2. Holding a position as an officer, director, trustee, partner, or other top level management\nor 3. Being an employee, agent, independent contractor, or other arrangement where the individual's compensation is based in whole or in part on transactions with the public educational entity. Ms. Cooper has completed a disclosure form notifying the District that she is owner of Soccer Plus. Objective: Ms. Cooper wishes to sell to the District and is requesting an exception to the law above. See her letter attached. .r.\u0026gt;, z \u0026gt;z n ~ U\u0026gt; Board of Directors December 18, 2003 Page 2 Expected Outcomes: NIA Population/Location: Little Rock School District and specifically Central High School Budget Amount/Source of Budget: NIA Manager: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management Duration: NIA Long Range: NIA Other Agencies Involved: NIA Expectations of District: NIA Needed Staff: NIA Comments: None Recommendation We request the Board of Education review and make a decision regarding Ms. Cooper's attached request. 2 Paradis, Darral From: Jennie Cooper Uennie@soccerpluslr.com] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 6:1 0 PM To: Paradis, Darral Fred Cooper and I , Jennie Cooper , own Soccer Plus, one of two soccer stores in Central Arkansas and one of the few soccer specific stores in the State. I am an Art History teacher at Little Rock Central High as well as head of the soccer program and coach of the men's soccer team. Soccer Plus requests the Board's approval to allow Soccer Plus to be an approved bidder of soccer supplies and equipment to the Little Rock School District. It also requests that it be allowed to sell soccer uniforms and equipment to the Central High Soccer program. The Athletic Department provides the Men's and Women's soccer teams a budget of $500.00 each per year for supplies and equipment. The balance of the needs of the teams is covered by the Booster Club which raises funds through parental contributions and sponsorships, and other fundraising activities like the Black and Gold game. Booster Club funds are often tight. We don't want to spend any more for needed items than necessary and would like those funds to buy as much equipment as possible. Soccer Plus is able to sell to the Central soccer program at cost plus 10%. The Central Soccer program can not get these prices anywhere else, but can get them from Soccer Plus with a resolution from the Board . What I am requesting at this time is Board approval tor Soccer Plus to supply the Central High Soccer program with equipment and to be able to bid on soccer supplies for the Little Rock School District. Thank you, Jennie Cooper 12/8/2003 ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;o\u0026gt;\u0026lt; c.. :c 0~ C::\no ~z ii: C) men :!'j LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: December 18, 2003 Board of Education FROM: ~al Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: School/DeQartment Item Donor Central High School TV, DVD player, 5 videos Paul and Corky Schroeder and 5 DVDs, valued at approximately $400.00, to Central's 504 Program Central High School Corky's Barbeque, valued Kevin and Cathy Crass at $574.36, catered to the Central Tiger Football Team Central High School $250.00 cash to Central's Deborah Brooks baseball boosters Central High School Hewlett Packard Laserjet Dr. Randal Hundley IV printer valued at $300.00 Forest Park Elementary Antique french bench Dr. Reid and Susan Henry School valued at $1,915.00 of Cobblestone and Vine f.\u0026gt;., z \u0026gt;z (\") ~ Cl) ~ ,(\"-) 0 Cl) z C) ~ '\n=:o\n,,\nCl) Board of Education December 18, 2003 Page 2 School/Department Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Shirts, valued at approximately $350.00, and 50 hours volunteer service to Parkview's Golf Team Steve and Debbie Woosley It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. [.ittCe 'Rock Centra{ J-f113f,, Schoo{ 1500 Soutli Park Street Litt[e 'Rock, .'A.rkansas 72202 Pfione 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 11/24/2003 TO: FROM: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT A CY ROUSSEAU PRINCIPAL '1\\CtutJ/1.. x lUI_) ' SUBJECT: DO ATIO Paul and Corky Schroeder of 11706 Pleasant Ridge Drive Little Rock, AR 72223, very graciously donated a T.V., DVD player, 5 videos and 5 DVD's to our 504 Program. The estimated value is $400.00. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. NOV 2 5 t Gn3 ~ n 5 \"z' C\u0026gt; RI ~ 9l \"' Litt{e 'Rock Centra{ 3lfeli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .Jl..rkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 ]'ax 501-447-1401 DATE: 11/5/2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: A CY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~ SUBJECT: DONATION l(evin \u0026amp; Cathy Crass of 4521 Country Club Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72207, had Corky's Barbeque catered for the Central Tiger Football Team. The cost was $574.36. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Litt{e 'Roci Centra{ J-figli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt[e 'Rock, .'A.rkansas 72202 'Phone 501 -447-1400 :Fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 11/13/2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREME T FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRI CIPAL _,,n : 6-A,,i~l,V\"--' SUBJECT: DO ATIO - - --------- Deborah Brooks of 8809 ancy Place Little Rock, AR 72204, graciously donated $250.00 to the baseball boosters. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. f.\u0026gt;., z ~ n ~ UI Litt{e 1Wck Centra{ 1ffali Sclioo{ 1500 Soutli 'Park Street Litt[e 'Rock, ..'Arkansas 72202 'Phone 501-447-1400 ]\"ax 501-447-1401 DATE: 11/17/2003 TO: FROM: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT A CY ROUSSEAU, PRI CIPAL itu~ SUBJECT: DO ATION Dr. Randal Hundley of 5515 Country Club Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72207, graciously donated a Hewlett Packard Laser Jet 4 printer valued at $300 to Central High School. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. MOV 1 3 2GD3 TO: ~\\(_\nROM: vr~ATE: SUBJECT: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement Deptartment Theresa Ketcher, Principal of Forest Park School November 10, 2003 Donation An antique frenchbench valued at $1,915.00 has been donated to Forest Park School from Dr. Reid and Susan Henry, c/o Cobblestone and Vine, 5100 Kavanaugh Blvd., Little Rock, AR 72207. It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. /pl  Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2501 BARROW ROAD Date: To: From: Subject: PHONE 228-3000 December 4, 2003 Darral Paradis, Director LRSD Procurement Department J ()._ll-,1J'V Dr. Linda Brown, Principal 'f/' fl~ Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Golf Team Donation LI'ITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 Steve and Debbie Woosley recently donated approximately $350.00 in shirts for our Parkview Golf Team, along with a combined fifty (50) hours plus of their time this fall . We, at Parkview, would like to say a very hearty Thank You to Mr. and Mrs. Woosley! Your support is appreciated more than we can express. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. DATE: TO: THROUGH: Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1086 Fax: (501) 447-1158 December 18, 2003 Little Rock School District Board of Directors Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes  Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending November 30, 2003. To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial condition. NIA NIA Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District N/ A  Needed Staff NIA  Comments None  Recommendation Approval of the November 2003 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2002/03 11/30/02 COLLECTED 2003/04 11/30/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 18,392,072 31.41% 57,547,800 20,927,350 36.37% DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 4,534,278 56.68% 10,100,000 6,939,208 68.71% 40% PULLBACK 29,400,000 29,600,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 210,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 180,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 220,757 163.52% 150,000 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 213,209 62.71% 380,000 220,826 58.11% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 63,364 23.04% 200,000 56,591 28.30% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 117,131 73.21% 240,000 118,641 49.43% TOTAL 97,432,000 23,540,812 24.16% 98,607,800 28,262,617 28.66% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 11,170 46.54% 21 ,000 11,594 55.21% TOTAL 24,000 11,170 46.54% 21,000 11,594 55.21% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 20,075,275 36.59% 53,226,139 19,354,959 36.36% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 3,217,173 42.39% 8,300,000 2,024,292 24.39% VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 400,368 29.88% 1,400,000 430,364 30.74% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 320 0.02% 1,675,000 93,470 5.58% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 136,486 49.93% 273,358 135,094 49.42% TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 1,226,542 33.28% 3,875,562 1,243,841 32.09% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 1,047,114 32.07% 3,900,000 736,844 18.89% ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 273,287 27.17% 920,337 152,263 16.54% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 329,297 50.00% 560,545 267,486 47.72% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 142,636 50.00% 285,245 142,623 50.00% AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 57,386 8.83% 360,000 TOTAL 75,441,106 26,905,883 35.66% 74,776,187 24,581,235 32.87% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 13,857 1.23% 1,350,000 18,519 1.37% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 1,632,430 TOTAL 3,410,671 13,857 0.41% 3,752,430 18,519 0.49% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 50,471,723 28.63% 177,157,418 52,873,965 29.85% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 3,917,708 15.58% 24,075,790 4,554,092 18.92% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 327,865 8.24% 4,000,000 725,821 18.15% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 4,330,697 17.28% 24,689,351 3,440,020 13.93% TOTAL 54,198,923 8,576,270 15.82% 52,765,141 8,719,933 16.53% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 59,047,992 25.62% 229,922,559 61,593,898 26.79% ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2003 ~ APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2002/03 11 /30/02 EXPENDED 2003/04 11 /30/03 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 30,076,634 29.82% 100,684,982 29,777,981 29.58% BENEFITS 24,838,361 7,544,342 30.37% 26,483,772 7,729,21 1 29.18% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 6,875,951 34.73% 19,719,297 6,769,882 34.33% -MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 3,149,062 37.73% 8,185,459 4,033,046 49.27% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 351 ,335 21 .73% 1,575,580 195,999 12.44% OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 176,244 2.07% 8,384,567 331 ,506 3.95% DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 4,880,555 39.95% 12,098,342 4,699,176 38.84% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176,189,538 53,054,122 30.11% 177,131,999 53,536,801 30.22% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 4,732,431 18.10% 26,056,193 5,641 ,014 21.65% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 911 ,697 22.91% 4,000,000 1,869,745 46.74% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 6,267,463 25.00% 24,689,351 6,278,304 25.43% TOTAL 55,194,668 11,911,591 21.58% 54,745,544 13,789,063 25.19% TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 64,965,713 28.08% 231,877,543 67,325,865 29.04% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) (5,917,722) (1 ,954,984) (5,731,968) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,645,440 3,558,580 3,558,580 OPERATING 8,557,652 8,557,652 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 (1,689,882) 1,578,177 (1 ,510,550) OPERATING 8,675,891 5,975,253 9,052,274 8,364,018 TOTAL 9,325,586 4,285,371 10,630,451 6,853,468 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 11-30-03 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,219.02 77,219.02 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 110,501.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110,501 .92 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 50,000.00 49,671.00 5,921 .07 27,210.30 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 190,056.00 7,275,957.86 9,194,811.49 2,333,832.05 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 2,153.87 40,120.10 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 7,679.00 22,190.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 1,517,001 .00 1,915,041.38 717,774.23 1,652,765.20 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31,306,506.59 166,300.00 9,350,164.35 10,189,870.05 11,932,772.19 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 671 ,668.18 26,236.35 1,637,114.71 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 1,923,357.00 19,272,335.64 20,134,613.19 17,646,005.11 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 1,000.00 445,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 (1,923,357.00) 20,151 ,242.23 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 574,191 .79 7,862,968.68 SUBTOTAL 31 ,107,082.11 575,191.79 (1,923,357.00) 0.00 0.00 29,758,916.90 GRAND TOTAL D ~~z lDQ iZ :iZ:illllZll l2.W! la 2Z2 ~~~ ~ ~!l U~ fil\ni lll ~z :il:i ~~\ni l!\ni LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT - BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY - THRU THE PERIODENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2003 - - - - ~-----~----~---- -- - - ~---- ----------+- -PR- O- JEC_T_ - - - - -------- --- ALLOCAT=l~O~N~S---t--~E~x=p=EN~S~E~---1-~EX~P~E=N~s=E~+ - EXP_E_N-SE - EXPENSE ENCUMBERED PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU1-f-30-03 - -20-00-01 - - - 2-0-0-f.0_2_ --2002--03- T HRU 11-30-03 THRU 11-30-03 ~ UBTOTAL 1------------l------+---- -- ADM-1-NI_S_T_R-AT-I_O_N_ _________-  ,_-___6_ 36_,84_6_.5_5 - 889,~72.32 _(485,325.77) -14-9,597.63 - 49,671 .00 - 5,921 .07 609,636.25 NEW WORK PROJECTS 35,509, 116.80-~ 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 ----:,T,671 ,442.11 7,275,957.86 9,194,81 1.49 33,175,284.75 ENDING ALLOCATION 11-30-0-3 - 27,210.30 2 ,333,832J'l5 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 113,930.47 - - 109,609.73 - 2,153.87 - --- - 225,694.07 - --- 40,120.10 -- - - -- -- LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,883,405.13 2,641 ,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661 .38 7,679.00 0.00 4,861,214.57 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 12,750,611.51 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 1,915,041 .38 - ~ 7,774.23 11 ,09 7,846.31 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51,655,707.04 397,615.34 ~ 045.21 15,666,239.90 9,350,164.35 10,189,870.05 - 39,722,934.85 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES -----.,1,735,611 .78 575,016.53 ~ 4,325,20Ll0 - 4,S0~ !W 671 ,668.18 26,236.35 10,098,497.07 - -- - --+----- - UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 21,445,063.20 - ------ +----- - - 22,190.56 1,652,765.20 11,932,772.19 1,63i\nTT4.71 21,445,063.20 TOTAL 138,882, 17678 e--- 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 19,272,335.64 20,134,613.19 9 9,791 ,107.87 ~.091 ,068.31 ------,1----- -- - ----------+-------1-----+-------t- -- -- -i-- -- 1-----------+------ +-------+--- - ------------- ----+------+---- - - -----------+--------+---- 1-----------+-- .lN3WN'!lnorov x S9Nl'!IV3H 'Xl S\u0026gt;l'!IVW3'!1 9NIS01:l 'Ill/\\ ------- - - -----+------- -- ---- - - -- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2003 Fund Purchase Maturity Institution Interest Rate Type 1 Principal Date Date i I Operating I 06-09-03 12-08-03 Regions 1.090% Money Market 20,000.00 Operating 07-19-03 01-19-04 Regions 0.945% Money Market 20,000.00 Operating 04-08-03 12-05-03 Pulaski 1.290% Money Market 10,000.00 Operating 11-28-03 TFN Bank of America 0.880% Repo 10,785,000.00 Total I 10,835,000.00 I I I Activity Fund I 11-17-03 TFN Bank of America 0.850% Repo 1,250,000.00 Total I 1,250,000.00 i I I Bond Account 09-08-03 03-08-04 Regions 1.094% CD 400,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 I Metropolitan 1.930% CD I 1,000,934.31 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 2.250% CD 5,116,598.09 Capital Projects Fund 10-15-03 02-13-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD ' 5,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-29-03 01-29-04 Bancorp South 2.000% CD 2,058,896.90 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 I Superior 2.250% CD j 2,500,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 11-18-03 04-15-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.300% CD 6,000,000.00 t ~ Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 08-16-04 USBANK 1.420% CD 11,000,000.00 I + I Capital Projects Fund 01-22-03 01-16-04 Bank of America 1.240% Treasury Bills 5,299,646.43  Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 05-14-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% CD 9,000,000.00  Capital Projects Fund 08-01-03 12-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks I 1.220% CD 3,048,218.28 Capital Projects Fund 09-15-03 03-15-04 I Bank of the Ozarks 1.430% I CD t 10,221,001 .82 I I I Capital Projects Fund 11-25-03 TFN Bank of America 0.800% Repo 7,500,000.00 Total I 68,145,295.83 Deseg Plan Scholarship 06-11-03 12-04-03 Bank of America 0.920% Treasury Bills 664,995.48 Total I 664,995.48 I Rockefeller Scholarship 06-24-03 01-15-04 Bank of America 0.760% Treasury Bills 250,909.40 Total I I I 250,909.40 Risk Management Loss Fund j i . 11-17-03 TFN Bank of America 0.700% I Repo 500,000.00 t 500,000.00\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1035","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":["2003-11"],"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--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/1035"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda RECEIVED NOV 1 q 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting Happy Thanksgiving! November 2003 (\") \"0  ::O i=~ bl o  :\no::O om--\u0026lt;., ::0 C: -z :\non o--\u0026lt; rr--cz5 ~Cl) F ~\n::: m -o r- ::0 8g l::m mo -c: ~~ 0~ ::0:::::1 ~m z\no (\")Cl) m I. 11. 111. IV. 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 REGULAR MEETING November 20, 2003 5:30 p.m. B. Performance - Rockefeller Elementary School Choir REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Mann Magnet Middle School - Jim Fullerton \u0026amp; Becky Webb Colaianni Piano \u0026amp; Organ Company, Inc. - Gil \u0026amp; Teri Colaianni Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center - Mike Peterson \u0026amp; Allie Freeman Maverick Transportation - Ms. Sam Carr \u0026amp; Mike Jeffress C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors 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 (\")~ )\u0026gt;\nIC . m J= C -tll: Oz o\u0026gt;\nIC\nIC C-\u0026lt; m-n\nIC C: -z\nIC(\") o-t ~~ (\")\"' \u0026gt; ~\n= Proposed Agenda for November 20, 2003 Page2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes B. Personnel Changes C. Attendance Report VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: A First Reading: Policy Revisions ACBB - Equitable Student Assignment JC - School Attendance Zones JCA - School Choice B. Student Assignment Plan, 2004-05 VII. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION A. Safety and Security Plan for Central Office VIII. CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION: A Waiver Providing Incentive for Students Taking AP Exams B. Program Evaluations for Elementary and Secondary Literacy C. Program Evaluation Agenda, 2003-04 D. Proposed Changes to Middle and High School Curriculum IX. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A Second Reading: Policy DGA- - Authorized Signatures B. Donations of Property C. Financial Report X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT c-,-., ) \u0026gt;Aml .r..-. r_.... !C Oz o\u0026gt; Al Al o-\u0026lt; m.,, Al C: -z AIC\"\u0026gt; o-\u0026lt; r- c5 r-z C\")UI ~ PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS WELCOME/PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS D. LR.CTA E. JOSHUA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 November 20, 2003 Board of Education Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships 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. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Horace Mann Magnet Middle School and Colaianni Piano \u0026amp; Organ Company, Inc. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center and Maverick Transportation :x,::c mm !E c3 !li!~ (/)(/) -\n::\nCllo 031: ?\n~ CZ ffio 31:  CD::::! mo :X,Z (I)(/) !'\" .z.... m !....  C C a :x, MANN MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL and COLAIANNI PIANO \u0026amp; ORGAN CO. PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL Colaianni Piano \u0026amp; Organ Co. will contribute the following to the partnership: \u0026gt; Instructional enrichment for students through sponsored visits by performing artists, piano tuners, company representatives, etc.\nmotivational materials for students and instructors \u0026gt; Performance opportunities for students by hosting piano recitals \u0026gt; Discounts on music accessories, equipment purchases, and rental of instruments\nLending equipment (non instrument) and assisting with \"set-up\" for special events Mann Magnet School will contribute the following: \u0026gt; Prepared future pianists and customers \u0026gt; Recognition for your contribution \u0026gt; Personal satisfaction from contributing to the community Partnership Between Maverick Transportation and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize Maverick Transportation Incorporated as a Partner-in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize Maverick Transportation Incorporated as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with Maverick Transportation Incorporated in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify qualified students for employment possibilities as training apprentices with Maverick Transportation, Incorporated. S. Arrange field trips for diesel technician/ automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour Maverick Transportation, Incorporated facility as a part of a group learning experience. 6. Provide a display area for your company to market and recruit potential students and for parents to review during Open House, Parent Day, or Job Fair. Maverick Transportation, Incorporated will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on the Advisory Council to the Diesel Technology/ Automotive Technology Program in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's diesel curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide mentoring/apprenticeship opportunities for high school students recommended by the school. 3. Sponsor one or more of the students for a paid summer internship or apprenticeship as early as the summer after junior year and to be continued at a minimum of part- time internship during their senior year which will provide a variable work experience with an emphasis on skill development . 4. Assign a mentor to each student and agree to allow for each mentor to receive training prior to the summer internship period. 5: -Provide guest speakers to share new and innovative ideas about Maverick Transportation in the diesel technology classroom. 6. _ Provide an opportunity for field trips and visiting the facility at Maverick Transportation. 7, Provide assistance with the annual Arkansas Skills USA Competition in Hot Springs. 8. Provide assistance with \"Open House\" at Metropolitan !I' .n\"...'. me: C::0 8~ m-\u0026lt; -\u0026lt;\u0026gt; c::tn .., (I) Ci:') ~z m~ z... . !=' n 0 z ~ :0 m ~ ::!l rn .z... m ~ \"f! c\u0026gt;:: 0 =I 0 :0 .r_'1,..P.. 0 :0 c,, :en ~\n: DATE: TO: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 7220 l November 20, 2003 Board irectors FROM: --~P'\\'onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer orris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman ~6 SUBJECT: November 2003 Construction Report - Bond Projects I reported in September a financial update on the bond construction projects. The September report was based on data from Financial Services through July 2003. It showed that approximately $86,000,000 had been obligated and/or spent from the $132,000,000 Bond Fund, representing two-thirds (2/3) of the total. As of the end of September 2003, we have spent and/or obligated approximately $98,000,000, which equals 75% of the Bond Fund. This data explains the reason for the long list of completed projects and the decline of the number of projects under construction. The construction contract for the five-classroom addition to Brady Elementary has been awarded. Construction will start soon. The construction of the additions to Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School has begun. The renovation of projects at Mann Magnet Middle and Mabel vale Middle schools will be completed in December. The move from the portable classrooms into the new and renovated classrooms will take place during the holidays. Please call me at 447-1146 if you have questions. !JI\nl:l\no lS zz .m.. =...\". m C') ::c C: \"C ~ m Facility Name Baseline rady~--Central Dunbar CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD NOVEMBER 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I I I t:st. c.\nompletlon Project Description Cost Date Renovation --A-d-dition/renovation -- --------::-~---~---\n-,~:~~~ JJuu~:~: -----~-,--, Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Dec-05 Renovation/addition --- -=:=-_$6,161,~ -- Aug-04 ----16 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music i-:-J...,. . A..,._ .F.,...a_i.r,....--=---------..,,_room addition $3,155,640 Feb-04 Mabelvale MS Renovation _____ ~ $6,851 ,621- Dec-03 Ma~ -- Partial Replacement - -- $11 ,500,000 Dec-03 MCCieiian Classroom Addition - - $2,155,622 Jul-04 Parkview -- Addition -- - - -\n- --$~226 Jun-04 --- Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation ___ _ $1 ,193,259 Aug-04 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovatron- ----$3,755,0~ Aug-04 Southwest ____ Addition - - $2,000,000 _-_-_-_Aug-04 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovatfon Addition/Renovation - Phase II -- $2 ,725.000 Jun-04 Wakefield --- Rebuild i. ~5,300,00~ Jul-04 Williams Renovation - --$2, 106~-- Jun-=64 Williams __ Parking expansions $183,717 Jun-04 Wilson I Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 Nov-03 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - WINTER 2004 I I I t:st. c.\nompIet1on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Mitchell Renovation $750,000 Aug-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED I I I t=st. l\nOmpIeuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Pulaski t!._gts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Rightsell !Renovation $660,000 Unknown Wilson Energy monitoring system installation I Unknown Woodruff Parkinq addition -- $193,777 Unknown BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I I I Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date Administration Asbestos abatement ____ $380,495 ! Mar-03 A_d_minist_ra_ti_on ____+ -F[_ r_es_h air system ________$_ 5_5,000 I Aug-03 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Aug-03 Administration Annex I Energy monitoring system installati~ ' May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation ' $15,160 : Oct-01 ~lternati.':_e Learnin'g\"'\"_C_tr_. __,_E~n_e__ r_g y efficient lighting __ $82,000 Dec-01 Badgett__ I Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Aug-02 Bale !classroom addition/renovation , $2,244,524 Dec-02 Bale I Energy monitoring system I I Mar-02 Bale !Partial roof replacement __ $269,587 Dec-01 1-----------~IHVA-C ---------- $664,587 Aug-01 ,Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 Bale Booker Booker Booker I Energy monitoring system ins~lat_io_n_~'----$_2_3_,7_1_0-+I ____ O_ct_-0_1 Asbestos abatement $10,900 . Feb-02 Booker I Fire alarm $34,501 Mar-02 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD NOVEMBER 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Brady ~ ergy efficient lighting $80,593 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 - --- Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 May-01 - -- Carver Parking lot --$111 ,742 Aug-03 --- Central Parking Student parking - $174,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,00-0 - --Aug-03 Central/Quigley__ Athletic Field Improvement -------r $38,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Irrigation System ~ 4.500 -----\nijj g-03 -- Central Purchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 ------- ~ of \u0026amp; exterior renovations - Central $2,000,000 Dec-02 Central Ceiling andwall repair-- - -- ~ 4,000 I Oct-01 -- Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation . $80,876 Aug-01 - Central Front landing tile repair - $22,4~ Aug-01 -- Cloverdale Elem_. ____ Energy efficient lighting __ $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting ____ --- $189,743- Jul-01 Cloverdale MS -- - Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 I Nov-02 -- -- Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Aug-01 - - -- - $156,299 --- Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile Jul-01 Dodd I Replace roof top HVAC - __$2 15,570 Aug-02 - I interior renovation -- Facilities Service $84,672 Mar-01 Facility Services Fire alarm I $12,000 Aug-03 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm ! $315,956 __ Apr-02 -- - - -Fair Park Energy efficient lighting - --r $90,162 ~ g-01 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 Aug-01 -- J. A. Fair - E nergy efficient lighting __$2 77,594 Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 I Nov-00 -- - -- J. A. Fair security cameras __ I $12,500-- Jun-01 -- -- -- J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement ' $38,000 Jul-03 -- - J. A. Fair Irrigation S~stem I $14,000 Jul-03 ---- J. A. Fair , Roof repairs $391,871 I Aug-03 -- Forest Park 1 Replace window units w/central HVAC ' $485,258 Nov-03 Forest Park I Diagonal parking -- - $111,742 Aug-03 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting I $119,788 May-01 Fulbright 1 Energy efficient lighting I $134,463 Jun-01 Fulbright I Energy monitoring system installation $11 ,950 Aug-01 Fu!!?right Replace roof top HVAC units I $107,835 Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot i $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbright I Roof repairs I $200,000 Oct-02 Franklin Renovation I $2,511 ,736 I Mar-03 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting I $76,447 I Apr-01 Gibbs !Energy monitoring system installation I $11,770 Jul-01 Hall I Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 I Sep-03 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Aug-01 Hall I Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Jul-01 Hall l Energy efficient lighting I $296,707 Apr-01 Hall I Infrastructure improvements I $93,657 I Aug-01 Hall Ilntercom I I Feb-01 Hall Security cameras I $10,600 : Jun-01 2 :\u0026lt; ::0 \u0026gt;0  C: 3-1:z:::! Zm ~i en :::l m ~ !ll ril ::0 ~ z z m r- ~ \u0026gt; :::l m z ~z n m ill c3 ::!l !\" .z... m ~ ,\u0026gt;- \u0026gt; C: C a ::0 :..n.. m n % C: -c ~ m Facility Name Henderson CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD NOVEMBER 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I I Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date Henderson --- Energy efficient lighting__ ____ $193,679 Jul-01 Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 Heriderson ---- Asbestos abatement Phase I - ---+- - $500,000 Aug=oT Henderson IRC -=--=----=-_-__ A_s_b_e_st_o_s abatemen!Phase 2 ___ -:- ~ 50,000 _ Aug-02 Jefferson Jefferson-- - --- Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. ~aleE~ Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Jul-02 - Asbestos abatem~ - -- ~ 3,639 ____ Oct-01 1Renovation \u0026amp; fire a'iarm - - $1 ,630,000 Nov-02 - - Parking lot ___ ~ $269,588--,..-__ Jul-01 -:_ Energy monitoring syste~ nstallation ---rt 2,150 Aug-01 Replace HVAC units - $300,000- Aug-02 Asbestos Abatemen-t -- $107,000 Aug-02 Energy efficient lighting - - - $106,598 Dec-02 Mabelvale MS _ Renovate bleachers _ -~ $13 4,793-= Aug-01 Mann Mann Mann Asphalt walks - - The total $1 .8 million Dec-01 -Walkway canopies _ __ is what has been Dec-01 -- - M-ann ___ Boiler replacement used so far on the Oct-01 ______ F encing ~_ =--- projects listed Sep-01 Mann Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Aug-01 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement ___ -_-_ --$38,000 Jul-03 McClellan McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 Jul-03 'Security cameras _ ~ 6,300---~ 01 McClellan -Mc-Clell-an- Energy efficient lighting $303,614 May-01 ____ ~um stands repair - ____ $235,000 Aug-01 McClellan -- - McDermott -- -Mc-De-rmott Meadowcliff Intercom ________ $46,000 Feb-02 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Feb-01 - - !Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Aug-02 ----- ~-- Fire alarm $16,175 Jul-01 -- -- Meadowcliff Asbestos abatement _ __ _ $253,412~ ___ A_ug_-02 Meadowcliff . Engergy efficient lighting _ _ $88,297 Dec-02 Metropolita_n_ _____ _,_IR__e,p_l_ace_ co_o_li~ng tower _ $37,2_0~3-,---__,,..D.,..e.._c-\"0\"\"0\"7 Metropolitan Replace shop vent system $20,000 I May-01 Metrop_o_lit_an ______IE ne_r=g,y__m_o_n_ito_r_in_g,,'-s..,y__st_e_m_i_nst_alla_tio_n_ _l __- =-$-.1,...7~,-1c-4..,...5c--t-____A~ ug-01 Mitchell Energy efficient lighting $103,642 I Apr-01 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Jul-01 Mitchell Asbestos abatement $13,000 , Jul-01 Oakhurst 'HVAC renovation ' $237,237 I Aug-01 --------+=--------..,.....,...--c--,---_..,-----=--=-+---.,...,---=-::c-:-1 Otter Creek !Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 1 May-01 Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Apr-01 Otter Creek Asbestos abatement $10,000 ' Aug-02 Otter Creek Parking lot $138,029 Aug-02 ------ Otter Creek !6 classroom addition $888,778 Oct-02 Otter Creek 'Parking Improvements $142,541 , Aug-03 Parkview I HVAC controls I $210,000 Jun-02 Parkview !Roof replacement I $273,877 1 Sep-01 Parkview 'Exterior lights $10,784 ____N_ o_v-_0_0, HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Aug-01 1~P-a-rk_v..i,.e.._w_ _______. ,.,L,- o-c.,k...er_r_e-pl,a-ce_m_en_t___ $120,000 Aug-01 Parkview Parkview i Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Jun-01 Procurement [Energy monitoring system installation , $5,290 ' Jun-02 Procurement 1 Fire alarm $25,000 I Aug-03 Pulaski Hqts. Elem Move playground $17,000 Dec-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD NOVEMBER 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting 1 $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller - ~ lacerooftopHVAC-- I --$539,175 Aug-01 Rockefeller - Parking addition I $11D~ Aug-02 Romine --- --Asbestos abatement ___ ---_____ 1 $10,000 Apr-02 Romine - ~ jor renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 M\"ar-03 Security/Transportation Bus earner~ -- - $22,500 Jun-01 Southwest --- ~ bestos abatement - - ---- $28, 1~ - Aug-00 Southwest - --New roof - - -- --,- - $690,000 - - Oct-03 Southwest ----- Energy efficient lighting - =- , $168,719 Jan-02 Southwest Drainage/ street widening~-- I $250,000 Aug-03 Student Assignment ~ Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 - Aug-02 Student Assignment Fire alarm-- --==-~------_-_-_-_-- $9,000 --~ ug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 ~ Renovati~ ~- - $275,000 - Dec-01 TechnologtQpgrade - ~ P!I'\"ade phone system \u0026amp;data ___ -,-- Nov-02 Terry Energy efficient lighting _ I $73,850 _ _ Feb-01 I.~ry~---- Driveway \u0026amp; Parking i $83,484 Aug-02 Terry Media Center addition , $704,932 Sep-02 Wakefield - - Security cameras I $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield -rfnergyetticient lighting $74,776 Feb-01 Wakefield - --fi5ernolition/Asbestos Abatement 1 $200,000 Nov-02 Washington Security cameras $7,900  Jun-01 Washington 'Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Apr-01 Watson -=- - --Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Jul-01 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Aug-01 Watson I Energy efficient lighting $106,868  Aug-01 Watson - -- Asbestos abatement ______ $10,000 ~ g-02 Watson_ ______ ~ jor renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000-- ~g-02 Western Hills !Asbestos abatement $191,946 Aug-02 Western Hills ilntercom $7,100 Dec-01 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting ' $106,000 Jul-01 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 I Jun-01 Wilson Parking Expansion 1 $110,000 Aug-03 Woodruff I Renovation 1 $246,419 Aug-02 4 :c: ::0 )1,0  C: !!\niE Zm ~i u, ........ m :,0 u, ?' ril :,0 ~ z z ,m- !'\" .z... m ! ,- )I, C: 0 ~ :,0 :..n.. m n ::c C:\n:g .).I.,. m Date: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 20, 2003 To: Board of Directors From: ~andy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - November This is the forty-ninth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two middle school and one elementary school to resolve financial issues in their activity 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) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. 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. !D \"D m ~ z z ,m... f\u0026gt; ~ mz g z C') m Fil c8 ~ :n m--\u0026lt; C') :c C: \"D ~ m Audit Report - November 2003 Page 2 of 2 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) 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. Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring payroll for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. (New). Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Assisted with ShareFest 2003, Saturday, November 1, 2003. Report attached. 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. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: November 20, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Information Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Technology Report  The District has been notified that E-rate funds up to $1.2 million have been approved for telephone services for the 2002-2003 school year. Those services include the wide area network, local, long distance, cellular and paging services. Additional forms must be filed before we receive the money, and we are in the process of filing those forms now.  Although we have not received notification of funding for applications for 2003-2004, we are now in the application window for applying for the 2004-2005 school year.  Plans continue for the completion of the Technology Center next spring. The RFP for cabling has been issued and will open before Christmas. Jay Stanley Company in North Little Rock was awarded the contract for audiovisual and distance learning equipment.  131 LRSD teachers have applied to participate in the online technology courses funded by EETT (Enhancing Education Through Technology) funds. Teachers from North Little Rock and Pulaski County will also participate. To provide an update to the Board of Directors on the status of technology projects To continue to implement the approved technology plan NIA NIA Lucy Neal - Instructional John Ruffins - Technical October 24, 2003 - November 20, 2003 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. !ZI \"ti m ~ zz ,m.... !ZI ~ C: \"t!O S:!:11 z-\u0026lt; - \u0026gt; \"'U) ~Cl) 6 G5 \"'~ .zm.. . DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 20, 2003 rBo ard of Education Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes 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) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. Personnel Changes Page 2 September 25, 2003 NAME Dockett-Wilson, Tammi Reason: Personal Downing, Nancy Reason: Accepted Another Ganahl, Christopher Reason: Personal Fall, Libasse Reason: Cert. Expired Hunnicutt, Susan Reason: Personal Pletcher, Carmen Reason: Leaving City May, Hazel Reason: Retired Moreland, Hillary Reason: Personal Mueller, Melanie Reason: Accepted Another Position POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsff erminations Certified Employees Lang. Arts 8-24-87 6-17 CLOVERDALE EL. 9-29-03 TCHl0 Elem. II 8-21-89 3-18 MCDERMOTT 11-3-03 TCH925 Gen. Math 8-14-03 1-12 ALC 10-31-03 TCH925 Spanish I 8-7-02 1-02 CENTRAL 10-9-03 TCH925 Germani 1-3-99 6-05 CENTRAL 10-21-03 TCH925 Elem. III 8-7-03 1-06 WASHINGTON 12-19-03 TCH925 Counselor 8-23-82 6-21 PARK.VIEW I 0-14-03 CNLl0 Elem. III 8-7-03 1-01 STEPHENS 9-19-03 TCH925 Speech Path. 8-9-00 62-09 TERRY 10-30-03 SPE925 ANNUAL SALARY 48650.00 46015.00 36756.00 27056.00 36398.00 30630.00 53213.00 26546.00 41148.00 Personnel Changes Page 3 September 25, 2003 POSITION NAME SCHOOL START DATE END DATE Rolax, Shirley Kindergarten 8-21-73 Reason: Retired CLOVERDALE EL. 1-5-03 Tucker-Redam, Holly Elem I 8-14-00 Reason: Accepted Another WILSON 10-1-03 Position New Certified Eml!lol'.ees Alexander, Reba Cosmo 9-29-03 METRO Anders, Mika English 9-29-03 CENTRAL Bartholomew, Roseleta Social Studies 10-8-03 ACC Birtcher, James Law Enforcement 10-13-03 ALC SALARY CLASS 6-21 K925 1-04 TCH925 1-04 TCH950 3-06 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 53213.00 28588.00 28588.00 annual 23376.65 prorated 16642.00 annual 13521.63 prorated 26546.00 annual 20600.80 prorated 28597.40 annual 21745.94 prorated s\n= n \u0026gt;c:: - ~ ~o ~c:: \u0026gt;:: ~~ :oz \"\n-' f\u0026gt; \u0026gt; ~ m z 0 \u0026gt; z n m :0 m ~ ~ ~~ !l\u0026gt; :0 0 ~ !\no\nz: ~ Kl ,~..~.n 0 ~\n\"' !\"' ~c:: ~~ z-\u0026lt; - \u0026gt; i\u0026amp;l 0~ UI~ m .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 4 September 25, 2003 NAME Howse, Marion Logan, Jacob Lee, Canaa Prime, Stacie Robinson, Preston Scott, John Smith, Jeffrey POSITION SCHOOL English ALC American History START DATE END DATE 10-13-03 9-8-03 MABELV ALE MID. Math 10-20-03 CENTRAL Technology Spec. 8-15-03 GIBBS Civics 10-6-03 HALL Instrumental 8-7-03 PARK.VIEW Career Orien. 8-7-03 MABELV ALE MID. SALARY CLASS 6-20 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 2-03 TCH925 4-01 TCHl0 6-09 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 51713.00 annual 39323.43 prorated 26546.00 annual 23642.53 prorated 28894.00 annual 21219.03 prorated 30553.00 annual 30871.26 prorated 40482.00 annual 31837.41 prorated 31574.00 26546.00 annual 16591.25 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 September 25, 2003 POSITION NAME SCHOOL START DATE END DATE Sutton, Wilma Social Studies MANN 10-13-03 Thom, Ellen Elem IV 10-20-03 RIGHTSELL Thomas, Shauna Music 10-15-03 FOREST HGTS. White, Susan Social Studies 9-26-03 FAIR West, Angela Elem I 10-20-03 WILSON Certified Promotion NONE Certified Transfer NONE SALARY CLASS 1-02 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-10 TCH925 4-04 TCH925 5-11 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 27056.00 annual 20573.83 prorated 26546.00 annual 19494.72 prorated 34714.00 annual 26035.50 prorated 32595.00 annual 26653.20 prorated 41120.00 annual 30197.50 prorated ~ n .\n\u0026lt;a= \u0026gt;-. .\nna ::e\u0026lt;= ::: ~ !:\na z U\u0026gt; :-' ~ \u0026gt; =I mz C \u0026gt;z n m\na m ~ ~ '.'.:~ !l\u0026gt;\na C ~ !\nc:Z z~ G')\na ~s ,....n n~ in U\u0026gt; !D .U..\u0026gt;. C -.,c ~ z-\u0026lt;\n_,1\n~U\u0026gt; c!:,c:\n.,,z i: m .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 6 September 25, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Adams, Sam Instr. Aide 4-2-01 1-09 Reason: Health WASHINGTON 12-1-03 INA925 Brandon, Mark Custodian 8-8-03 1-01 Reason: None Given HALL 10-13-03 CUS925 Brown, Johnny Custodian 9-14-03 1-01 Reason: None Given KING 10-13-03 CUS928 Bunting, Devona Custodian 9-8-03 1-01 Reason: Personal FULBRIGHT 10-23-03 CUS925 Coleman, Devin Custodian 4-14-02 1-02 Reason: Abandonment CLOVERDALE MID. 10-8-03 CUS12 Doerpinghaus, Sherri Nurse 9-21-98 1-09 Reason: None Given RIGHTSELL 10-10-03 NURSES Dickerson, Mary Child Nutrition 2-1-02 3-02 Reason: Accepted Another BALE 10-28-03 FSH550 Position Flowers, Martha Care 8-15-03 1-06 Reason: None Given CARE ~ 10-31-03 CARE Iverson, Marcus Custodian 9-27-01 1-03 Reason: None Given MCCLELLAN 10-3-03 CUS928 ANNUAL SALARY 13750.00 10329.00 10329.00 10329.00 13955.00 33693.00 8161.00 6.84 11201.00 Personnel Changes Page 7 September 25, 2003 POSITION NAME SCHOOL START DATE END DATE 9-23-02 Johnson,Shameka Care Reason: None Given CARE 10-31-03 Kendrick, Gloria Instr. Aide 8-9-00 Reason: Health TERRY 11-3-03 Pace, Martha Secretary 8-25-67 Reason: Health CLOVERDALE MID. 12-2-03 Reyes, Norma Care 8-18-03 Reason: None Given CARE 10-31-03 Shiflett, Linda Secretary 8-19-87 Reason: Retired FINANCIAL SERV. 12-31-03 Sterley, Pamela Child Nutrition 8-12-03 Reason: Accepted Another WESTERN HILLS 10-27-03 Position Tyler, Earnest Child Nutrition 4-7-03 Reason: None Given OTTERCREEK l 0-16-03 Usry, Yolanda Clerical 1-30-95 Reason: Terminated HALL 10-24-03 Walker, Edith Child Nutrition 8-20-98 Reason: Retired CHICOT 11-1-03 Warner, Charlotte Care 8-15-03 Reason: None Given CARE 10-31-03 SALARY CLASS 3-05 CARE 1-10 INA925 31-20 CLK925 4-01 CARE 51-20 AN12 3-01 FSH550 3-01 FSH550 39-08 CLKl0 1-06 FSH5 1-03 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 7.40 14067.00 22656.00 6.25 41148.00 8130.00 8130.00 20100.00 7532.00 6.43 s\n= n .\nC:o: \no -an ~c:: ~ ~~ ::oz en :- ~  =l mz C  nz m Rl ~ ~ ~~ !l \no C ~ !\nc\nz: z~ C\u0026gt;\no ~s ,....n \u0026lt;\"i~\nen !JI ~c:: -a C s\n:m z~ !I ..,,z ii: .zm.. Personnel Changes Page 8 September 25, 2003 NAME Baltimore, Jacqueline Barnes, Connie Beny, Roshawn Bracy, Saundra Burl, Felicia Brewer, Chanda POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS New Non-Certified Employees Child Nutrition 10-21-03 3-01 MCCLELLAN FSH550 Child Nutrition 9-29-03 3-01 FULBRIGHT FSH550 Bus Driver 10-13-03 3-02 TRANS. BUSDRV Clerical 10-23-03 39-01 HALL CLKl0 Child Nutrition 10-3-03 3-01 HENDERSON FSH550 Child Nutrition 10-14-03 3-01 PARK.VIEW FSH550 ANNUAL SALARY 8130.00 annual 6130.82 prorated 8130.00 annual 6752.79 prorated 10118.00 annual 7787.45 prorated 16308.00 annual 11407.57 prorated 8130.00 annual 6575.08 prorated 8130.00 annual 6264.10 prorated Personnel Changes Page 9 September 25, 2003 POSITION NAME SCHOOL Cane, Sandra Custodian HALL Clark, Gerald Custodian BALE Dixon, Sarah Instr. Aides FAIR PARK Dukes, Marion Instr. Aides FAIR PARK Fisher, Lisa Bookkeeper SOUTHWEST Goodman, Phyllis Care CARE Gordon, Eura Child Nutrition MCCLELLAN START DATE END DATE 9-16-03 9-29-03 9-22-03 10-13-03 9-29-03 10-25-03 10-13-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS925 1-01 CUS12 1-10 INA925 1-10 INA925 39-12 CLKl0 1-07 CARE 3-14 FSH550 ANNUAL SALARY 5164.50 annual 4406.67 prorated 13399.00 annual 10035.00 prorated 14067.00 annual 11861.90 prorated 14067.00 annual 10721.34 prorated 22656.00 annual 17856.95 prorated 6.97 8533.00 annual 6621.23 prorated\ni,,s ~,... .,,~ m::c 3g Cl)rm(/) nm C:\n:o\n:o~ :\n!m -0 Cl) ~ s\n= (\") \u0026gt; C: - ~ ~o ~c: \u0026gt;:: ~~ ::oz ~ r, \u0026gt; ~ mz 0 \u0026gt;z (\") m\n:o m ~ .\n.:.o. ~\nS !l\u0026gt;\n,:,O ~ !I\no?= z~ C\u0026gt;\n:o ~~ rm ~(/) m Cl) !II ~ C: -oo z ~.... Nl\ni\"' oG'i UI~ .mz.. . Personnel Changes Page 10 September 25, 2003 NAME Harris, Fayette Hubbard, Myia Jacob, Lanina Jackson-Ayers, Lenora Jackson, Michelle J arnes, Henrietta Johnson, Tammy POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition CENTRAL Instr. Aide WILSON Instr. Aide WOODRUFF Instr. Aide GEYER SPRINGS Instr. Aide MCDERMOTT Child Nutrition FRANKLIN Child Nutrition STEPHENS START DATE END DATE 10-24-03 10-20-03 10-6-03 10-13-03 9-12-03 9-29-03 10-30-03 SALARY CLASS 3-01 FSH550 1-05 INA925 1-10 INA925 1-10 INA925 1-10 INA925 3-01 FSH550 3-01 FSH550 ANNUAL SALARY 8130.00 annual 5997.54 prorated 12481.00 annual 9175.22 prorated 14067.00 annual 11101.52 prorated 14067.00 annual 10821.34 prorated 14067.00 annual 12242.09 prorated 8130.00 annual 6752.79 prorated 8130.00 annual 5819.84 prorated Personnel Changes Page 11 September 25, 2003 POSITION NAME SCHOOL Johnson, Tammy Child Nutrition STEPHENS Jordan, Christene Care CARE Lucas, Chester Security Officer HALL McClendon, Marcus Care CARE McDonald, Keri Instr. Aide JEFFERSON Moragne, Lola Custodian FAIR Overton, Lawrence Security Officer RIGHTSELL START DATE END DATE 10-30-03 11-3-03 10-15-03 10-25-03 10-13-03 9-18-03 10-2-03 SALARY CLASS 3-01 FSH550 2-02 CARE 36-16 SOFR9 2-02 CARE 1-10 INA925 1-01 CUS925 36-10 SOFR9 ANNUAL SALARY 8130.00 annual 5819.84 prorated 6.80 16336.00 annual 12207.12 prorated 6.80 14067.00 annual 10721.34 prorated 5164.50 annual 4350.53 prorated 13657.00 annual 10880.58 prorated :s\n= 0 \u0026gt;c:  ::0 \u0026gt;\na -an ~ C: \u0026gt;~ ~~ ::oz ~ !\"\u0026gt; \u0026gt; =I m z 0 \u0026gt;z 0 m ~ c3 ~ ~\ns !l \n,::,O ~ ~ 0\nz z~ C) ::0 c3 ~ r-m \u0026lt;'IC/) iii Cl) !II C...l.) C: -ao ~ z-\u0026lt; -..., 1n ~Cl) c!,c:\n.,, I m .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 12 September 25, 2003 NAME Porter, Dorothy Neal, ShelJie Randall, Joe Raynor, Gwendolyn Reed, Audrey Scott, Ronnie Smith, Tunza POSITION SCHOOL Nurse METRO Child Nutrition WILSON Security Officer CENTRAL Child Nutrition CHICOT Bus Driver TRANS. Instr. Aide KING Instr. Aide GIBBS START DATE END DATE 9-29-03 10-6-03 9-3-03 10-15-03 10-13-03 10-1-03 10-13-03 SALARY CLASS 1-07 NURSES 3-17 FSH4 36-13 SOFR9 3-01 FSH550 3-02 BUSDRV 1-05 INA925 1-03 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 31651.00 annual 25716.44 prorated 6037.00 annual 4849.95 prorated 14939.00 annual 13625.68 prorated 8130.00 annual 6219.67 prorated 10,118.00 annual 7787.45 prorated 12481.00 annual 10052.26 prorated 2908.75 annual 2216.94 prorated Personnel Changes Page 13 September 25, 2003 POSITION NAME SCHOOL START DATE END DATE Summons, Raymond Security Officer 9-4-03 MITCHELL Stewart, Jacqueline Parent Coor. BASELINE 10-14-03 Taylor, Tanne Instr. Aide 10-2-03 WASHINGTON Taylor, Tanne Care 11-3-03 CARE Taylor, Wallace Instr. Aide 10-21-03 CHICOT White, Gloria Child Nut. Trainee 10-13-03 CHILD NUTRITION Williams, Charlotte Child Nutrition 9-22-03 HALL SALARY CLASS 36-10 SOFR9 1-06 INA925 1-10 INA925 3-01 CARE 1-10 INA925 2-01 FSMEAL 3-01 FSH550 ANNUAL SALARY 13657.00 annual 12231.27 prorated 6399.00 annual 4842.49 prorated 14067.00 annual 11253.00 7.12 14067.00 annual 10341.15 prorated 11593.00 annual 8912.90 prorated 8130.00 annual 6974.92 prorated ~ n \u0026gt; C:  \"' \"' \"D c5 ~ C: ::: ~~ \"'z \":-\u0026lt;' !\"' \u0026gt; =l m z C \u0026gt;z n m \"m' c3 \"...'. ~\ns !l \n,\n,C ~!\nc\nz: z~ C)\"' c3 ~ ~m !:i\u0026lt;n m \"' !D \"...'. C: \"DC \u0026gt;~ Z-1 Nt ~\"' oi:'i u,Z ii: m z... . Personnel Changes Page 14 September 25, 2003 NAME Williams, Angela Williams, Racquel NONE NONE POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide ROMINE Security Officer MCCLELLAN START DATE END DATE 11-4-03 10-14-03 Non-Certified Promotions Non-Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS 1-10 INA925 36-11 SOFR9 ANNUAL SALARY 14067.00 annual 9580.77 prorated 14065.00 annual 10587.39 prorated Date: To: From: Through: Re: bjg LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 20, 2003 Board of Education Beverly Williams, Director Human Resources Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Attendance Report Oral Presentation / Update ~ n  C:  ::0  2!! -an ~ C: ::\nji~ ::0 z u, :- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: DATE: Background Phone: (501) 447-2950 E-Mail: j cba bbs(l1)s t uasn.lrsd.kl 2.ar .us Board of Directors Junious Babbs Compliance Committee Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent First Reading - Revisions to Policy ACBB\nJC\nJCA November 20, 2003 On September 13, 2002, the District Court granted LRSD partial unitary status finding that the District had substantially complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") in all areas except 2.7.1. The Revised Education Plan is referenced in existing policy and incorporates a number of student I school assignments that are race-based. Since LRSD has been declared unitary with regard to student assignment, revision is being recommended. Attached are copies of the proposed revised policy. Recommendation The Board tabled action on policies ACBB, JC, and JCA at the November 6 special meeting. It is recommended that approval on these revisions to policies ACBB: Equitable Student Assignment, JC: School Attendance Zones and JCA: Student Assignment I School Choice be granted at this time. (Attachment)\ni,,s ~:..,~ m:z: ::\n!o -o \u0026lt;nrmnm.,, C:\n:c\n:c~ :.\n,!,.m,, \u0026gt; z s\n= LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPH: ACBB EQUITABLE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT The Board of Education is committed to the implementation of student assignment programs and procedures designed to maintain diversity in Little Rock School District schools to the extent practicable, recognizing that there is no requirement that every Little Rock School District school be racially balanced. Revised: Adopted: April 22, 1999 Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC, ACB, ACBD, JC, JCA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPH: JC SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONES School Attendance zones will be established by the Board of Education and all modifications or alterations in zone boundaries will be approved by the Little Rock School Board. The basis for LRSD student assignments is the geographic attendance zone which ties each residential street address within district boundaries to a specific elementary, middle and high school. Student assignment priority will be given to the Attendance Zone student. Recommendations to establish, modify or alter attendance zone boundaries will include consideration of the operational needs of the school system. Any recommendation for establishment or alteration of boundaries will include an analysis and justification based on these factors. Revised: Adopted: May 25, 2000 s\n= f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPH: JCA SCHOOL CHOICE It is the policy of the Board of Education to implement student assignment programs and procedures designed to ensure that students may benefit from attending a school other than the one serving their neighborhood attendance zone. The Student Assignment Plan includes attendance zone school precedence and educational choice options that maintain student diversity to the extent practicable. Providing students and their families with school choice is a key component of the assignment plan. School Choice is viewed as a healthy method of providing opportunity for students to take advantage of unique curriculum offerings, special emphasis and program activities. Procedures will be established that enable students to make application to enroll in a school outside of their designated attendance zone. Initial registration begins during a two-week open enrollment period scheduled the first two months of the calendar year. Parents and students will be informed of available options. ATTENDANCE ZONE SCHOOLS-Students are assigned to the designated attendance zone school by their recorded residence. During the open enrollment period, priority will be provided to attend the attendance zone school site. STIPULATION/ ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS were created in 1987. Seats are reserved for students in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Each district conducts an application process and assigns students to these schools. SPECIAL TY MAGNET SCHOOLS with \"themed\" or \"specialty\" programs have coursework that supplements the regular curriculum. They are available to students seeking school options or choices outside of their attendance zone schools. These specialty programs are sited at schools that also serve as attendance zone schools. Students from PCSSD may participate in these specialty programs as M-to-M transfer students. If the number of out of zone applicants exceed the number of program seats available, a weighted random assignment process will be used to identify those students who will be assigned. M-to-M Transfer program is a collaborative effort between the LRSD and PCSSD, which allows students school choice across district boundaries if certain criteria are met. NCLB Transfers available to students in schools identified by the Arkansas Department of Education as \"low-performing\". Staff Preference Transfers allow students who live in the LRSD to attend the schools in which their parents are employed. Act 624, Act 762 and Act 609/School Choice Transfers are Arkansas statues which are available to students who wish to transfer across school district boundaries. Transfer No Transportation (TNT) Transfers permit students to attend a school other than their attendance zone school if space is available after a certain number of seats are set aside or \"reserved\" for attendance zone students and if the parent / guardian assumes responsibility for the student's transportation. If demand exceeds available space, the priority will be to promote diversity. Revised: Adopted: May 25, 2000 Cross References: Board of Education Policy AC, ACB, ACBB, ACBD, JC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: DATE: Background Phone: (501) 447-2950 E-Mail: j unious.babbs@lrsd.org Board of Directors Junious Babbs Compliance Committee Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent 2004-05 Student Assignment Plan November 20, 2003 On September 13, 2002, the District Court granted LRSD partial unitary status finding that the District had substantially complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") in all areas except  2. 7 .1. The Revised Plan incorporated a number of race-based student assignment policies as a part of the District's effort to eliminate the vestiges of its past discrimination. LRSD's being declared unitary changes the analysis with regard to the constitutionality of the LRSD's intradistrict race-based student assignment policies and requires a change in the student assignment plan. LRSD being declared unitary should not at this time affect the constitutionality of interdistrict race-based student assignment policies related to the stipulation magnet schools, interdistrict schools and M-to-M transfers. Those policies remain necessary to eliminate the vestiges of past discrimination by the Pulaski County Special School District and the State of Arkansas. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Education approve one of the attached Student Assignment Plans for 2004-05. (Attachment) :s\n= 2004-2005 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN (Plan A) The proposed 2004-05 Little Rock School District (LRSD) Student Assignment Plan recognizes attendance zone school precedence\nhowever, additional attention and focus have been developed with the intent to provide both educational choice options and maintain student diversity (to the extent practicable). The basis for LRSD student assignments are the geographic attendance zones which ties each residential street address in the district to a specific elementary, middle and high school. First priority of student assignment is in the Attendance Zone School. The Board of Directors on recommendation by the Superintendent must approve any modification or alteration to attendance zones. Providing students and their families with school choice is a key component of the current student assignment plan. School Choice is viewed as a healthy method of encouraging students to take advantage of unique curriculum offerings, special emphasis and program activities. In light of the success of current choice options (27% of LRSD students attend a school via school choice option) it allows all LRSD students regardless of where they reside an opportunity. Recognizing the importance of student diversity and evidence that supports improved academic achievement, social connection and life preparations in a multicultural society, LRSD is committed to offering assignment opportunities or choices that might promote further diversity. A recent survey indicated the following:  School assignment options outside the Neighborhood School Attendance Zone are important. Parent - 85.4% Agree I Strongly Agree Staff - 82.9% Agree I Strongly Agree Community - 77. 7% Agree I Strongly Agree  It important that schools reflect a diverse student population Parent- 90.0% Agree I Strongly Agree Staff- 92.2% Agree I Strongly Agree Community- 61.1 % Agree I Strongly Agree Attendance Zone Schools - Each child is assigned to a designated attendance zone school by their recorded residence. During the open enrollment period, priority will be provided to attend the attendance zone school site. Although the majority of students in LRSD attend their attendance zone school (70%), school choice or assignment options are available. 2004-05 TRANSFER CHOICE OPTIONS Stipulation I Original Magnet schools and M-to M transfer options will continue to utilize racebased placement decisions. [Judge Wilson indicated in the September 2002 partial unitary ruling that \"the Court's decision in this case does not affect interdistrict transfers between the LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD.\"] Stipulation /Original Magnet Schools were created in 1987. Seats are reserved for students in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Each district conducts an application process and assigns students to these schools:  Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School  Mann Art/Science Magnet Middle School  Booker Arts Magnet Elementary School  Carver Math and Science Magnet Elementary School  Gibbs International Magnet Elementary School  Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School Specialty Magnet Schools with \"themed\" or \"specialty\" programs have coursework that supplements the regular curriculum. They are available to students seeking school options or choices outside of their attendance zone schools. These specialty programs are sited at schools that also serve as attendance zone schools, therefore, part of the schools' population is zone students and part is specialty magnet students. Students from PCSSD may participate in these specialty programs as M-toM transfer students.  Central International Studies Magnet High School  Hall University Studies High School  Fair Environmental Sciences/Systems Engineering/Medical Studies Magnet High School  McClellan Business-Finance/Multimedia-Graphic Design/Engineering Magnet High School  Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Interdistrict Magnet Middle School  Henderson Health Sciences Interdistrict Magnet Middle School  Cloverdale Economics/Multimedia/Engineering Magnet Middle School  Mabelvale Environmental Sciences/Medical Sciences/Information Communications Technology Magnet Middle School  Martin Luther King High Intensity Learning Interdistrict Elementary School  Romine Computer Science/Basic Skills Elementary School  Rockefeller Early Childhood (Pl - P4).  Washington Basic Skills / Math Sciences Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School If the number of out of zone applicants exceed the number of program seats available, a weighted random assignment process will be used to identify those students who will be assigned. Criteria indicators considered in the weighted random process include the student's race, achievement test performance and economic status (free and reduced lunch). Weighted Random Assignment Process Step 1. Define a SCHOOL ATTRIBUTE for each school based on three separate characteristics of its Attendance Zone (AZ) students. The three characteristics are race, achievement test performance and economic status (free and reduced lunch). Step 2. Define a STUDENT ATTRIBUTE for each student requesting a transfer to Specialty Magnet Program School based on the same three characteristics as the school attribute. (A default weight will be added for students with missing data - i.e. achievement test performance and economic status). In addition the following weighted value will be added: Sibling (Provide a weight for students with a sibling at the requested school site) AZ Student Weight (Provide a weight for AZ students who enter the zone after the open enrollment period and seats are not available) Step 3. Compare the Student Attribute to the School Attribute and assign a weight for each student requesting a transfer. Weights are allocated by comparing the characteristics of the school to the characteristics of the student in an inverse relationship. For example, a low-performing student requesting to go to a school with a larger proportion of high-performing students might receive a greater weight in academic proficiency\nwhereas, a high-performing student applying to the same school would receive a reduced weight factor. Step 4. The computerized lottery will identify the student population of these specialty schools' attendance zones and then increase the likelihood that students of opposite attributes will be selected thereby diversifying the schools population. The selection process will be random. \"Applicant Pool\" - Students who do not get their 1st choice will remain in a \"pool\" for a seat in their first choice school. Each time a seat becomes available in a school that has an applicant pool, the random number of applicants and the student's respective place in the pool determine which student(s) will obtain the available seat. (Numbered Waiting Lists will no longer exist for these Specialty Magnet Schools.) ADDITIONAL SCHOOL CHOICE OPTIONS OUTSIDE OF STIPULATION MAGNET AND SPECIALTY MAGNET SCHOOLS M-to-M Transfer program is a collaborative effort between the LRSD and PCSSD, which allows students school choice across district boundaries if certain criteria are met. NCLB Transfers available to students in schools identified by the Arkansas Department of Education as \"low-performing\". Staff Preference Transfers allow students who live in the LRSD to attend the schools in which their parents are employed. Act 624, Act 762 and Act 609/School Choice Transfers are Arkansas statues which are available to students who wish to transfer across school district boundaries. Transfer No Transportation (TNT) Transfers permit students to attend a school other than their attendance zone school if space is available (after a certain number of seats are set aside or \"reserved\" for attendance zone students) and if the parent assumes responsibility for the student's transportation. If demand exceeds available space, priority will be provided to promote diversity. 2004-2005 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN (Plan B) The proposed 2004-05 Little Rock School District (LRSD) Student Assignment Plan recognizes attendance zone school precedence\nhowever, additional attention and focus have been developed with the intent to provide both educational choice options and maintain student diversity (to the extent practicable). The basis for LRSD student assignments are the geographic attendance zones which ties each residential street address in the district to a specific elementary, middle and high school. First priority of student assignment is in the Attendance Zone School. The Board of Directors on recommendation by the Superintendent must approve any modification or alteration to attendance zones. Providing students and their families with school choice is a key component of the current student assignment plan. School Choice is viewed as a healthy method of encouraging students to take advantage of unique curriculum offerings, special emphasis and program activities. In light of the success of current choice options (27% of LRSD students attend a school via school choice option) it allows all LRSD students regardless of where they reside an opportunity. Recognizing the importance of student diversity and evidence that supports improved academic achievement, social connection and life preparations in a multicultural society, LRSD is committed to offering assignment opportunities or choices that might promote further diversity. A recent survey indicated the following:  School assignment options outside the Neighborhood School Attendance Zone are important. Parent - 85.4% Agree I Strongly Agree Staff- 82.9% Agree I Strongly Agree Community - 77. 7% Agree I Strongly Agree  It important that schools reflect a diverse student population Parent- 90.0% Agree I Strongly Agree Staff- 92.2% Agree I Strongly Agree Community- 61.1% Agree I Strongly Agree Attendance Zone Schools - Each child is assigned to a designated attendance zone school by their recorded residence. During the open enrollment period, priority will be provided to attend the attendance zone school site. Although the majority of students in LRSD attend their attendance zone school (70%), school choice or assignment options are available. 2004-05 TRANSFER CHOICE OPTIONS Stipulation I Original Magnet schools and M-to M transfer options will continue to utilize racebased placement decisions. [Judge Wilson indicated in the September 2002 partial unitary ruling that \"the Court's decision in this case does not affect interdistrict transfers between the LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD.\"] Stipulation /Original Magnet Schools were created in 1987. Seats are reserved for students in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Each district conducts an application process and assigns students to these schools:  Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School  Mann Art/Science Magnet Middle School  Booker Arts Magnet Elementary School  Carver Math and Science Magnet Elementary School  Gibbs International Magnet Elementary School  Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School Specialty Magnet Schools with \"themed\" or \"specialty\" programs have coursework that supplements the regular curriculum. They are available to students seeking school options or choices outside of their attendance zone schools. These specialty programs are sited at schools that also serve as attendance zone schools, therefore, part of the schools' population is zone students and part is specialty magnet students. Students from PCSSD may participate in these specialty programs as M-toM transfer students.  Central International Studies Magnet High School  Hall University Studies High School  Fair Environmental Sciences/Systems Engineering/Medical Studies Magnet High School  McClellan Business-Finance/Multimedia-Graphic Design/Engineering Magnet High School  Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Interdistrict Magnet Middle School  Henderson Health Sciences Interdistrict Magnet Middle School  Cloverdale Economics/Multimedia/Engineering Magnet Middle School  Mabelvale Environmental Sciences/Medical Sciences/Information Communications Technology Magnet Middle School  Martin Luther King High Intensity Leaming Interdistrict Elementary School  Romine Computer Science/Basic Skills Elementary School  Rockefeller Early Childhood (Pl - P4).  Washington Basic Skills / Math Sciences Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School If the number of out of zone applicants exceed the number of program seats available, a weighted random assignment process will be used to identify those students who will be assigned. Criteria indicators considered in the weighted random process include student achievement test performance and economic status (free and reduced lunch). Weighted Random Assignment Process Step 1. Define a SCHOOL ATTRIBUTE for each school based on two separate characteristics of its Attendance Zone (AZ) students. The two characteristics are achievement test performance and economic status (free and reduced lunch). Step 2. Define a STUDENT ATTRIBUTE for each student requesting a transfer to Specialty Magnet Program School based on the same two characteristics as the school attribute. (A default weight will be added for students with missing data - i.e. achievement test performance and economic status). In addition the following weighted value will be added: Sibling (Provide a weight for students with a sibling at the requested school site) AZ Student Weight (Provide a weight for AZ students who enter the zone after the open enrollment period and seats are not available) Step 3. Compare the Student Attribute to the School Attribute and assign a weight for each student requesting a transfer. Weights are allocated by comparing the characteristics of the school to the characteristics of the student in an inverse relationship. For example, a low-performing student requesting to go to a school with a larger proportion of high-performing students might receive a greater weight in academic proficiency\nwhereas, a high-performing student applying to the same school would receive a reduced weight factor. Step 4. The computerized lottery will identify the student population of these specialty schools' attendance zones and then increase the likelihood that students of opposite attributes will be selected thereby diversifying the school population. The selection process will be random. \"Applicant Pool\" - Students who do not get their 1st choice will remain in a \"pool\" for a seat in their first choice school. Each time a seat becomes available in a school that has an applicant pool, the random number of applicants and the student's respective place in the pool determine which student(s) will obtain the available seat. (Numbered Waiting Lists will no longer exist for these Specialty Magnet Schools.) ADDITIONAL SCHOOL CHOICE OPTIONS OUTSIDE OF STIPULATION MAGNET AND SPECIALTY MAGNET SCHOOLS M-to-M Transfer program is a collaborative effort between the LRSD and PCSSD, which allows students school choice across district boundaries if certain criteria are met. NCLB Transfers available to students in schools identified by the Arkansas Department of Education as \"low-performing\". Staff Preference Transfers allow students who live in the LRSD to attend the schools in which their parents are employed. Act 624, Act 762 and Act 609/School Choice Transfers are Arkansas statues which are available to students who wish to transfer across school district boundaries. Transfer No Transportation (TNT) Transfers permit students to attend a school other than their attendance zone school if space is available (after a certain number of seats are set aside or \"reserved\" for attendance zone students) and if the parent assumes responsibility for the student's transportation. If demand exceeds available space, priority will be provided to promote diversity. f) m ~ r C: N)\u0026gt; o-, oc5 6z .... )\u0026gt; C) m z C )\u0026gt; ~ :l:o a~ :=,!\no ml') go C: :r.r - C: C) :I: :r.\n,o iil~ :r. u, .8...1 \"\" DATE: TO: FROM: Prepared by: Title/Subject: Summary: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 November 20, 2003 Little Rock School District Board of Directors Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent School Services Division Robert Jones, Director Safety and Security Department Officer John D. Thompson Little Rock Police Department Crime Prevention Coordinator Security and Security Plan for Central Office In consultation with the Little Rock Police Department Crime Prevention Office, the School Service Division and the LRSD Safety and Security Department have surveyed the Administration Building for security improvements and have identied 11 safety measures that would significantly enhance and improve the safety and security layout of this building. Enclosed you will find a plan that outlines the procedures to be followed for the Administration Building at 810 West Markham. The plan includes procedures for specific emergency situations, as well as identifies key personnel who will assist with certain notification tasks in alerting other personnel during a building emergency or crisis. Other recommended measures are listed below: 1. Tint the windows in the employee lounge downstairs on the first floor and in the main lobby on the second floor to prevent individuals from observing the interior of the administrative office. (Estimated cost is $400.00) s\n= ~ i c:: N  o..,. C, c5 ~z ~ mz ~ 2. Add four CCTV cameras, two on the west side of the building, one on the east side of the building, and one to view the front parking lot. (Estimated cost is $2,000.00) 3. Add a combination code lock on the door between the superintendent's office and the boardroom to prevent easy access into the superintendent's office. (Estimated cost is $400.00) 4. Add dutch doors in the Business and Human Resources offices so that individuals can view who is approaching the door. The door can remain locked in both the Human Resources and Business Office. (Estimated cost is $1200.00) 5. Secure the glass sliding door in the lounge. (Estimated cost is $25.00) 6. Add door contacts on the exit door in the Business Office on the west side of the building so entrance into the building can be monitored. (Estimated cost is $200.00) 7. Add a warning device system such as a bell or a horn to be used in the event of an emergency. (Estimated cost is $500.00) 8. Add a full-time security person and necessary office equipment. The security office desk would be stationed in the reception area. The security person would monitor all activities and cameras during the day and for all board meetings. (Estimated cost is $30,000.00) 9. Establish a visitor's logbook. (Estimated cost is $25.00) 10. Encourage all employees to wear an employee nametag and all visitors to wear a visitor's nametag. (Estimated cost is $75.00) 11. Request additional training from the Little Rock Police Department and the Safety and Security Department for all personnel at 810 West Markham. (No cost) Objectives: Continue to maintain a safe and secure environment for all staff members in the Little Rock School District. Expected Outcomes: Budget: Implementing the changes recommended by the Little Rock Police Crime Prevention Office will help to provide a safe and secure environment for all staff, patrons and board members working and entering the building at 810 West Markham. The cost to implement all recommendations is approximately $34,825.00. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Board of Directors approve the implementation of, and authorize expenditure of funds for the Safety and Security Plan for the Administration Building. s\n= Central Office Security Plan The following Administrative Directives should be reviewed by each employee housed in the Administration Building and adhered to in the case of an emergency: EBAB - ACTION TO BE TAKEN IN THE EVENT OF A HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL SPILL ECAA - ARMED INTRUSION PROCEDURES EBCC - BOMB THREAT PROCEDURES EBCG - GUIDEUNES FOR 911 AMBULANCE USE In addition, the following measures are to be taken: Evacuation Routes In case of fire or other emergency, evaluation routes are posted in all rooms and are to be followed in case of emergency. Emergency Mass Care Shelter Procedures The American Red Cross has designated fifteen (15) Little Rock schools as mass shelters. The closest designated school to the Administration Building is Dunbar Magnet Middle School. At the direction of the Office of the Superintendent, proceed to Dunbar. Threatening Weather  Kim Hochstetler will have a NOAA (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration) weather radio at the front desk. When an alert is given, she will notify Diane Edwards, Beverly Griffin, and carol Armstrong who will then notify by phone a key person in each department (see phone tree).  The designated person in each department will then notify all members of that department.  Everyone is to remain alert for the emergency sirens for the city.  Communications will keep in contact with radio and TV for further information.  In the event of a tornado, everyone will proceed to the Business Office, Print Shop, or the first floor restrooms for safety. Fire or Fire Drill  In the event of a fire or a fire drill, evacuation should take place according to the procedures posted in each room.  At no time should the elevator be used. All employees are to assemble across the street in the LRSD parking lot.  Each Department Head will determine if all of their employees have safely evacuated the building and will report this to the Director of Communications. Bomb Threat  In the event of a bomb threat, the person taking the call witl notify Diane Edwards, Beverly Griffin, or Carol Armstrong. At this time, notification of the evacuation will take place by following these measures:  The emergency horn/siren will be activated by the superintendent's office staff to initiate a building evacuation.  All employees will evacuate the building and report the LRSD parking lot directly across from the building. In the event that Homeland Security issues a code red advisory, the school district will take the following additional security steps:  Assign security to outside building security.  Immediately issue a locked-door policy, only allowing entrance to the building through the front door, and If possible, have the front door observed at all times.  Anyone entering the building through the front door must sign in and must give proof of identification.  Be alert to any suspicious person such as: 1. Unseasonable dress or conspicuous or bulky clothing 2. Nervous handling of parts of clothing 3. Profuse sweating and slow paced walk while focusing on people around 4. Attempting to avoid security personnel 5. Heavily perfumed or recently shaved 6. Cannot give a good reason for being at the building Administrative Staff Certified in CPR Name Michelle Bonds Frances Jones Marian Lacey Beverly Griffin Mark Milhollen Sadie Mitchell Don Stewart Charlotte Washington James Washington Beverly Williams Suellen Vann Expires in January, 04 January, 04 January, 04 January, 04 January, 04 January, 04 January, 04 January, 04 November, 03 January, 04 Emergency Phone Tree The person receiving the emergency information will notify Beverly Griffin, Diane Edwards, or carol Armstrong who will then notify the persons listed below their name in bold. The person whose name is in bold will notify the people below him/her. In he event that the contact person cannot be reached, the next person will be contacted and will assume responsibility for contacting others in their department. Beverly Griffin Dr. Holmes Sandy Becker Lloyd Sain Bill Goodman John Ruffins Mary Smith Margaret Anderson Vera Bates Jackey Bruce Rodney campbell Walter Crockran Greta Freeman Alfreda Hall Helen McGraw Nancy Morgan Pam Neal John Smith Sharon Stephens Mattie Ruth Tipton Linda Shiflett Julian White Beverly Williams Kim Hockersmith Pauline Williams Denise Brown Marcy Eckolls Rita Jones Robert Robinson Sue Rodgers Diane Edwards Suellen Vann Michelle Bonds Julie Davis Larry Pickett Dennis Walker Kim Hochstetler Leon Adams Dorothy Green Valerie Hudson Lionel Ward Ken Savage Kevin Crawford Bill Barton James Washington Linda Austin Blondell Lee Shea Cochran Barbara Hobbs Carol Armstrong Don Stewart Sadie Mitchell Charlotte Washington Kay Gunter Frances Jones Debbie Price Linda Smith Marian Lacey Mark Milhollen Jean Ring Kathy Davidson Janecia Cleek Tanya Cox Rhetta Mayfield Joel Richards Shirley Bray Benita Browning Lynette Sanders carolyn Wallis LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: EBAB (2) Effective: May 1, 2000 ACTION TO BE TAKEN IN THE EVENT OF A HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL SPILL In the event of a major hazardous chemical spill the following plan will be initiated: 1. Immediately call 911 emergency number. 2. Give 911 operator all pertinent information on the chemical spill. 3. If possible make contact with the driver of the chemical truck and obtain the truck bill of lading information. 4. Keep the 911 phone line open unless requested to clear by the. 911 operator. 5. On a secondary line immediately contact the administration reference to the chemical spill. 6. When emergency personnel arrive, all instructions from emergency personnel will be immediately acted on. 7. The Superintendent, or his designee, will implement the District's crisis management plan. After you call 911 for assistance there will be a 3-5 minute period before emergency agencies respond to your building. This time period will be critical for the safety of your staff and students. If building evacuation is necessary: A. Advise 911 operator and school administration. B. Instruct teachers to bring class rott book. C. Determine direction of prevailing wind. D. Always have students go upwind to avoid fumes. E. Move at least 500 ft. (2 blocks) from hazardous substance spill. F. Immediately on reaching safe area have teachers do roll call. G. The District will provide transportation to a safe location. H. Release children only to custodial parent (check ID). LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: EBAB (2) Effective: May 1, 2000 Continued If a hazardous chemical spill occurs so close to a school that the best decision is to stay inside the school building for protection: A. Advise 911 operator. B. Shut down main electrical power sources to all ventilation systems. C. Turn off main gas supply D. Close all exterior doors and windows. E. Instruct teachers to take roll F. Require all persons (especially students with special needs) to go to the opposite end of the building from major chemical spill. G. Have custodial staff place material around doors and windows to prevent fumes from entering the building. H. Release children only to custodial parent (check ID). Cross reference: Board Policy EBAB :s\n= LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: ECM Effective: January 21, 2000 ARMED INTRUSION PROCEDURES If an armed intruder enters your school, the first three to five minutes of the emergency may determine whether or not injuries may occur. Staying calm is critical. Administrative Action: 1. Access the situation. 2. Principal/main office should be immediately contacted. 3. Advise staff by prearranged code so that a locked door policy can be immediately initiated and all students removed from the hallways. a. The prearranged code should be known only by the faculty or staff to keep the students from panicking and inadvertently escalating the situation. 4. Call 911 and advise the operator of all pertinent information, such as: a. Suspect race b. Approximate age c. Dress d. Number of individuals e. Injuries or shots that have been fired f. Location of subject in the building 5. All bells and alarms should be cut off to avoid startling the intruder or inadvertently escalating the situation. 6. Unless advised b'y the 911 operator, the phone line should be kept open and the 911 operator advised of the movements of the intruder. 7. After teachers have been alerted through the code system that an intruder is in the building, the teachers should instruct the students to stay away from the door, go to a solid wall if possible, staying low on the floor below window level. 8. Teachers and staff will observe, if possible, the movements of the suspect without leaving their rooms and report intruder movement to the principal's office. 9. No teacher is to be a hero. Their first thought is for the safety of the students in their care. 10. No student or teacher will leave the room until being advised by the principal or law enforcement officers. 11 . When the first law enforcement officers arrive, the principal will immediately advise them of the situation and have a map or blueprint of LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: ECAA Effective: January 21, 2000 continued the school available. Remember that when the law enforcement office arrives, they are in charge of the situation. 12. If building evacuation is necessary, the principal or designee will do the following: a. Advise 911 operator. b. Instruct the teachers to be sure to have roll books. c. Ensure that evacuation is orderly and that students stay with the teachers. d. Notify teachers and staff of the route to take to leave the building. e. Instruct teachers, students, and staff not to carry any items with them. As a safety factor for law enforcement officers, purses, book bags, coats, etc. will be left in the room. f. If time allows, close and lock all windows and doors when exiting the building. 13. When law enforcement personnel arrive, cooperate with and assist them-they are in charge. 14. As soon as practical, notify the Superintendent's office and the Safety and Security Department. 15. Activate the Crisis Building Plan. Cross reference: Board Policy EGA \u0026amp; EBC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: EBCC Effective: September 30, 2002 BOMB THREAT PROCEDURES Whenever a bomb threat is received in a building, the principal/building manager must contact the police. The principal will decide if evacuation of the building is necessary and, if so, to what extent the building should be evacuated. The evacuation will be accomplished by a standard fire drill. Unless the principal is reasonably certain that the bomb threat is a prank or hoax, the building should be evacuated. Each principal/building manager shall work with staff to devise a search plan for the building. This search plan should be placed into effect in all instances of bomb threats. The Little Rock Police Department must always be notified of any bomb threat. LRPD will dispatch an officer to the scene and will notify the Fire Department if additional help is needed. Notification by telephone shall be made to the following: 1. Little Rock Police Department 2. Safety and Security Department 3. Principal's/Manager's Immediate Supervisor Principals/building managers should call the Department of Safety and Security if they believe that their telephone should be monitored for bomb threats. This directive is effective immediately and replaces Administrative Directive EBCC. Cross reference: Board Policy EBCC Attachment BOMB THREAT ACTION PLAN In the event of a bomb threat: 1. The person receiving the threat should try to obtain as much information as possible about the bomb and its location. Try to ascertain the exact location of the bomb, the time for detonation, what it looks like, the type of explosive, why it was placed, and any other information possible. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. If the threat is made by telephone, the exact time should be noted. Immediately inform the school principal and assistant superintendent. Immediately call the police department (911) and inform them of the bomb threat and all the details that were obtained when the threat was received. The police will notify the fire department and bomb squad. All threats should be reported even if the building is not evacuated. In the event of an evacuation, the following should take place: a. Everyone should be at least 100 feet from the building. b. Staff members should make visual checks of their work area and report anything unusual. DO NOT TOUCH ANYTHING SUSPICIOUS. c. Teachers are responsible for the students under their supervision and should take attendance at the evacuation-holding site to account for each child. Children who are unaccounted for are to be reported to the principal immediately. d. Teachers-will make sure all windows and doors are shut during the evacuation procedure and that they have possession of the class roster and grade book(s). School personnel shall not conduct a search or disturb anything without permission from the police department. Wait for law enforcement personnel to arrive. The police will coordinate the search with assistance from designated building staff. 7. After law enforcement personnel and fire department authorities have conducted a thorough search, the principal, upon the recommendation of the police and/or superintendent, will permit re-entry into the building. !=' :il:n 6li5 ~\na me') Qo C: ::c,.. - C: C) :ii: ::c\na iq ~ ::c rn 8('C ..... 8. Decisions regarding school dismissal or other further actions are the prerogative of the superintendent. 9. CAUTION: Never tune to an FM radio frequency during bomb threat conditions, as some bombs are programmed to detonate by an FM radio signal. LRSD BOMB THREAT REPORT SCHOOL NAME.: SCHOOL ADDRE.55: TIME RECEIVED: DA TE RECEIVED: TIME REPORTED TO POLICE: DATE REPORTED TO POLICE: EXACT WORDS OP CALLER: QUESTIONS TO ASK: 1. Where is the bo1J1b to explode? 2. Where is the bomb right now? 3. What kind of bomb is it? 4. What does the bomb look like? 5. Why did you place the bomb? 6. Where are you calling from? DESCRll'TION OF CALLERs VOICE: Male D Female D Young D Middle-aged D Old D TONE OF VOICE: Serious D Joking D Giggling/Laughing D Tense 0 Very Sure D Unsure D Accent: 0 Yes 0 No If yes, what kind? FAMILIAR VOICE: D Yes D No If yes, whose? OTHER VOICE CHARACTERISTICS: WERE THERE A~ BACKGROUND NOISES'? D Yes  No If yes, what kind? I TIME CALLER HUNG UP: I ACTION TAKEN: I NAME OF RECIPIENT: TITLE: .. ADDRESS: PHONE.I ACTION TAKEN BY RECIPIENT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: EBCF Effective: March 1, 2001 GUIDELINES FOR 911 AMBULANCE USE The following guidelines are included in the \"LRSD Standing Orders for Accidents and Illnesses\" for students and should be followed in emergency situations for any person at an LRSD facility or function. After determining that a person is having a life-threatening emergency, you should call 911 and then start CPR if appropriate. You must call an ambulance for anyone who: 1. is choking, unable to breathe, and/or loses consciousness\n2. is having difficulty breathing and seems very distressed (the signs of breathing difficulty may be cyanosis (bluish coloration around mouth), severe wheezing or asthma attack, and/or retractions (all the chest muscles are used to breathe)\n3. has no pulse, a very slow pulse, and loses consciousness (start CPR)\n4. has severe pulsating bleeding uncontrolled with pressure (try to control bleeding with direct pressure over the wound)\n5. has had a penetrating stab wound (control bleeding first and cover any chest wound)\n6. has had a penetrating gun shot wound\n7. has suffered an accident and has a possible broken neck, back, pelvis, hip, or upper leg (do not attempt to move\nlet the Emergency Medical Technician stabilize the fracture)\n8. is in the final stages of labor with contractions every 5 minutes or delivery is imminent\n9. is unconscious and cannot be aroused for any reason (start CPR if there is no breathing or pulse)\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Continued ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: EBCF Effective: March 1, 2001 10. has a seizure that lasts longer than 1 O minutes\n11 . is involved in an automobile accident or is hit by a vehicle and has multiple injuries and/or altered or loss of consciousness\nor 12. has suffered a severe burn from a fire, chemicals, or electricity (remove all clothing from the burn). When calling 911: 1. remember to give the following information:  Your name  Site name and location  Name of person requiring emergency care  Brief description of the problem  Location of person at the site\n2. follow any phone instructions given by the dispatcher\n3. do not hang up until told to do so by the dispatcher\nand 4. write down specifically your observation and response. This directive is effective immediately and remains effective until changed in writing. I i :\n:r,. fa Satvi'c.e..s $-\\oro.1~ Date of Drawing cJ i .. \\l2S_  ~~~\n1\n...., .,..'! JJ\\l ............. Jm=ll lOOH:\u0026gt;S H!\u0026gt;IH Y 3100IW \"llSIA3lJ wn1n:\u0026gt;11J1Jn:\u0026gt; o 2\\5A --  --  s u!:i:=====i1==1-ii '\u0026lt;:_ _ 2.\\ ~ EOAY.D Roc:\u0026gt;l--1 to-tOOl I/ON3!ll/ NOlll/nll/i\\3 :, 2 n-d-lJ3\" 11/M di/ 'I/ SNOlll/011/1\\3 A:\u0026gt;VH3lll e 'lSNI / WOlO:\u0026gt;tlJlJO:\u0026gt; 'IIIA 1/00  !lNIOl/3lJ C..Z :A:\u0026gt;flOd y S3:\u0026gt;IAlJ3S SS3N1Sne ')() \\ \ni I .CL) ~ \\J (Y) 0- r() ?f)8C -yj]J) . ~ t . j t===~==-== -Al --L--~-~ (.)J W . ITl I ,, \\-\\ALL I I ! t I l 'r.===::\n:==::::rr Vh\\\" s: ~H,1'2 vJ o- I f\\J I, l .   . ... ,.-=.  :ItJ'n:,,. St:.llll1c:.e.s :5-\\-c:,,,.. c,.. \u0026lt;/ (.._ ?..0 100H:\u0026gt;S HOIH Y 310011/l ,,sl/\\3M wn1n:\u0026gt;1MMn:\u0026gt; o \\  -  u ....:.  .,,,,..  -~ ''' -~ Date of Drawing lL/3_\n_8_0 '30 ~TO, ~~I '2.'3 24 B~EEPtfJ61 [A~Cl l -'---......... \"-d--\"f\\ ,--~--:~~--- .. ~=Ii I fb B~~'e..PIN6, [6'371 mooz VON30V NOUVnWA3 :, SNOtlVOlVAH:\u0026gt;VM311l a -~ j: l l:I Jl\\rJ, -.. J. - I ::,::~. -- .: - j  \" -7'.' \u0026gt;'l- \\7 LoUN\u0026amp;t EJD_ 7:i ~r .:,,/t '( i fl-,_, . ......,,....,i_,ur-111 phone.. ~ f~ l r1 ELEC. .. c i 117 ,. M3/JVMdV \"V VOO  ONIOV3M C..Z :A:\u0026gt;flOd y S3:\u0026gt;!AM3S SS3NISna \"XI \"lSNI/ wn1n:\u0026gt;1MMn:\u0026gt; \"Ill,\\ r\n~UPTr OPF, ~rfl Ehert:( 3 OFFIC,P- ]G--, '2 9 I 100H:\u0026gt;S HOIH 'B 310011/l ,1slA3M wn,n:itMMn:\u0026gt; a 40 OFF, 1.,'l 53 OFF J I 1211 t\u0026lt;KOOZ VON30V NOUVOlVl\\3 :i 4'5 HALL ~Fi, (\\\u0026amp;oj . SNOllVOlV/13 A:lVM3lll 'B J M3/JVMdV 'V '!SNI / wn,n:\u0026gt;IMMn:\u0026gt; 111A OFF . Ji 9_\u0026lt;.c] VOO  ONIOV3M ONZ =A:\u0026gt;t10d y S3:\u0026gt;IAM3S SS3NISne 'XI TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 20, 2003 Board of Directors FROM: Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent THROUGH: ~ Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Waiver providing incentive for students to take AP Exams Summary-a proposal is described to give eligible AP students the option to waive the second semester exam requirement if they take the AP Exam. Objective-to encourage students in AP courses to take the corresponding AP exams in those courses. Expected Outcomes-the number of students in AP courses who take the corresponding AP Exams will increase. For 2002-2003 only 10.3% of the 3,287 students enrolled in AP course took the AP Exam. Population-students enrolled in AP courses Budget Amount-No budget is proposed. Students who are identified for free and reduced lunch have almost all the cost of their AP Exams covered by the College Board and participating schools. Students who take more than two AP Exams receive a discount on any additional exams they take. The cost of an AP Exam is $80 each for the first two and $30 each for the third and above exams. Manager-high school principals will manage the program in their own buildings. Mable Donaldson will oversee the program for the district. Duration-the beginning date is the second semester of the 2003-04 school year. The program will be assessed after AP Exams are taken in spring, 2004. Any needed adjustments will be considered at that time. Long Range-the program will be maintained as long as it is deemed successful. Other Agencies Involved-none g z ~ cz5 u, r\u0026gt; i C: N)\u0026gt; C) ... C) c5 .~.. z,.. C, mz ~ Expectations of District-Principals and their staff will work with students on a \"need\" basis to assist them obtain financial aid. If funding is found to be an acute problem, the district will seek ways to ameliorate the problem. Needed staff-none Comments-the legitimacy of our AP Program can be questioned at schools where very few students take AP Exams. Recommendations-we recommend that a waiver be granted to students in AP courses to allow the option of taking the corresponding AP Exam in lieu of the second semester final exam. Tyler Fuller, Central High student, brought a proposal before the Board that would allow students the option of taking the AP Exam in lieu of the second semester exam in the AP course(s) they are taking. High school principals, curriculum staff, and AP teachers were given an opportunity to reflect on and respond to the proposal. With that input an incentive is proposed to increase the number of students who take AP Exams. Problem: Only 338 out of3,287 students (duplicate count) took an AP Exam (See attached 2002-03 AP enrollment chart.). Proposed Solution: 1. Students in AP courses should be encouraged to take the corresponding AP exams in those courses to:  Engage students in preparing for and taking challenging exams  Give students an opportunity to earn college credit, thus saving tuition money for families  Assist the schools and district to evaluate the efficacy of the AP Program 2. Students in AP courses who meet certain criteria will be granted a waiver that will allow them the option of not taking the second semester final exam in the course if they take the AP Exam. Students may, however, elect to take the final exam in addition to the AP Exam. Criteria that students must meet to gain the waiver are:  70% average for both the third and fourth nine-weeks grading periods in the AP course  Attendance, tardies, citizenship, and disciplinary requirements shall be the same as the Semester Exam Exemption for Senior Students: 1) The student shall not accumulate more than three (3) excused absences and shall have no unexcused absences in the class. 2) The student shall not accumulate more than one (1) tardy in the class. 3) The student shall not receive a citizenship mark of two (2) or higher in the class. 4) The student shall receive no out-of-school suspensions or expulsions in the said semester. 3. Students' scores on the AP Exam will not be used as part of their semester grade. 4. The final exam score will be part of the semester grade for students who elect to take both the AP Exam and the final exam\nhowever, the resulting semester grade cannot be lower than the average of the two nine-week grades. 5. Students' second semester grades that elect the option of taking the AP Exam in lieu of the second semester final exam will be based on an average of the percentage grade for the third and fourth nine-weeks. Schools will provide assistance to students to obtain financial aid for which they might be eligible. ~ g z ?\ncz5 (/) !='\ni::c-, 6lij i,2\n,o mo QO c:: :,:I\"\" -C:: C') !C ::C\n,o ~~ :Cu, 8r ,-- School Central High McClellan J.A. Fair Hall High Parkview Total Little Rock School District AP Enrollment for 2002-03 Enrollment Took AP Test Percent that took test 1387** 193 14% 345** 12 3.5% 233** 14 6% 452** 8 1.8% 870** 111 13% 3287** 338 10.3% ** Some students are enrolled in more than one course. #of AP Exams taken 410 19 21 9 191 650 TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 20, 2003 Board of Directors FROM: Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent THROUGH: if/(' Dr. Morris Hohnes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Program Evaluations for Elementary and Secondary Literacy Short Summary-The Board is asked to review and approve the program evaluations for Elementary Literacy (PreK-5) and Secondary Literacy (6-12). Objectives-I) to improve the education for all students by evaluating selected programs each year to determine their impact on student achievement, 2) to comply with the requirement of section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan to submit for District Court Approval the program evaluations listed. Expected Outcomes-Programs will be maintained, adjusted, or eliminated based on the recommendations of these long-term program evaluations. Population-Dr. Steve Ross, external program evaluation consultant, district staff and teachers were involved in the evaluations. Staff and teachers will use these evaluations as a benchmark for future program decisions. Budget Amount/Source ofBudget-Staff members' time and materials are included as a part of the regular operating budget for the Math/Science and Literacy Departments. Dr. Ross' consultant contract is included in budget. Manager-Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Instruction, and Dr. Ed Williams, Statistician Duration-The formal program evaluations of the elementary literacy program and secondary literacy program began during the 2002-03 school year and continued through the first semester of the 2003-04 school year. Analysis of and response to the program evaluations will continue through the spring semester of 2004 and for the next few years as additional data is gathered. 8 \u0026gt; !D g z ~ cz3 U\u0026gt; Long Range/Continuation-all program evaluations are used as a benchmark for program planning in future years. The two formal literacy evaluations will conclude with the approval of the Board and the District Court. Other Agencies Involved-The Office of Desegregation Monitoring has monitored the program evaluation process. Expectations of Staff-Staff members from literacy and other curriculum staff served on the evaluation teams for these program evaluations. Program evaluation is embedded in the job expectations of staff\nconsequently, this is an ongoing commitment for our staff. An important job of the literacy evaluation teams is to read the evaluation reports, analyze them, and use that information to help decide our future direction in literacy. Needed Staff-No additional staff were needed since Dr. Ross prepared the formal evaluation reports. Comments-Dr. Ross is a noted expert in program evaluation. We appreciate his involvement in producing these program evaluation reports. The two literacy evaluations and the math/science evaluation that will come before the Board in December are the three remaining evaluations from section 2. 7 .1 of the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Dr. Steve Ross has been contracted as a program evaluation specialist to develop the program evaluations of the two literacy program and to review the mathematics and science program evaluation, which is being developed by the program evaluation team for Comprehensive Partnerships in Mathematics and Science Achievement (our NSF grant). Recommendations-we recommend approval of program evaluations for Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy as submitted. Dr. Ross will provide the completed program evaluations for you review prior to the November Board meeting. TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 20, 2003 Board of Directors FROM: Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent TffROUG~r. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Program Evaluation Agenda for 2003-04 Short Summary-The Board is asked to approve the continued program evaluations for Elementary Literacy (PreK-5), Secondary Literacy (6-12), and Mathematics and Science (K-12) as well as a new program evaluation of the LRSD Reading First Project (K-3) as the Program Evaluation Agenda for 2003-04. Objectives-to improve the education for all students by evaluating selected programs each year to determine their impact on student achievement. Expected Outcomes-Programs will be maintained, adjusted, or eliminated based on the findings of program evaluations over a sufficient period of time to determine the effectiveness of the program. Population-District staff and teachers will be involved in the evaluations, in addition to external evaluators. Budget Amount/Source of Budget-Staff members' time and materials are included as a part of the regular operating budget for the Math/Science and Literacy Departments. Dr. Ross' consultant contract is included in budget. LRSD Reading First Project evaluation will be provided by the Arkansas Department of Education as part of the overall Arkansas Reading First project. Manager-Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Instruction Duration-The formal program evaluations of the elementary literacy program, secondary literacy program, and mathematics and science program began during the 2002-03 school year and will continue through the first semester of the 2003-04 school year. Analysis of and response to the program evaluations will continue through the spring semester of 2004 and for the next few years as additional data is gathered. The 8 z ?\nzi5 \"' f) \"T'I ~ z 0 \u0026gt; I'\"' ~ c8 ~ \"' ?\u0026lt; 0 I'\"' 0 \"z' C) ill ~ ~ \"' LRSD Reading First Project will receive its first annual evaluation at the end of the 2003- 04 school term, another annual evaluation at the end of2004-05, and a three year summative evaluation at the end of 2005-06. Long Range/Continuation-all program evaluations are used as a benchmark for program planning in future years. The two formal literacy evaluations and the math/science evaluation will conclude at the end of the current school term\nthe LRSD Reading First Project will continue, at a minimum, for the three years of the grant period. Other Agencies Involved-The National Science Foundation is involved in the math/science program evaluation, and the Arkansas Department of Education is involved in the LRSD Reading First Project. Expectations of Staff-Staff members from literacy, math, and science are serving on the evaluation teams for these program evaluations. Program evaluation is embedded in the job expectations of staff\nconsequently, this is an ongoing commitment for our staff. Needed Staff-No additional staff are needed since Dr. Ross and ADE consultants are preparing the formal evaluation reports. Future program evaluations will require the continued assistance of external consultants or the employment of an additional staff member with program evaluation expertise. Comments-the program evaluation agenda as proposed includes the core curricular areas of literacy, math, and science. Literacy and math are currently part of the high stakes testing programs required by NCLB. Science will be added to that testing program by the Arkansas Department of Education in the near future. Recommendations-we recommend approval of the four programs for program evaluation during the 2003-04 school year. The two literacy evaluations and the math/science evaluation are the three remaining evaluations from section 2. 7 .1 of the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Arkansas Reading First (LRSD Reading First is LRSD's part of Arkansas Reading First) is a project of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) for which the District will receive $4.3 million over a three-year period (FY 2003-06). The purpose of the grant is to improve the reading achievement of students in Grades K-3. The project was initiated at the beginning of the current school year. Dr. Steve Ross has been contracted as a program evaluation specialist to develop the program evaluations of the two literacy program and to review the mathematics and science program evaluation, which is being developed by the program evaluation team for Comprehensive Partnerships in Mathematics and Science Achievement (our NSF grant). MGT of America, based in Tallahassee, Florida, is the agency contracted by the ADE to collect and analyze the data and provide periodic reports of progress for the Arkansas Reading First project. The schools included in the Arkansas Reading First grant to LRSD are Bale, Baseline, Chicot, Dodd, Fair Park, Mabelvale, Mitchell, Rightsell, Romine, Stephens, Wakefield, and Wilson. All LRSD Reading First schools will participate in the national and state project evaluation as well as administer the standard district assessments administered annually. The project requires administration of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS, Kaminsky and Good, 1996) assessment to monitor growth in the acquisition of critical early literacy skills to (a) identify children in need of intervention and (b) evaluate the effectiveness of intervention strategies. DIBELS are standardized, individually administered tests that provide a measure of risk in letter naming fluency, phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency. In addition, the schools are required to administer the Developmental Spelling Analysis (DSA: Ganske, 1999) to students in grades 1-3. The DSA makes it easy for teachers to identify each child's stage of development in spelling and to provide appropriate instruction that impacts not only spelling achievement, but also reading achievement. The first evaluative report that LRSD will receive on Reading First will be the annual evaluation report after the first year of implementation. The funds for the program evaluation are included in the Arkansas Reading First project. Dr. Ross' contract was included in this year's LRSD budget, and a program evaluator is on staff for the mathematics and science program evaluation, funded by the National Science Foundation grant. We ask that you approve the four programs identified as the Program Evaluation Agenda for the 2003-04 school year. 8 z ?\nz~ en TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 20, 2003 Board of Directors Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Proposed Changes in the Middle School and High School Curriculum Short Summary-the Board is asked to approve the proposed course changes in the middle school and high school curriculum. Objectives-to approve changes in the curriculum as mandated by Board Policy IG. Expected Outcomes-additions, deletions, and modifications will be made in the middle school and high school curriculum based upon input by the schools, the curriculum staff, and others. Population-the curriculum serves students, teachers, parents, and the community. Budget Amount/Source of Budget- there is a reasonable assurance that funding exists to develop the curriculum for new courses and submit them to the Arkansas Department of Education for approval, provide the necessary professional development, and purchase the required instructional materials. Manager-Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Instruction Duration-the curriculum changes are proposed for the 2004-05 school term. Long Range/Continuation-curriculum changes are submitted to the Board annually for its consideration. Other Agencies Involved-some of the curriculum changes are in response to grant funded initiatives, such as the Magnet School Assistance Program and Small Learning Communities Grant. ?\u0026lt; ,n... 0 \"z' G) ~ ~ ~ \"' Expectations of Staff-staff members from the curriculum department and from the schools will be expected to prepare new course proposals for submission to ADE. Needed Staff-the course changes are expected to be handled within existing budgetary resources. Comments-the curriculum changes for the middle schools and high schools are submitted to the Board each year and are part of an evolving process to give our students the best programs possible. Recommendations-we recommend approval of the proposed course changes for middle school and high school. Policy IG: Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review requires that the Board of Education approve all new courses to the curriculum. The Division of Instruction, therefore, annually surveys the schools, the curriculum staff, and others to determine whether there should be courses added to the curriculum, courses deleted, or courses modified in any way. Those proposals are reviewed by the curriculum directors, they make recommendations, and then the proposals are reviewed and approved/rejected by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. The courses recommended to the Board of Education are those that have been through the process. There is a reasonable assurance that funding exists to develop the curriculum for new courses and submit them to the Arkansas Department of Education for approval, provide the necessary professional development, and purchase the required instructional materials. Another factor in determining a recommendation is whether a school has adequate staffing to teach new courses and whether there is adequate student interest. All proposed changes to middle and high school courses are listed below: PROPOSED HIGH SCHOOL COURSE CHANGES FOR 2004-2005 Business Education 1. Change the title of Entrepreneurship to Enterprise Management (McClellan Only) Career and Technical Education 2. Change the title of Advertising Design/Computer Animation Advertising Design/Computer I to 3. Change the title of Advertising Design/Computer Animation II to Advertising Design/Computer II 4. Change the title of Advertising Design/Computer Animation Ill to Advertising Design/Computer Ill 5. Delete Engineering (Project Lead the Way) - this course does not exist 6. Delete Fashion Merchandising, one of McClellan High School's old magnet courses 7. Delete Advertising, one of McClellan High School's old magnet courses 8. Delete Carpentry Exploration, this course has not been taught in four years 9 Delete Retailing, one of McClellan High School's old magnet courses 10. Delete Industrial Cooperative Training I - Related, course is no longer offered 11. Delete Industrial Cooperative Training I - OJT, course is no longer offered 12. Delete Industrial Cooperative Training II - Related, course is no longer 13. Delete 14. Delete 15. Delete 16. Delete 17. Delete 18. Add 19. Add 20. Add offered Industrial Cooperative Training II, course is no longer offered Engineering Drafting, course is no longer offered Basic Mechanical Drawing, course is no longer offered Advanced Mechanical Drawing, course is no longer offered Architectural Drafting, course is no longer offered Computer Integrated Manufacturing, a new course at McClellan High Only (See description on page 8) GIS Spatial Technology and Remote Sensing (STARS) at Metro (See description on page 8) Furniture Manufacturing I at Metro (See description on page 8) Family and Consumer Science 21 . Change Family and Consumer Science course description to clarify content Metropolitan 22. Change Culinary Arts I course description to clarify course content 23. Change Culinary Arts Ill course description to clarify course content g z ?\nzi5 \"' 24. Change Medical Professions Education I course description to clarify content 25. Change Radio Broadcasting I course description to reflect state curriculum frameworks and description 26. Change Radio Broadcasting II course description to reflect state curriculum frameworks and description 27. Change Radio Broadcasting Ill course description to reflect state curriculum frameworks and description 28. Change Visual Production II course description to more accurately reflect course content 29. Change Visual Production Ill course description to more accurately reflect course content Art 30. Add English 31 . Change 32. Delete 33. Delete 34. Delete 35. Delete 36. Delete 37. Delete 38. Delete 39. Delete 40. Delete 41. Delete 42. Delete 43. Delete 44. Delete 45. Delete Media Production, a new course at McClellan High Only (See description on page 9) Contemporary Literature (1/2 unit) to Contemporary Literature (1 unit). This course will include contemporary literature and science fiction at Hall High only. English 1A R./W Workshop (051006), all 9 grade workshops will use 051014 English 18 R./W Workshop (051008), all 9 grade workshops will use 051014 English 1A PAP (051010), all 9 grade PAP workshops will use 051016 English 18 PAP (051012), all 9 grade PAP workshops will use 051016. Communications/Grammar, each course should use its own number listed elsewhere Debate 1 A, debate is no longer offered as 1 semester Debate 1 B, debate is no longer offered as 1 semester ESL Language Arts Plus I, no longer used ESL English 1A Workshop (051504), use double block R./W 051508 ESL English 1 B Workshop (051506), use double block R./W 051508 Language Arts Plus II, no longer offered English 2A Workshop (052006), all 10 grade workshops use 052014 English 28 Workshop (052008), all 10 grade workshops use 052014 English 2A P AP (052010), all 10 grade P AP 2 periods workshops use 052016 46. Delete 47. Delete 48. Delete 49. Delete 50. Delete 51 . Delete 52. Delete 53. Delete 54. Delete 55. Delete 56. Delete 57. Delete 58. Delete 59. Delete 60. Delete 61. Delete 62. Delete 63. Delete 64. Delete 65. Delete 66. Add English 2B P AP (052012), all 10 grade P AP 2 periods workshops use 052016 Public Speaking (1/2 unit), students now take debate Public Speaking (1 unit), students now take debate Group Dynamics (1/2 unit), no enrollment Group Dynamics (1 unit), no enrollment Leadership (052110), all students will now take Leadership Skills for Student Council (052112) Interpersonal Communication, no enrollment ESL Language Arts Plus II, no enrollment ESL English 2A Workshop (052504 ), all ESL workshops use 052508 ESL English 2B Workshop (052506), all ESL workshops use 052508 Language Arts Plus 111, no requests Technical Writing, paired with statistic - moved to math Research for 21 st Century, no longer offered Introduction to Creative Writing (053010), all creative writing use 054008 Communications 3, no more communication classes above level II Mass Media A, no longer offered ESL Language Arts Plus 111, no longer offered Language Arts Plus IV, no longer offered Mass Media B, no longer offered ESL Language Arts Plus IV, no longer offered Digital Imaging, new course at Hall High only (See description on page 9) 67. Change the title of Photography A (1/2 unit) to Photography IA (1/2 unit) 68. Change the title of Photography (1 unit) to Photography I (1 unit) Foreign Languages 69. Delete Latin Ill, no regular Latin above Latin II, only AP classes 70. Delete Latin IV, no regular Latin above Latin II, only AP classes 71. Change Latin Ill AP course description to clarify content 72. Change Latin IV AP course description to clarify content 73. Add Spanish II for Native Speakers (1 unit), a new course at Hall High only (See description on page 9) 74. Change the title of Spanish for Native Speakers I to Spanish I for Native Speakers 75. Change Spanish I for Native Speakers course description to clarify content 76. Add Latin V AP (See description on page 10) 77. Delete German IV, no regular German above German Ill, only AP classes !D 8 z ?. cz5 \"' 78. Delete 79. Delete 80. Delete 81. Delete 82. Delete German V, no regular German above German 111, only AP classes French IV, no regular French above French Ill, only AP classes French V, no regular French above French Ill, only AP classes Spanish IV, no regular Spanish above Spanish Ill, only AP classes Spanish V, no regular Spanish above Spanish Ill, only AP classes Physical Education 83. Add Principles of Strength and Conditioning I, a new course at Central High only (See description on page 10) 84. Add Principles of Strength and Conditioning 11, a new course at Central High only (See description on page 10) 85. Add Introduction to Exercise Physiology, a new course at Central High only (See description on page 10) Science 86. Add 87. Add Criminalistics, new course at Hall High only (See description on page 10) Veterinary Science, new course at Hall High only (See description on page 10) Social Studies 88. Delete World History Pre-AP, ADE does not recommend a PreAP and an AP course at the same level 89. Delete U.S. History Pre-AP, ADE does not recommend a PreAP and an AP course at the same level 90. Add Campaigns \u0026amp; Elections, new course at Hall High only (See description on page 11) 91. Add Media in Politics, new course at Hall High only (See description on page 11) PROPOSED MIDDLE SCHOOL COURSE CHANGES FOR 2004-2005 English 1. Delete Expressions! 6, no longer offered 2. Delete Expressions! 6-8, no longer offered 3. Delete Reading/Writing 6A P AP (056004 ), all P AP 6 grade 2 periods will use 056008 4. Delete ESL Expression!, no longer offered 5. Delete R/W Workshop 6B P AP (056010), all P AP 6 grade 2 periods will use 056008 6. Delete Research 6 GT (Dunbar), (056014) included in double block 7. Delete Global Expressions 6-7 (Dunbar) (056015), no longer offered 8. Delete Global Expressions 6-7 (Dunbar) (056016), no longer offered 9. Delete Global Communications 6 (Dunbar) (056019), no longer offered 10. Delete Global Communications 6 (Dunbar) (056020), no longer offered 11. Delete R/W Workshop 6B GT (Dunbar) (056022), all 6 R/W GT 2 periods will use 056012 12. Delete Read/Write 6A (056100), all R/W 6 grade 2 periods will use 056002 13. Delete Read/Write 6B (056102), all R/W 6 grade 2 periods will use 056002 14. Delete Language Arts Plus 6, no longer offered 15. Delete ESL R/W Workshop 6A (056220), all ESL R/W 6 grade 2 periods will use 056202 16. Delete ESL R/W Workshop 6B (056222), all ESL R/W 6 grade 2 periods will use 056202 17. Delete Write On! 7A, no longer offered 18. Delete Write On! 7B, no longer offered 19. Delete Write On! 7-8, no longer offered 20. Delete Research 7 GT (Dunbar) (057014), included in double block 21. Delete Read/Write Workshop 7B P AP (057108), all R/W 7 P AP 2 periods will use 057020 22. Delete Read/Write 7B GT (Dunbar) (057022), all R/W 7 GT 2 periods will use 057012 23. Delete Read/Write Workshop 7 A (057100), all R/W 7 2 periods will use 057002 24. Delete Read/Write Workshop 7B (057102), all RW 7 2 periods will use 057002 25. Delete Language Arts Plus 7, no longer offered 26. Delete ESL Read/Write 7 A (057220), all ESL R/W 7 2 periods will use 057202 27. Delete ESL Read/Write 7B (057222), all ESL R/W 7 2 periods will use 057202 28. Delete Reading 7, no longer offered 29. Delete Expression! 8, no longer offered 8 z ~ iz5 \"' 30. Delete 31. Delete 32. Delete 33. Delete 34. Delete 35. Delete 36. Delete 37. Delete 38. Delete 39. Delete 40. Delete 41. Delete 42. Delete 43. Add Science 44. Add Read/Write 8A P AP (058004 ), all R/W 8 P AP 2 periods will use 058020 Write On! 8A, no longer offered Write On! 88, no longer offered TV Writing/Production 8, no longer offered Research 8 GT (Dunbar) (058014), included in double block Read/Write Workshop 88 P AP (058016), all R/W 8 P AP 2 periods will use 058020 Read/Write 88 GT (Dunbar) (058022), all R/W 8 GT 2 periods will use 058012 Read/Write Workshop 8A (058100), all R/W 8 (2 periods) will use 058002 Read/Write Workshop 88 (058102), all R/W 8 (2 periods) will use 058002 Language Arts Plus 8, no longer offered ESL Read/Write Workshop 8A (058220), all ESL R/W 8 2 periods will use 058202 ESL Read/Write Workshop 88 (058222), all ESL R/W 8 2 periods will use 058202 Reading 8, no longer offered Technical Theatre, (Mann Magnet Only) (See description on page 7) Active Community Research (Mann Magnet Only} (See description on page 7) En2lish Proposed New Middle School Courses Little Rock School District, 2004-2005 Technical Theatre (Mann Magnet Only) This course is designed to aquaint the students with all aspects of the technical theatre: set design, management, construction, setting the stage, operating the equipment, and safety. Grade: 7-8 Prerequisite: No required prerequisites, theatre students are strongly encouraged to take this course as a part of there area of concentration. Credit: 1 unit Science Active Community Research (Mann Magnet Only) This course would include community based research and data collection of ecological, environmental, biological, geological, chemical, and economic issues concerning the development of the Fouche Creek area near Horace Mann Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet Middle School. This course would serve as a resource for the Audubon Society and the community in the development and the maintenance of a nature center in the community. The course would require some independent research and developed writing skills for presentation of the information. The research would require proficiency in complex mathematical computation and analysis of data. Students would need to possess adequate communication skills in order to communicate findings and progress to the community. Grade: 7-8 Prerequisite: The student would need to show an interest in science by being enrolled as a Horace Mann Science Magnet student. They must also have taken, or be currently enrolled in, Algebra I. Credit: I unit 8 z ?\ncz5 Cl) Proposed New High School Courses Little Rock School District, 2004-2005 Career and Technical Education Computer Integrated Manufacturing (McClellan High Only) This course applies principles of robotics and automation and builds on computer solid modeling skills developed in Introduction to Engineering Design. Students use CNC equipment to produce actual models of their three-dimensional design. Fundamental concepts ofrobotics used in automated manufacturing, and design analysis are included. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Concurrent enrollment in college preparatory mathematics, Introduction to Engineering Design, Digital Electronics, and Principles of Engineering. Credit: 1 unit GIS Spatial Technology and Remote Sensing (STARS) This course will allow students to learn how to solve locally based problems. Each project/application has an emphasis on a career cluster and the unique way problems are solved using a GIS (Geographic Information System). Problem solving is the key to success in the classroom-based projects. The students will plan, conduct, and present solutions for applications in the areas of environmental studies, business, transportation, disaster management, and government. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Introduction to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Remote Sensing 1 unit Furniture Manufacturing I This course is designed to introduce the basic principles of assembling and finishing wooden furniture. Instruction includes awareness of careers related to furniture making, basic design principles, safety procedures, sketching, layout, and preparing stock. Each student will be able to assemble and finish a useful furniture piece as a required individual project. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Exploring Industrial Technology is preferred 1 unit Media Production (McClellan High Only) In this course the student will explore all phases of video production from pre-production setup to post-production editing. They will develop skills and proficiency in the operation of video production equipment. Camera operation, lighting, basic audio, and recording equipment will be covered. This course will introduce the student to the process of evaluating client needs and preparing written production documents. The student will explore the varied sources of rental and purchased services, material, and equipment as well as copyright laws as they apply to personal work and the work of others. Students will learn script-writing techniques for all types of media. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: English Visual Design I, Visual Design II, and Web Design and Animation 1 unit Spanish II for Native Speakers (Hall High Only) This course is for heritage speakers who have developed reading and writing skills, but need more help with vocabulary, spelling, grammar, editing, and development of critical thinking skills. Students will continue reading and writing in Spanish and the study of Spanish language literature. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Spanish I for Native Speakers 1 unit Digital Imaging (Hall High Only) This course will establish a foundation in digital imaging. Students will learn and apply computer hardware components. Emphasis will be on aesthetics and content as well as computer hardware and software applications. This course will address issues pertaining to art, culture, and technology. No previous experience with computers is required. This is not a programmmg course. This course will include projects demonstrations, lectures, lab, and critiques. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding, Word Processing 1 unit Latin V AP (Central High Only) This course will allow those students who begin their study of the Latin language in middle school to continue their Latin through Level V, like those who study Spanish or French. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Latin IV AP or the equivalent 1 unit 8 z ?\niz5 u, Physical Education Principles of Strength and Conditioning I (Central High only) Students will be taught correct exercise technique using body weight and free weight exercises. Prime movers in each exercise are identified and exercise vocabulary used through out the course. Students will learn the meaning of aerobic and anaerobic exercise, agonist and antagonist muscles, eccentric and concentric contraction, 1 RM max, etc. NOTE: This course satisfies the physical education requirement for graduation. Grade: 9-12 Prerequisite: None. Students will have to pass a physical examination to participate in the class. Credit:  unit Principles of Strength and Conditioning II (Central High only) Students will continue to develop correct exercise technique using body weight and free weight exercises. Prime movers in each exercise are identified and exercise vocabulary used throughout the course. Students will learn the meaning of aerobic and anaerobic exercise, agonist and antagonist muscles, eccentric and concentric contraction, 1 RM max, etc. Advanced exercise techniques and conditioning will be taught in this class. Exercise of a vigorous nature will be included in this class. Grade: 9-12 Prerequisite: Principles of Strength and Conditioning I, be a varsity member of an athletic team at Central High School, or provide proof of a continuing program of personal fitness. The student must be at least seventeen years of age. Students will have to pass a physical examination to participate in the class and have parental consent. Credit:  unit Introduction to Exercise Physiology (Central High only) This course will provide basic concepts and relevant scientific information as the foundation for understanding nutrition, energy transfer, and exercise and training. The contribution of and adaptation of the body's systems to exercise is the basis of the course. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Biology, Chemistry, and Physical Education Credit:  unit Science Criminalistics (Hall High Only) This course will be a lab-based course and involve the application of scientific methods to solve legal problems. This course will focus on crime scene evidence, lab analysis techniques, (such as chromatography, DNA, analysis, fingerprinting, and fiber analysis), and recording and presenting data. Mock crime scenes will be investigated and real case studies analyzed. Guest speakers in the field will also be utilized to supplement the classroom activities. Grade: Prerequisite: Credit: 11-12 Physics, Biology, and Chemistry (An 11 th grade student may take this course at the same time they are taking Chemistry if they have the other two prerequisites.) 1 unit Veterinary Science (Hall High Only) This course covers animal anatomy and physiology, animal handling skills, proper nutrition, animal genetics, animal diseases, and animal related career options. This course provides an opportunity for students to explore and gain experience in the field of veterinary medicine. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Physics, Biology, and Chemistry. (An 11 th grade student may take this course at the same time they are taking Chemistry if they have the other two prerequisites.) Credit: 1 unit Social Studies Campaigns \u0026amp; Elections (Hall High Only) While following the progress of the 2004 presidential election, students will explore techniques of campaigning. The platforms of the participating parties will be contrasted and the issues researched. Students will learn how to become informed voters with an impact upon the political process. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Civics Credit:  unit 8 z ~ ~ z \"' .~ :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- Media in Politics (Hall High Only) This course will examine how the mass media both responds to and helps shape public opinion, political outcomes, and public policy. The nature and impact of propaganda and the role of the media in campaigns will be explored. There will be an emphasis throughout on the importance of journalistic ethics and responsibility in a free society. Students will learn how to critically interpret mass media news reporting and political advertising. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Civics Credit:  unit '.\n4.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" November 20, 2003 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY~ld M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Second Reading of Revision to Board Policy DGA: Authorized Signatures Act 671 of 2003 amended Arkansas Code  6-13-618 requmng the signatures of the Superintendent as Ex Officio Financial Secretary and the primary, or alternate, Board disbursing officer of the District on all checks. It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve Policy DGA as revised and attached to comply with State law. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 8 z ?\ncz5 \"' ?\u0026lt; 0 6 \"z' C) ill I \"' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DGA AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES The facsimile signatures of the Superintendent of Schools, in his/her capacity of Ex Officio Financial Secretary, and the President of the Board, as the primary board disbursing officer of the District, are required on all District checks. The facsimile signature of the Vice President of the Board, as the alternate board disbursing officer of the District, will be required in the event that the President of the Board's signature cannot be used. Revised: Adopted: March 24, 2000 Legal References: Arkansas Code 6-13-618, as amended Act 671 of 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: November 20, 2003 TO: Board of Education FROM: ~~arral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. ~ THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: School/De2artment Item Donor Central High School $250.00 cash to be Merry Golds Garden applied toward Club members completion of the Reflecting Pool Central High School 1991 Yamaha golf cart valued at $2,000.00 John Lewellen Forest Heights 56 American flags, Mardell' s Christian Middle School valued at $83.44, to Family Bookstore be used in classrooms for citing the Pledge of Allegiance Forest Heights Kelvinator water Mr. Dennis Todd Middle School fountain, valued at $100.00, for use in Ms. Sneed's classroom .f.l, z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;,...\n,o m\ng ~ \"' ?\u0026lt; ,n... 0 \"z' C) Rl ~\n,o\n,,: \"' Board of Education November 20, 2003 Page 2 School/Department Fulbright Elementary School Fulbright Elementary School Fulbright Elementary School Geyer Springs Elementary School $3,000.00 cash to be used for student incentives, classroom and instructional materials, and technology supplies and maintenance Initial brand DVD player, valued at $57.95, for use in Ms. Amy Thompson's 4th grade classroom Sony brand CD/Cassette/ Radio boom box, valued at $60.00, for use in Ms. Amy Thompson's 4th grade\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_1077","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":["2003-10"],"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--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/1077"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nRECEIVED OCT 2 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting October 2003 (\") -0 .\u0026gt; m\ntJ rr--r-..\n3: Oz o\u0026gt; E5~ m..,\ntJ C: -z\non o,--5\u0026lt; r-z (\")\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; \u0026gt; F :E\n::: m -o ,-\ntJ no On 3m: mo -c: ~~\ntJ ,- cl ~\ntJ::::I ~m z\no (\")\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; m :E m h= 0,- 3:\ntJ mm --o u,0 ..\no C: ... ooo ~...\nij ~ ~8\noz cl :3\noo ~il\nz (\") m\ntJ \u0026gt;m  -0 \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;O C:\ntJ -0 ... =-\"'!!? (\")\nti =Im \u0026gt;(\") ~g Oz ~::! fl 0 z \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;\ntJ ma, ~ -\nti -0\n,_\u0026gt; \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;~ ..,.,z\ntJm O\no :I: \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; (\")\n=I -0 ,-.oo m z \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; I. 11. 111. IV. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING October 23, 2003 5:30 p.m PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests B. Performance - Western Hills Choir REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Chicot Elementary School - Douglas Harrison \u0026amp; Jane Harkey UAMS College of Nursing - Dr. Cheryl Schmidt Dunbar Magnet Middle School - John Bacon Fellowship Bible Church - Rachel Morse, Patty Evans, Ray Williams Fulbright Elementary School - Rita White, Deborah Mitchell Arvest Bank - Cathy Harville LRSD Middle and High Schools - Marian Lacey Positive Atmosphere Reaches Kids (PARK)- Kareem Moody \u0026amp; Tamra Patterson Woodruff Elementary School - John Callahan, Janice Wilson Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts - Ginny McMurray, Ann Chotard \u0026amp; Mary Smith C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update n-.:, .) \u0026gt;:m:0 ,,-, --\u0026lt; 3: Oz o\u0026gt; ::o::0 o-\u0026lt; m-n ::0 C: -z ::on o--\u0026lt; r-0 Z n U\u0026gt; \u0026gt; F :E\n= m-.:, ,- ::0 no On 3m:mo - C: ~~~ 0 J= ::o:::l J=m Z::0 n U\u0026gt; m :E m h= 0,.... 3: ::0 m_.m., u,0 --\u0026lt; ::0 C:--\u0026lt; OS!! m::o Zm --\u0026lt; n ~8 ,, z o::! ::00 J=~ z n m ,f,) ma, J= . ::0..,\n._\u0026gt; en~ -nz ::Om 0\nc\ncen n\n=,.., p::\nen mz en Regular Board Meeting October 23, 2003 Page2 V. D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Election of Officers B. Minutes: Regular Meeting - September 25, 2003 Special Meeting - October 9, 2003 C. Resolution in Support of the City of Little Rock Bond Election D. Personnel Changes E. Annual Report: 2002-03 VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: A. Federal Award: Emergency Response Crisis Management Grant B. First Reading: Policy Revisions ACBB - Equitable Student Assignment JC - School Attendance Zones JCA - School Choice VII. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION A. Revisions to the District's Drug Testing Program VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. First Reading: Policy DGA - - Authorized Signatures B. Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Refunding Bonds C. Donations of Property D. Financial Report IX. CLOSING REMARKS: X. XI. Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions EMPLOYEE HEARINGS ADJOURNMENT \u0026gt;n -c . m\no ......... ...-... _,\n1: Oz o\u0026gt; ~~ m..,\no C: -z\non o-\u0026lt; I= ~ n en \u0026gt; I= ~\n= m-c .....\n:c no On\nl:m mo - C: ~~\n:c ..... oJ\nJ:cm =1 z\n:c n en m ~ m h= 0,...\nr:\n:c m_..m,, enO -\u0026lt;\n:c C: .... ~~ z\n:c .... ~ ~8 :Oz .., =I 0 J~ zn m\n:c \u0026gt;. m..,, en o .C.,,: .\n.:.c. :-\u0026lt;!!! n\n:c =Im \u0026gt;n :::l8 Oz ~~ r\u0026gt; 0 z en\no ma, i \no \"C\n,,\n\u0026gt; en~ \"T'IZ :Cm O\no\nr: en n= =I \"C ,::::\nen mz en I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS WELCOME / PERFORMANCE 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS WELCOME / STUDENT PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 October 23, 2003 Board of Education Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education ~ Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships 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. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Chicot Elementary School and UAMS College of Nursing Dunbar Magnet Middle School and Fellowship Bible Church Fulbright Elementary School and Arvest Bank LRSD Middle and High Schools and Positive Atmosphere Reaches Kids (P.A.R.K.) Woodruff Elementary School and Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts !\" 5 \":r' C \u0026gt; !D \"...' C 0 m .z. . \u0026gt; \"\"'' ~ z\nc .~.. f\u0026gt; a, C 8 !!l C \"0\" ~ m !== a, r Oi z (J o-\ng e o.... r= me (\"):z ~~... C\n,: Partners in Education Proposal Chicot Elementary School and UAMS College of Nursing Chicot Elementary School and UAMS College of Nursing have formed a partnership designed to enhance the education and health of the students at Chicot as well as the education of the UAMS nursing students. Chicot commits to the following partnership activities:  Help promote nursing as a profession to Chicot students.  Help UAMS College of Nursing meet its goal of community service.  Acknowledge UAMS College of Nursing as a Partner in Education in school publications.  Help UAMS College of Nursing students meet their learning contracts.  Help junior nursing students have a positive hands-on learning experience with children.  School nurse will spend time with nursing students who are interested in the area of school nursing. UAMS College of Nursing commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide clerical help in organizing school nurse's files.  Help at registration with immunizations.  Help with student physicals.  Donate clothing for students.  Help with translation when possible. !\" \u0026lt;a \u0026lt;J) :r C:  !l' !!l C: 0 m :!:i \u0026gt; \u0026lt;J) \u0026lt;J) ~ z\nc ~.... f\u0026gt; CD C: 8 m.... .C,,: 0 ~ m != CDC\" oc ~~ .,,:i:\n:oC or ffi~ C') :z ~~ \"t C\n, PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN DUNBAR MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL AND FELLOWSHIP BIBLE CHURCH - 2003-04 Dunbar Magnet Middle School may: 1. Have students from the Seminar class teach international games and provide international snacks to the home school elementary age students during their instruction time during Women's Bible Study on a weekday (or another group of Fellowship's choice). 2. Give individual students, representing a variety of cultures or a Dunbar advanced choral group, the opportunity to speak or perform for a gathering at the church (not on a Sunday morning). 3. Have members of the Garden Club, under the supervision of adult sponsors, weed and or plant in a designated garden area of the church to add beauty. 4. Have members of Y-T eens, under the supervision of Ms. Greenlee, participate in a service project at FBC (ex. cleaning out closets, baking, etc.). 5. Recognize Fellowship Bible Church as a Partner-in-Education in monthly school newsletters and at school functions. Fellowship Bible Church may: Building Use Support: 1. Make an area of the church available to the staff for their beginning of the year teambuilding, half-day meeting at no charge (Thursday, August 7 - 8:00- 12:30). Members of the church will also provide lunch for the staff that day, as well as a small gift (survival kits) for each staff member to express the value placed on them and the job they do. 2. Allow the mentors and mentees to use the FBC gym for several hours in January during their annual \"Fresh Start Field Trip\". Volunteers will be provided to assist with games and walklimbing, as well as to provide lunch. Mentoring/Teaching Support 3. Try to provide at least 15 mentors for students at the school. These mentors will hopefully include many who participated during the 2002-03 school year, as well as new mentors. Each mentor will make a commitment to meet with one student for 1 hour weekly to assist in tutoring, encouragement, accountability, and modeling a positive lifestyle. Experienced Fellowship mentors, in conjunction with VIPS (Volunteer's in Public Schools), will train and facilitate the mentors throughout the year. Recruitment and sign-up will be in August/September, the 2-hour training session will be in September, and mentoring will begin in October for new mentors and September for returning mentors. 4. Request that members of international short-term missions teams from the church speak to Social Studies and International Studies classes following their trips abroad, whenever possible. 5. Try to provide at least 10 counselors for the Abstinence-Based Education Program that will take place for 1 week during the school year. Volunteers will be small group leaders for a 1 %-hour session on 3 days. 6. Provide support and training for the fathers of Dunbar students, in conjunction with the Dads of Dunbar. This might be accomplished by small practical \"give-aways\" to dads during their monthly come-t~lunch dates and through 1 or 2 \"Dads of Dunbar nights\" at the schoo! where a 1 or 2-hour seminar on manhood o, fathering is provided by a teache, !D \".....'. C 0 m .z... .. \u0026gt; c\"\":'''i z\ni: mz ...... f) a, C 8 .m..... C \"0 ~ m from Fellowship, coupled with the PTA offering practical options for ways to become involved with your children. Physical Labor/Materials Support 7. Challenge members of the church to participate in several smaller-scale physically intensive projects chosen by the Dunbar administration during the SHAREFEST weekend in November. PARTICIPATION IN SHAREFEST IS YET TO BE DETERMINED, BASED ON THE ONGOING RENOVATION OF DUNBAR AND PRIOR SHAREFEST COMMITMENTS MADE BY FBC. 8. Participate in ongoing support throughout the year as small needs are transmitted (ex. food staples for the nurse, etc.) !\" \u0026lt;- 0 ~ c:: )\u0026gt; !D .u..,. c:: C m ~ )\u0026gt; u, u, c:\nz 3: .zm.. . r\u0026gt; a, c:: g .m... .c.:.:, ~.... m S@p 11 03 04:31p SEP-11-2003 15:47 Mart~~ R1t~ Whit@ ARJ EST BAH~ 501 - 36 7- SlSO Partnership Proposal Ar\"t'est Bank and Fulbright Elementary School Arn~t Bank commits to the following partnership :Activities:  MeJttoring/T\\ltoring - dedicatu,g 10- 5 employees or .:r,ore to a,me :o Fulbright once a week to help reentor and/or tutor siutJcnts  Job S'nadowU\\i  Career Da.y Speakers  VIPS Reaaing Day  41h Grace Benchmark Celebr.1t:oo - 500.00 donation  5\"' Grade Celebration - proVlde hot dogs/buns and large cooker and 110l ur.teers  provide popcorn machine and volunteers fur Fall Carn\nval  provide pizza for [irS\\ honor roll  pro.,\nde ice cream fof se::ond honor ro U  help with e,cpenses or bcation fo\n\u0026gt;kate party -:or mcrd honor roll  Accelerated Reader progi:am  'l'coV\\de ipr:akcrs for parent worlcfaops on topics such as ~vini for c:olleGC Fulbright Elementary School commits to the following partnership activities:  Acknow:edge A.rvest 9ank as~ Partner 11\\ E:i\\lcat1on  lnvne the ':\u0026gt;ank to school e\"cnts  lnvi e the b~\\\n. to sh.a.re inforroatio:i about their services at dc:signatec. PT A meetings _}'. 3 f'  C CTR P.32 !\" '- 0 \"::c' C: \u0026gt; !JI ~ C: C m z... . \u0026gt; \"\"'' c:5 z 3: .zm.. . ~ CD C: 8 .m... C: \"0 .~... m SEP-22-200$ 12 :47PM FROM-P .A.R.K ~1 ,niitmi i50156258'7 M22 P 003/003 F-110 Partners in Education Agreement P.A.R.K. gives/Schools receive:  Tutoring for 250 stu\u0026amp;.\u0026gt;nts  Positive after school environment  Academic support  Scholarships for 250 students  College \u0026amp; workforce preparation  ACT preparation  Mentors  Leadership opp01tuniries  Provide student incentives (le: high grades and improvement in clusses rewarded)  6-weck Summer Enrichment Program  Recognition of Teachers, Counselors and Staff  Community Service hours of250 students  Offer opporrunities to students for creative expressions (le: Art work, poetry, singing, talents)  Approved facility use for school faculty Schools give/P .A.R.K. receives:  Student information (le: grades, behavior, progress)  Access to statistical information  Access to test scores  Cumculum \u0026amp; Curriculum training  ACT packets  Training  Transportation support !'\" \u0026lt;a (/) :r C: \u0026gt; !ll (/) -\u0026lt; C: 0 m ~ \u0026gt; (/) (/) G'i z 3: m z -\u0026lt; r\u0026gt; tD C: 0 G) m -\u0026lt; C: \"C ~ m Partners in Education Proposal Woodruff Elementary School and Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts Woodruff Elementary School and Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts have formed a partnership through a 21 st Century Community Learning Center grant designed to enhance the education of the students at Woodruff. Woodruff commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide student artwork and projects for display.  Allow older students to usher at events.  Promote Wildwood's activities to the Woodruff community.  Gardening class will provide assistance during intercession. Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts commits to the following partnership activities:  Students and community members will be invited to attend dress rehearsals or performances of Wildwood Festival productions, including Gilbert and Sullivan's Patience and Verdi's Rigoletto in May and June of 2004. Singers involved with the productions will discuss the show and provide a backstage tour.  Young Artists will present an informance at Woodruff Elementary in the spring of 2004.  Serve as a field trip site for students and community members. Volunteer garden docents will be available to give tours of the gardens and discuss the plants.  Consult with Woodruff as needed on other arts activities that are a part of the grant program.  Display student artwork and projects. !==' ....\nc n \u0026gt; rn \u0026lt;- 0 ~ C: \u0026gt; !1' !!l C: .m0z. . \u0026gt; \"i\":'''i z 3: m .z. . ,, a, C: 8 .m.. .C.,,: 0 .\u0026gt;.. m ~n Individual Approach to a World efKnowledge\" DATE: October 23, 2003 TO: fDirectors FROM: onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodmanffe SUBJECT: October 2003 Construction Report - Bond Projects Bids were received on October l 0th for the additions to Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School. The low bidder's price was within the budget, and the otice of Intent To Award letter has been sent to the contractor. This project consists of a seven-classroom addition, a cafeteria addition and a new athletic field house. Bids were received on October 15th for the five-classroom addition to Brady Elementary. The bids are under review by the Director of Facility Services and the Director of Procurement. The drawings and specifications are to be completed in the ovember- December time frame for the modification, renovation and addition to Mitchell Elementary. Please call me at 447-1146 if you have any questions. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.1rsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !\" .z... m\n,\n, ~....  c:: C ::\n0\n,\n, :,-, .... C') :zc 0  -\u0026lt; c:: ~ m  ' \u0026lt; m r-\n,\n, mo C'\u0026gt;c:: :o::!--\u0026lt; z~ ~~ ~ =l \"Tim i\"i\n,\n, men\n,\n, en C') !\"' !I:: z c..:.:. emn :\nln ~~ r- m ::o en a, i\n2 Oc:: :Z:--\u0026lt; Ci5\n:z: en cm:: CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 23, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I I I Est. completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Baseline Renovation ___ ____ $953,520 Jul-04 Central 7Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 . Dec-05 ,_D_u_n_b_ar -------~R_en_o_v_a_tion_/addition $6,161 ,950 Aug-04 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J_. A_. F_air ________ ,__ dd' . $ Ir_o_om_ a_ ItIon ___ _______ 3,155,640_ __ Forest Park R eplace window units w/central HVAC $485)5-8 -- Feb-04 Oct-03 Mabelvale MS Renovation ____ ______ $6,851 ,621 Dec-03 Mann Partial Replacement ______ $11~500~000 --- McClellarl ---Classroom Addition $2,15f622 - Parkview - -.Addition -- $2,121,22~ Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation - --- $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. ~ - Renovation - - - ---- $3,755,041- Souti,west ~----_ ~dition ___ __-_-_-__ $2,000,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase -II - -~- $2,725,000- Wakefield -- Rebuild -- --- ___ $5,300,000-- Williams Renovation ____ _ ____ $2,106,,.4..:.9=-=2=----- :::~~~s ~~~~=-~~:~k~~~t~:~::~~:on -- $1~\n:\n:\nBOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION FALL/ WINTER 2004 Dec-03 Jul-04 Jun-04 A~g-04 Aug-04 Aug-04 ~-04 Jul-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Nov-03 I I I EsT. -Completion Facility Name Project DescriPtion Cost Date Bra\u0026lt;:!L__ ___ Addition/renovation ___ $973,621 Jun-04 Mitchell Renovation -- $750,000---- Auq-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED I I I t:sT. -Comp1etIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation -~- ___ Unknown Rightsell Renovation -- ____ $660,000 _ Unknown Wilson _ __ Energy monitoring system insta.liation --+- Unknown Woodruff ParkinQaddition $193,777 Unknown Facility Name Administration Administration Administration BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I I Est. CompTeT1on Project Description Cost Date Asbestos abatement $380,495 Mar-03 Fresh air system --$55,000 Aug-03 --i=Tre alarm ___ --1- $32,350 Aug-03 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation I ~ May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. ~rgy monitoring system installation ' $15,160 Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting --1- ~.ooo Dec-01 Badgett -- ~ Partial asbestos abatement I $237,237 Jul-01 Badg~ --~ ~re alarm ___ _ _ ~-- $18,250~ Aug-02 Bale ---aassroomaddition/renovation ___ $2,244,524-- Dec-02 Bale ___ ~ ~ nergy monitoring system --- I Mar-02 :::: _ _ ~~~~ roof replacement ---+ $:::/:\n7 _ ~:~:~~ !\" z --\u0026lt; m\n,:, z \u0026gt; r- \u0026gt; C: 0\n::l\n,:, =\" ci ::c z 0 8 -\u0026lt; .C.,: 0 ~ m \u0026gt; ' \u0026lt; m rm- :oc (\") C: :o::!--. z~ Qs\nQ::1 -nm c'5\n,J m\"'\n,:, en (\") !%' !I: z C: --\u0026lt; m en ~(\") Q~ ,-m :c (I) a,:\n2 0 C: Z--\u0026lt; 05\nz (I) C: m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 23, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 Booker 'Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 . Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement i $10,900 Feb-02 Booker Fire alarm I $34,501 I Mar-02 Brady Energy efficient lighting i $80,593 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement I $345,072 Aug-02 Carver Energy monitoring svstem installation I $14,480 May-01 Carver Parking lot I $111,742 Aug-03 -- Central Parking Student parking I $174,000 Aug-03 -- Central/Quigley - Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair I $265,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 ~~ Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 1 Aug-03 -- Central Purchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 Central - Ceiling and wall repair I - --$24,000-- Oct-01 -- - I Fire Alarm System Design/Installation i $80,876 I -- Central Aug-01 -- -- -- - Central Front landing tile repair I $22,4~ Aug-01 -- Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting __ $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lightin_g_ I $189,743 Jul-01 --- Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $1 ,393,822 Nov-02 -- $90,665 _ Dodd _Energy efficient lighting I Aug-01 Dodd _!\u0026gt;.sbestos abatement-ceiling tile I ---m-6,29_9 __ Jul-01 Dodd _Replace roof top HVAC _!?15,570___.__ Aug-02 -- - T Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Facility Services - -- -- Fire alarm I $12,0~ - Aug-03 Fair Park - HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Apr-02 - - Fair Park Energy efficient lighting_ Aug-01 ~ $90,162 - - - $59,310~ - Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling Aug-01 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting ~ 77,594 Apr-01 - --$10,784 - J. A. Fair Press box Nov-00 J. A. Fair - Security cameras $12,500 Jun-01 -- - $38,000 - J. A. Fair Athletic Field~provement - Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 - -- J. A. Fair - - Roof repairs $391 ,871 - Aug-03 Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Aug-03 Forest Park --- - ---+ - $119,788 May-01 - Energy efficient lighting Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Jun-01 Fulbright -- Energy monitoring system installation --- $11 ,950 Aug-01 -- - -- Fulbright Aug-02 - Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright - Parking lot ~0~000 Sep-02 Fulbright ---- Roof repairs - - $200,000 - Oct-02 - Franklin - Renovation $2,511 ,7~ Mar-03 - ---- ----- Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76.!.447 Apr-01 --- ---- -+-- - Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11 ,770_ Jul-01 --- Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 - Sep-01 - --- -- Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Aug-01 Hall - --- $42,931 Jul-01 -- Energy efficient lighting - - Hall Energy efficient lighting - $296,707 - Apr-01 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Aug-01 - - - Hall Intercom ~- Feb-01 -- Hall Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 Henderson Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Jul-01 - --- Henderson Roof replacement gym $107.!.83_5_ ~-01 - Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Aua-01 2 r1\" z --t m\no z ,\u0026gt;- \u0026gt; C: 0 ~\no :,-, c=l :,: z 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: \"C 0 ~ m \u0026gt; ' \u0026lt; m ,-\no mo (\") C: ::!--t oz~ ~~ ~ =l -,,m i\"i\no men\no en (\") ::\n!I' le z C: --t m en -\u0026lt; (\") ~~ ,- m\no en CD g 0 C: Z--t 05 (i\nZ en C: m Facili Name Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 23, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proect Descri tion Asbestos abatement Phase 2 Energy efficient lighting Asbestos abatement Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm Parking lot Energy monitoring system installation Replace HVAC units Asbestos Abatement Est. Completion Cost Date $250,000 Aug-02 $109,136 Jul-02 $43,639 Oct-01 $1,630,000 Nov-02 $269,588 Jul-01 _.c..$..1_2.c,..1 .._50 ___A ug-01 $300,000 . Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann --- Energy efficient lightin-g - $107,0_0_0__ Aug-02 Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan $106,598 Dec-02 Renovate bleachers ---- $134,793-:- Aug-01 Asphaltwa~ Walkway canopie_s ______ _ The total $1 .8 million is what has been -~Boiler replacement used so far on the Fencing~-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-______ projects listed ~ial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Athletic Field Improvement $38,000~ Irrigation System $14,750 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 McClellan ----- Security cameras $36,300 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek ~ Stadium stands repair--- - $235,000 Intercom ----===-_ $46,000 __ ~::~\n~ee:~~et~~i~~\n~ units -- -+ -- $:\n::~~~ - - - Fire alarm -+- $16,1~ Asbestos abatement - .,. -- $253,412 Engergy e-ffic- ien-t -lig-hting --+---- $88,2_9_7~- Replace cooling tower - $37,203--- Replace shop vent system ~ - $20,000 - Energy monitoring system installation --$17,145 Energy efficient lighti~ $103,642 -Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 _ --- --+----'-- HVAC renovatio_n_____ _ ___ _\n$_237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting - --- $81 ,828 Asbestos abatement -=_-=_-=._-=.__ $10,000 Otter Creek --- Parking lot ----+- $138~_02~ 6ciassroom addition 1 $888,778 Otter Creek-Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Parking lmp-r-ov_e_m_e_n-ts_ ______ __. - ~ 42~541 HVAC controls -~~----=-::::::::::::::::::::_--,--_ $210,000 Roof replacement $273,87~ Exteriorlights $10,784 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301 ,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 ~ rgy monitoring system installation $5,2~ -- Firealarm -.------$25,000 Move playground _,__I $17,00~ ___ E_nergy efficient lighting $84,898 Energyefficient lighting- ----.-- $137,0~ Replace roof t-op-=H-V_A_C,,,_ _____-~ _:1 - $539,175 Parkin addition $111 ,742 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Aug-03 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Aug-03 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Au -02 3 !Tl .z.... m\n,:, z ~ \u0026gt; C 0 :::. 0\n,:, :n ..... 0 ::c z 0 8 -\u0026lt; C \"C 0 ~ m \u0026gt;' \u0026lt; m  r-\n,:, mo Oc ::!--1 ozili ~ f,: ~=l \"Mm c'5\n,:, m\"'\n,:, \"' !I\" !I: z .C... . m \"' CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 23, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I I I Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Apr-02 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Mar-03 Security/Transportation I Bus cameras $22,500 Jun-01 Southwest -=====----:--Ac-scb-e-s-to_s_ab_a-te_m_en_t--------1---,---$\"\"2'c-8:-, 1,--3-:c-8:- 1I -------A=u--g- --o=--0=-1 Southwest New roof , $690,000 Oct-03 S-:o-_u.t,,h.._w_e_s-t,- --_______E~ n.:..:e.:..r:.\"g\"yL..::e...f:.f.:ci1cc::ice::.n:..:.t.:..:l.:i.g.s\"h-'ct:i:n:.:g\nI $168,719 Jan-02 Southwest Drainage/ street widening I $250,000 I _ Aug-03 Student Assignme~ Energy monitoring system installation ' $4,830 _ Aug-02 Student Assig~n_m_e_n_t ____Fi re_ al_arm ________  ___ $9,000 _ Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation ---~ 1 $275,000 Dec-01 Technology Upgrade - Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data ' -~- _ Nov-02 Terry- - -- ~ rgy efficient lighting I $73,850 Feb-01 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking ___ ~ $83,484 Aug-02 Terry Media Center addition $704~ __ ~p-02 Wakefield __ Security cameras 1 $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting ________ $74,776 Feb-01 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement I $200,000 Nov-02 Washington - Security cameras - $=1=-,-g=-o=-0=----------:-- Washington --E nergy efficient lighting -____ $165,281--=- Jun-01 --- Watson Energy monitoring system Tristallation -----=-c $8,530 Watson--- Asbestos abatement $182~,2_4_1 __ _ Watson Watson Watson - Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff - Energy efficient lighting__ _ _-=- $106,~ -- Asbestos abatement _____ $10,000 - Major re~ vation \u0026amp; addition -- $800,~ - Asbestos abatement -- - ,_ $191 ,946 __ Intercom $7,100 _ Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Energy efficient lighting $122,719 - - - Parking Expansion - ----= $110_._000 Renovation $246,419 Apr-01 - Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Aug-03 Aug-02 4 :,,- rn z -\u0026lt; m\no z ,\u0026gt;- \u0026gt; c:: 0 ::\n0\no 71 M ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; c:: ~ m m \u0026lt; ,-\no mo C\"\u0026gt;c:: :o:! --\u0026lt; z~ ~~ ~ =1 -.,m ('\n::O men\no en C\") ::\n!\"' !:: z c:: m-\u0026lt; en -\u0026lt; C\") ~~ ,-m\no en a, g Oc:: ~g\nz en C: m Date: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR.KANSAS October 23, 2003 To: Board of Directors From:@sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - October This is the forty-eighth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two middle school and one elementary school to resolve financial issues in their activity 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) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. 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. .!=.,' m\n:o \u0026lt;J) 0 z z m I'\"\" :,-, ..... C') :c z 0 I'\"\" 8 -\u0026lt; .C. , C ~ m  'm \u0026lt; r-\n:o mo g~ ozZm ~~ ~=l -.,m c'i\n:0 mtJ\u0026gt;\n:o \u0026lt;J) C') ?J\nr:: z .C... . m \u0026lt;J) ~C') ~~ ,-m\n:otJ\u0026gt; CDO oE z-, 05 in z \u0026lt;J) C m Audit Report - October 2003 Page 2 of 2 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) 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. Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring payroll for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. (New). Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. 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. p \"ti m :x, en 0 zz m r- :n rl ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: \"ti ~ m \u0026gt; ' \u0026lt; m  r- :x, mo nc: :::j .... ozili ~f ~=I 'Tim 1'5:X, men :x, en n !l' ll: z .C..:. rn :\njn ~~ ,-m :x, en a, f2 0 C: Z-\u0026lt; 05\nz en C: m LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: October 23, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Infonnation Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Other Agencies Involved Technology Report  The next round of computer replacements for schools will be ordered the first week of November.  Proposals for the distance learning center equipment at the new Technology Center were received on Tuesday, October 21. The proposals are currently under review.  Teachers registered for October 20 professional development activities online for the first time. The District is part of the state group of educational cooperatives that use the product.  EETT (Enhancing Education Through Technology) funds have been received by the District and we are moving forward with the online course development. Teachers should be able to begin the online classes by December 1.  Staff from both Computer Infonnation Services and Instructional Technology continue to be involved in construction projects that relate to technology and library improvements. To provide an update to the Board of Directors on the status of technology projects To continue to implement the approved technology plan NIA IA Lucy Neal - Instructional John Ruffins - Technical September 25, 2003 to October 23, 2003 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. NIA !.=.,' m ::c :g zz m,- !,\".' zz C,.: ,:: c m.., 0 ~ ,. 'm \u0026lt; ,- ::c mo C') C: ~o .... z~ gf\ng:::1 -.,m lm\"i:e:Cn ::c en !Jl 31: z C: -m\u0026lt; en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: October 9, 2003 To: From: Board of Education Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Re: Resolution Supporting City of Little Rock Bond Election At the Board's request, a Resolution in support of the City of Little Rock's 2003 Bond Issue is attached for your review and approval. bjg .!:,:\u0026gt;, m\na is z z m r-r\"  z z C: .\na .m,, 0 ~\n,-~ c\n,,\nan C: :c ~8 ~ ..... --\u0026lt;m en Z\na Cl:5 -Cc-,\nam ~ en RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock Public School District are partners in working together for the welfare of all youth\nand WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock recognizes the importance of quality education to the economic development of the Central Arkansas region\nand WHEREAS, the City supports the Little Rock School District in its mission to provide a quality education to all students in a safe and nurturing environment\nand WHEREAS, pedestrian safety around Little Rock School District schools is of paramount importance to the citizens of Little Rock\nand WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock will hold a Bond Election on November 4, 2003 for the purpose of capital improvements within the City of Little Rock\nand WHEREAS, upon passage of the 2003 Bond Issue, the City of Little Rock will upgrade sidewalks around eight of the Little Rock School District's elementary and middle schools\nNOW, THEREFORE, the members of the Board of the Little Rock School District support the renewal of the capital bond issue and encourage the patrons of the district to join in this effort. IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Little Rock School District to be affixed on this 23'd day of October, 2003. President .,:,:,, m\nc ~ z z ,m... !,.\" z z ,,C....:\nc m\ng\n..c. DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS October 23, 2003 Board of Education ,Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes 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) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. rn \u0026gt;z z ~ r\n: o m \"D 0 .\n.:.o. -\na,\n:o  ~~ zo C)-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\n:o nm a, s a,(/) -o '-z ~(/) lo\n\u0026gt; Personnel Changes Page 2 October 23, 2003 NAME Dockett-Wilson, Tammi Reason: Personal Downing, Nancy Reason: Accepted Another Position Fall, Libasse Reason: Cert. Expired Moreland, Hillary Reason: Personal Mueller, Melanie Reason: Personal Tucker-Redam, Holly Reason: Personal Brown, William POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsff erminations Certified Employees Lang. Art 8-24-87 6-17 CLOVERDALE EL. 9-29-03 TCHlO Elem II 8-21-89 3-18 McDermott 11-3-03 TCH925 Spanish I 8-7-03 1-02 CENTRAL 10-9-03 TCH925 Elem III 8-7-03 1-01 STEPHE s 9-19-03 TCH925 Speech 8-9-03 62-09 TERRY 10-30-03 SPE925 Elem I 8-14-00 1-04 WILSO 10-1-03 TCH925 New Certified Emplovees Math 9-10-03 1-12 CE TRAL TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 48650.00 46015.00 27056.00 26546.00 41148.00 28588.00 36756.00 annual 32352.94 prorated .).\u0026gt;, s ,... Oa, ,- C: c\"i en .-\u0026lt;. -z ~~\nc en ~ c=i ~~ C) 0 C) )\u0026gt; rn )\u0026gt; z z C: )\u0026gt; r\nc m ~ =: Personnel Changes Page 3 October 23, 2003 NAME Cherepski, Donald Holley, Marsha ONE ONE POSITION SCHOOL Multi-Medi MCCLELLAN Literacy Coach RIGHTSELL START DATE END DATE 9-24-03 9-10-03 Certified Promotion Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS 6-06 TCH925 4-19 TCHll Resignationsfferminations on-Certified Employees Amos,Revem Reason: one Given Beard, Kenneth Reason: Retired Bradley, James Reason: None Given Child utntJon 8-11-00 CLOVERDALE MID. 9-8-03 Child utrition 9-16-88 CHILD NUTRITIO 11-15-03 Custodian 8-16-99 HALL 6-5-03 1-04 FSH5 52-20 AN12 1-02 CUS925 ANNUAL SALARY 37419.00 annual 30987.61 prorated 48389.00 annual 45616.83 prorated 7476.00 42396.00 10737.00 !\"' \u0026gt;z z C: \u0026gt; r-\nJO m 't, 0 .\nJ.O..\n,:,,~ ...,\u0026gt; me o\nc m- ~z ..... ~ C)\nJO ~~ .z...m (/) -!la:,\n,a  ~~ Or- zn C)-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\nJO nm a:, s 0:,(/)\n:o nZ -\"' ~ \u0026gt; Personnel Changes Page 4 October 23, 2003 NAME Brown, Monica Reason: None Given Blue, Kyla Reason: None Given Clark, Demetrius Reason: None Given Diffee, Dawn Reason: None Given Edwards, orma Reason: None Given Enoch, Maria Reason: one Given Foust, Vicki Reason: Health Guyton, Marcia Reason: Personal Harshaw-Cross, Roberta Reason: Personal Love, Tawanna Reason: one Given Martinez, Deborah Reason: None Given POSITION SCHOOL Care CARE Instr. Aide FULBRIGHT Custodian CHICOT Child Nutrition CENTRAL Care CARE Child Nutrition GEYER SPRINGS Child Nutrition MCCLELLAN Bus Driver TRANSPORT ATIO Security Officer START DATE END DATE 2-9-01 9-26-03 8-14-00 10-14-03 1-22-02 9-25-03 8-29-00 1-9-03 8-17-00 9-26-03 9-2-97 10-2-03 4-29-88 9-29-03 2-18-02 9-25-03 8-17-98 SAFETY SECURITY 11-7-03 Child utrition 4-7-03 MCCLELLAN 10-7-03 Care 8-15-03 CARE 9-26-03 SALARY CLASS 1-05 CARE 1-03 INA185 1-03 CUS928 1-03 FSH5 2-16 CARE 1-06 FSH5 1-14 FSH5 3-04 BUSDRV 28-13 AN950 3-01 FSH550 1-07 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 6.68 11635.00 11201 .00 7448.00 8.70 7532.00 7756.00 11296.00 16800.00 5751.00 6.97 ,rn. z z ,C.: r- \".m..', 0 \"...'.\n,\u0026gt;~ .., ,. mo 0m3-: ~z r- ~ C)\"' ~~ zm .... U\u0026gt; -!la:, ::o  !~ Or- zo C)-\u0026lt; ,. \"' nm a:is a:, U\u0026gt;\n: 6 nZ -c.... U\u0026gt; ,n. .\u0026gt; \u0026lt;= o\n,, \"'n C: ::c ~8 m r- !-!lm en Z,:, c,s ...,n ::om ~ U\u0026gt; Personnel Changes Page 5 October 23, 2003 NAME Muhammad, Kaye Reason: None Given Rucker, Elnora Reason: None Given Seawood, Ruthie Reason: Health Terrell, Laura Reason: None Given Wells, Judith Reason: one Given Simmons, Lakisha Barber, Mae Bland, Anthony POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide MEADOW CLIFF Custodian FRANKLIN Child Nutrition BRADY Child Nutrition FULBRIGHT Child Nutrition MCCLELLAN START DATE END DATE 10-18-00 9-22-03 4-21-03 9-24-03 3-18-02 10-1-03 9-10-01 9-23-03 1-10-03 9-29-03 SALARY CLASS 1-03 INA185 1-02 CUS928 1-01 FSH5 1-03 FSH5 1-02 FSH5 ew Non-Certified Employees Care 10-6-03 1-03 CARE CARE Custodian 9-18-03 1-11 OTTERCREEK CUS12 Instr. Aide 8-18-03 1-05 CHICOT INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 11635.00 10737.00 7392.00 7448.00 7420.00 6.43 18844.00 annual 17801.57 prorated 12481.00 annual 12076.21 prorated !\"' \u0026gt; z z C: r\u0026gt;- ::c m \"D 0 .:.:.c.\nr-~ -n\u0026gt; me mc:1:-: ~~ r- m C, ~ ~n zm .... U) -!l a, ::c  ~~ crzo C,-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;n:m:C a, s a, U)\n: 6 nZ _u, c.... n \u0026gt; Personnel Changes Page 6 October 23, 2003 NAME Bluford, Jacqueline Brown, Johnny Brown, William Bunting, Devona Cotton, Kotto Fuller, Grady POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Custodian KING Custodian SOUTHWEST Custodian FULBRIGHT Instr. Aide FRANKLIN Custodian SOUTHWEST START DATE END DATE 9-18-03 9-24-03 9-25-03 9-8-03 9-29-03 9-24-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 1-01 CUS928 1-11 CUS12 1-01 CUS925 1-02 INA925 1-01 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 8130.00 annual 7019.35 prorated 10329.00 annual 8532.65 prorated 18844.00 annual 14273.33 prorated 5164.50 annual 4575.07 prorated 11106.00 annual 9064.90 prorated 13399.00 annual 10206.05 prorated !'\" \u0026gt;z z C: ,\u0026gt;-\no m ~ 0\no -\u0026lt; ?\"'~ .,,\u0026gt; me c\ni:: m- ~z ,-~ C)\no ~~ zm -\u0026lt; \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; -\na,\no . ~~ c~ z o C)-\u0026lt; m~~s a, \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;\n: 0 oz _\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; .... C') \u0026gt; Personnel Changes Page 7 October 23, 2003 NAME Gibson, J annetta Hammonds, Lisa Harvell, Lola Howard, Kathy Jones, Rhonda Lambert, Danielle Lopez, Juan McManns, Cary POSITION SCHOOL Custodian START DATE END DATE 9-8-03 CLOVERDALE MID. Child Nutrition 9-22-03 CENTRAL Care 9-29-03 CARE Care 9-15-03 CARE Care 9-15-03 CARE Care 10-6-03 CARE Custodian 9-24-03 SOUTHWEST Security Officer 9-12-03 MABELV ALE MID. SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS925 1-01 FSH5 3-08 CARE 1-09 CARE 1-05 CARE 2-01 CARE 1-01 CUS12 36-11 SOFR9 ANNUAL SALARY 5164.50 annual 4575.07 prorated 8130.00 annual 6974.93 prorated 7.82 7.24 6.68 6.67 13399.00 annual 10206.05 prorated 14065.00 annual 12287.55 prorated )\u0026gt;  \u0026lt; ..,\n= Om ..... c c'\u0026gt;(/) -..\u0026lt; z- _m !l~\n,o(/) ~ c5 0(1) z  C\u0026gt; 8 )\u0026gt; !'T1 )\u0026gt; z z C )\u0026gt; .....\n,o .m., 0\n_,o,\n,,,\ns .., )\u0026gt; mo m03:-: ~~ rm C\u0026gt; ~ ~n _z, m(/) \"=m\n,o  ~~ Or- zn C\u0026gt;-\u0026lt; )\u0026gt;\n,o nm mm(s/)\n:o nZ -(/) c.... 0 )\u0026gt;\n,,,\na o\n,,\n,on C:r ~8 m.- ~(/) z~ C\u0026gt; s -on\n,om ~(/) Personnel Changes Page 8 October 23, 2003 NAME Molden, Keith Morrison, Michelle Ochoa, Socora Osborne, Linda Quick, Theresa Robertson, Lany Robinson, Lucille POSITION SCHOOL Custodian START DATE END DATE 9-16-03 CLOVERDALE MID. Instr. Aide 8-21-03 STEPHENS Custodian 9-24-03 KING urse 9-8-03 HALL Care 9-15-03 CARE Instr. Aide 9-16-03 CLOVERDALE EL. Child utnhon 9-15-03 MCCLELLAN SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS925 1-05 INA925 1-01 CUS12 1-07 NURSES 3-17 CARE 1-01 INA925 3-01 FSH550 ANNUAL SALARY 5164.50 annual 4406.67 prorated 12481.00 annual 11873.82 prorated 13399.00 annual 10206.05 prorated 6330.20 annual 5637.83 prorated 9.15 10577.00 annual 9090.50 prorated 8130.00 annual 7152.62 prorated !\" \u0026gt;z z C: ,\u0026gt;-\nJJ m.., 0 .\nJ.\n,,,~ ..,\u0026gt; mo o\nc m- ~z ,-~ C,\nJJ ~~ z_,m en -!l a, :,:,  ~~ 0 ,- zo C,-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\nJJ nm a, s CD en\n:o -,-,z (/) ~ \u0026gt;\n,,,~ ~~ C::::z: ~8 m,- ~~ Z\n,:, .c.,,,s.,\nJJm ~en Personnel Changes Page 9 October 23, 2003 NAME Ryan, Laverne Simms, Jeanette Stewart, Marcus Thomas, Sylinda Williams, Ardelia POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition BASELINE Child Nutrition TERRY Care CARE Child Nutrition PARKVIEW Care CARE START DATE END DATE 9-22-03 9-15-03 9-29-03 8-19-03 9-15-03 on-Certified Promotion SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH5 4-01 CARE 1-01 FSH5 1-17 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 9601.00 annual 8236.92 prorated 8130.00 annual 7152.63 prorated 6.25 7392.00 annual 7270.82 prorated 8.33 Marilyn Jones from 5 hr Child Nutrition Worker at Jefferson to Manager Trainee at Child utrition Admin. Paul McDonald from Regular Security Officer to District Wide Security Officer. Bert Gatlin from Regular Security Officer to District Wide Security Officer. on-Certified Transfer ONE r\"' z\u0026gt; z C: \u0026gt;r ::0 .m.,, 0 :..:.0..\n,-\ns -n\u0026gt; mo o\ni: m- ~z r~ C, ::0 ~~ zm ..... (J) -M ~ a, ::a  ~~ Or zo C, -\u0026lt; \u0026gt;n:m:0 ms a, (J)\n:o c-,Z _u, \u0026lt;- 0 \u0026gt; ~n Individual Approach to a World ef Knowledge\" Date: October 23, 2003 To: From: Through: Re: Little Rock Board of Directors  1ams, Director of Human Resources Recommendation to implement the Exception in Hiring Practice for Mr. Roy Percy Pursuant to the Little Rock School District Employee Handbook, Section 5, the attached request from Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services, with regard to hiring Mr. Roy Percy is being made to the Board of Directors. 810 'v:. 1arkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  w,~1v\n.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; c3\n::: ,- CD l\") C .-\u0026lt;. !z!? _m !I eenn\n:c en ~~ i~ C) 0 ~ rn \u0026gt;z z $,..\n.\n:c .m., 0 ~ ?-\n: o\n,,\n:c(\") C:r :!g m,- ~-men Z\n:c C) s ..,(\")\ncm ~en 10/20/2003 11:15 --- - --- -- .2Jl4475251 FACILITIES SERVICES PAGE 02/07 MEMORANDUM FACIUTY SERVICES DIRECTORATE DATE: September 24, 2003 TO: Or. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent THROUGH: ~' ewart, Chief Financial Officer FROM: ~~f Facility Services SUBJ: Exception to t-liting Policy: Roy Percy This Directorate is asking for an exception to our current hiring-policy in order for us to hire Mr. Roy Percy at Level 49, Step 15. Facility Services Directorate has a very complicated financial organization. Our personnel are responsible for maintaining our operational budgets, grant budgets, dedicated. millage budgets, and bond monies. At the start of the funding-cycles for the bond and the dedi.cate\u0026lt;l millage, we were given authority to hire additional financial persons to assist in the tracking of these large accounts. We interviewed a number of applicants\nbut, because we were unable to offer the salary that was necessary to secure a highly qualified person for the position, we went down our priority list and hired someone who appeared to be qualified. Within 10 months, this person resigned because of her inability to understand and execute the complexities of the District's funding-system. We recently re-advertised for this position. Since that re-advertisement, we have been successful in receiving forty~four applications\nand, after a lengthy review and intervi.ewprocess, we narrowed that number down to six. Our number-one-choice applicant 1s Mr. Roy Percy, whose resume' is attached. As may be seen by Mr. Percy's resume', be bas a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Business Administration. Be has an extensive accounting background\nand, through personal interviews, scrutiny of his resume', and limited background checks that we have conducted with persons with whom he is acquainted, we have found him to be extremely qualified. However, because of his background, and the extent of his experience, it is not possible for us to offer him a position that he would be willing to consider at the District's roaxnnum hire-level of 49-12. I feel that, in order for us to hire Mr. Percy, we must be able to offer him 49-15. I ask that you review his resume' and for your concurrence in our being able to make this offer to Mr. Percy. DE:cg Cc: Beverly Williarns, Director of Human Resources Attachment HalmcsP~Y !\"' \u0026gt;z z C: \u0026gt;.\na m c3 ~ 10~2~.{_2003 11:15 5014475251 FACILITIES SERVICES PAbt. l:'.J.::!/ t'.l 1 August 22, 2003 Janet Rector, Budget Assistant Little Rock School District, Facility Services 3601 S. Bryant Street Little Roe~ AR 72204 Dear Janet: My track record in preparing budgets and payroll make me an ideal candidate for the Budget Assistant position advertised in the .Arkan.~ Democrat Gazette. I am enthused., detailed- minded and a \"people\" person. l have a deep understanding of comminnent and the accuracy needed to produce results that meet and/or exceed expectations. I would like to hear from you soon. My-interest and enthusiasm is backed by:  Over 14 years of accounting experience.  8 years of payroll preparation.  6 years of budget preparation for presentation to Board of Directors.  Over 12 years of customer services, public relations and fund raising experience with a high volume of personal contact and phone contact.  Strong analytical and problem solving skills \u0026amp; experience in handling multiple taSks.  Excellent oral and -written communication skills, which include over seven years of classroom management, presentation \u0026amp; facilitation skills and over 16 years writing letters, memos, etc.  Excellent interpersonal skills, 1 am a .. people\" person with a strong sales personality and a team player.  Over 7 years experience with MS Office, Word \u0026amp; Excel.  Powerful motivation skills and vay self-motivated to exceed expectations and inspire co-workers and the people around me to do the same. In addition, I have obtained a BBA degree and MBA degree with 8ll emphasis on business administration and management. I have enclosed my resume for your review. Again. I look forward to hearing from you real soon and can be reached at 565-3812. I look for,vard to discussing the position of Budget Assistant with you in more detail. Tbanlcs Janet! Sincerely, ~:~ Encl. \u0026gt; \" \u0026lt; ~\n::: 0 tD r- C: i\"i en .-\u0026lt;. -z _m !I eenn ::o en g\n! c5 Ozen G) ~ !\" z\u0026gt; z: C: \u0026gt; r- ::0 m c3 ~ -!I tD ::o g\n!\ng CrZO G)-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:\u0026gt;:J om g:~ ~o oz - en ~ \u0026gt; __ 10/~/2003 11:15 5014475251 FACILITIES SERVICES PAGE 04/07 ROY PERCY 5001 W. 65th Street, A-117 Little Rock, AR 72209 RESUME OF QUALIFICATIONS PH: (501) 565-3812 (H) E-mail: roypercy@juno.com EDUCATION: QUALIF1CATIONS: No. of yrs. in () MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTATION (MBA) University of Central Arkansas\nConway, ~ BACBEWR ofBUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (BBA) University of Central Arkansas\nConway, AR M'.ajor:_ Business Administration, Minor: Management H\u0026amp;R BLOCK TAX CERTIFICATE (Fllll Tax Course) MANAGEMENT  Manager for department wi1h over $24 million in receivables, (4).  Supervisor for dept. with over $17 million in annual sales/ receivables, (5).  Assistant Business Office Manager, (4).  Hnman Resource Administration, (4).  Fund-Raising Administrator, (3). ACCOUNTING  Accounting Mgr., ( 4) License Section Spvsr (5). AsSt. BusineSS Office Manager, ( 4).  Full-charge accountant, (6).  Prepared annual budgets for board review and approval, (6).  Payroll prepanni.on and all federal \u0026amp; state tax reports, (8).  Firumcial Statements (monthly, qum1:erl:y, snnual), (1.2).  Accounts Payable/ Receivables, General Ledger, Subsiclim:y Ledgers, (12).  Grant accounting, grant management end preparation, ( 6).  Inventory management and control, (6).  Tax Aocountixi.g, prepared tax. returns for business and individuals, (2).  Ten key calculator, (20). CUSTOMER SERVICES/ PU'BLIC RELA.'TIONS / coMMUNfCAUON Coordinated and handled customer services for 1000 License Agents (Businesses) and over one million license purclla..scn which involved a high volume of phone \u0026amp; personal contact in a f.ast paced environment., (7). Classroom management., presentation and iaciliration\nprepared organized and conducted classroom training for potential License .Age11ts (Businesses)\n     demonstrllled ability in public spea.Jcing, (7). Fund Raising Administrator with high volume of persoual contact and phone contact, (1 )\ntelem!IJ'kcting, (2). Excellent oral and vmtten communicaiion skills, -prepared outgoing correspondence (letters. memos, ete), (16). Wrate feature articles for news publicatioo, ( l )  COMPUTE\u0026amp; LITERACY  Microsoft Excel, (7)\nMicrosoft Word,.(7)\nMicrosoft Access (Class 1 \u0026amp; II).  Peachtree Accounting, (1 ).  Compurerized Accounting and Payroll software, PC, (6)  Accuity accounting software, geo.eral ledgf'l', (2mos.). !'\" z\u0026gt; z C .\u0026gt;... ~ m 23 ~ __10/20/2003 11:16 ROYPERCY APRIL2000 Present DEC2002 APR2003 MAY 1991 MAR2000 OCT 1988 MAR 1991 MAR 1982 MAY 1988 JAN 1981 DEC 1981 5014475251 FACILITIES SERVICES PAGE 05/07  Pagc2- PROFESSIONAL IDSTORY SELF-EMPLOYED/ Accounting \u0026amp; Management Consultant Assisted businesses on contractual basis by assessing \u0026amp; preparing accounting records, payroll, financial s1l!tements and tax accounting records\nprovided managerial consultation and handled temporary accounting assignments on contra.etual basis. H\u0026amp;R BLOCK/ Tax Associate Prepared income taxes for individuals \u0026amp; business according to fed.em! \u0026amp; state tax laws, provided tax advice, answered t.ax questions, handled customer services on a daily basis. ARKANSAS GAME \u0026amp; F1SH COMMISSION, LITTLE ROCK, ARK. Liceuse \u0026amp;Accounting Manager/ (July 1996 - Mar 2000) Supervised \u0026amp; evaluated accounting section with receivables over $24 million, supervised. mai.lroom, handled accounts payables \u0026amp; receivables fur 10 regional offices, performed weekly \u0026amp; monthly reconciliation of revenues, monitored credit card accounts, prepared \u0026amp; performed classroom training for prospective license agentS. License Section Supervisor/ (May 1991 - June 1996) Supervised, hired, trained \u0026amp; evaluated unit of 11 employees with annual :receivables over $17 million, coordinatro \u0026amp; handled customer services for over l 000 license agents \u0026amp; over one million license purchasers, reconCJ1ed accounting records, handled and implemented inventory control, developed section policies \u0026amp; procedures, trained prospettive license agents in classroom setting. Transferred to above position. OLSTEN SERVICES, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS (Two Assignments) Assistant Payroll Accounourt / Coca Cola Bottling Company, (12/89 - 3/91) Assisted with payroll preparation for over 500 employees at eight locations, calculated time cards, posted payroll date utili.zmg computer spreadsheets. Accounts Rtteivnble Clerk/ Mid coast Aviation, (10/89 - Dec 89) Prepared accounts receivable reports, a-edit reports and accounts receivable invoices relating to jet fuel sales for a multitude of accounts. URBAN LEAGUE OF ARKANSAS, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Assistant Business Office Mauger/ Staff Accowitant Supervised office in maru1:,att's absence, sa-ved as full charge accountant, handled gr.rots management\nprepared general ledger, financial statemeots, prepared annual budgets, payroll and all federal \u0026amp; state tax reports\nhandled payroll deductions / human resources. GYST HOUSE, INC / CRISIS CENTER OF ARKANSAS, LITTLE ROCX, ARK. (The Urban l.ea,,\"110 of Arbnsas sponsored GYST House \u0026amp; GYST House sponsored OisL~ Orntcr of Arksnsas. The two jobs below represent velum= work performed wbile working full.time al the Urban League:. of Arkansas from Mm-ch 1982 to May 1988). Staff Accollntant / CCHUlScior, Crisis Center of Ark, (VOLUNTEER) (1/83 - 11/86) Prepared monthly financial swcmems and pn:sented smus to board of directors\nc:ounseled crisis c:i.11= concerni~ suicide, drug addiction. cnx.iecy and various needs. Fund Raisillg Administrator/ Counselor, GYST Bouse (VOLUNTEER) (3/84 - 11/86) Implemented \u0026amp; coordinated telemarketing fund raising dept. for GYST Howe drag center, counseled chemically dependent clients (group \u0026amp; individually). COMMUNTIY CONSULTANT NEWSPAPER, HELENA. ARKANSAS \"Business Representative/ Area Reporter Coordirurted. fund raising, coo.tacted CEO' s in person and by phone to raise fimds for community enhancement programs, wrote feature articles for newspaper. !'\" z\u0026gt; z ~ r:,::, m \"D 0 .:,.:.:., 10/20/2003 11:15 5014475251 FACILITIES SERVICES PAGE 05/07\n.. ROY PERCY REFERENCES PROFESSIONAL: Christina Pilkington, Controller, Perfect 10 Satellite Distributing Company PERSONAL: 3901 Progress Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 (501) 955-0033 (W) Mike Boyd, (Former Assistant Chief ofFiscal, Arkansas Game \u0026amp; Fish) Assistant Chief Fiscal Officer Arkansas State Highway \u0026amp; Transportation Dept. 10324 lnterstate 30 (501) 569-2411 (W) Daryl Bassett, (Former Business Office Manager, Urban League of Ark.) Commissioner, Public Service Commision 1000 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 683-5000 (W) Charles Parker, (Former Payroll Accow:rtant. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.) Payroll Supervisor Little Rock School District 81 0 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2069 (W) Carolyn Sims 4801 North Hills Blvd., Apt. 804 North Little Rock, AR 72116 (501) 753-7097 (H) Bobby Bonner, Jr. 8304 Leatrice Dr. Little Rock, AR 72227 (501) 565-1857 (W) (501)223-8331 (H) Kenneth Lowe 17321 Raines Road Little Rock, .-'\\R. 72210 (501) 455-8247 (W) (501) 455-4946 (H) !'\" \u0026gt;z z ~ r\n: a .m.., 0 ~ 1a,\na  ~\ng OrZO G)-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;nm\"' a, :s a,\"' -5 \u0026lt;-z ~\"' l'\u0026gt; \u0026gt; DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 October 23, 2003 Little Rock School District Board of Directors Suellen Vann, Director of Communications THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject: 2002-03 Annual Report Summary: Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) Rules Governing Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools, Standard 7.02.2, requires each school district to publish an annual report \"in a newspaper with general circulation in the district before November 15 of each school year, a report to the public detailing progress toward accomplishing program goals, accreditation standards, and proposals to correct deficiencies.\" Further, Standard 7.03.3.1 requires each school board, prior to November 15, to hold a public meeting to review and discuss its annual report. Objectives: To provide a summary of the information that will be included in the published 2002-03 annual report. Expected Outcomes: Budget Amt.: To raise public awareness of the district's activities and performance during the 2002-03 school year and to comply with ADE directives. Cost of publishing the annual report is about $8,600. Additional copies are printed for district use as a recruitment tool and information brochure during the school year. The summary of the annual report is provided. Major information categories in the report include academic performance and student discipline\nboth areas have been previously reported to the Board. Other information included relates to program/grant information and achievements/honors. \u0026gt; \"\u0026lt; .,,\n= Oa, r c: .-n\u0026lt;. \"-z' ~~ ::0(1) ~?i CCI\u0026gt; z  C) C C) \u0026gt;\n:o a, m  -n\n:o c: m Qz\"o' zr C) C: a,:::! oo ~?:= (/)\nto,~ c\n,, ::On C: :,: c,o -m-\u0026lt;or !!l(/) -m Z\n:o c,s \"\"o ::Om ~(/) Annual Report 2002-03 Superintendent's Message to the Community This is the fifth annual report that the Little Rock School District has prepared as an insert to inform the community about the highlights of the prior school year. Despite many challenges, the 2002-03 school year was successful in terms of growth in many academic indicators. Student learning is, and will always be, the primary focus in our schools. Teachers continue to monitor closely student performance on key state and national achievement tests. Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, schools analyze student performance data based on specific subgroups, including race, limited-Englishproficient, free/ reduced lunch qualification and special education. While many schools experienced double-digit growth on the state Benchmark Exams, in some cases a subgroup performance might have resulted in a school being placed on school improvement. In other cases, if a school made its required improvement during the year, it remained on the school improvement list because two consecutive years of mandated growth are required for a school to be removed from the list. We are working diligently with schools that are on school improvement in order to provide the necessary resources for teachers and administrators to improve students' academic achievement. Construction continues at schools throughout the city. Many major projects, such as Hall High, are complete, while others, such as Williams, are just beginning. Students, teachers and parents have been patient as they have \"lived through\" renovations in their buildings. Entire classes have been relocated during the process at some campuses, but the end result is worth the disorder as upgraded facilities contribute to a more appropriate and functional teaching and learning environment. The declaration last fall by U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson that the Little Rock School District is unitary in all areas except program evaluation was appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments have been held, and the district awaits the court's decision. Work continues in the final area in which the district must comply with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. That piece, program evaluations, is being finalized and will be submitted to Judge Wilson in the spring of 2004. The district has updated its Strategic Plan. This work, done by more than 100 community residents working in six major areas, will help to guide the district's direction in the next five years. I look forward to assisting district staff, business and civic leaders, parents and others this school year. The challenges facing our students are great and cannot be overstated. However, I believe that this community has put its support into our schools, and teachers, staff and students will benefit from knowing that public education is highly valued in our city. Morris Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent\n,o a, m -n\n,o c:m Zen !20 zrc, C: a,~ 00 ~\na\n: en ?-~ o\n,,\n,o(\") C: ::z:: c,o m-\u0026lt;,o- -~m en z\n,o C) s ~(\")\n,om ~en Academic Achievement One of the primary issues facing school districts across the state and nation is student academic achievement as measured by accepted examinations. There are two types of exams administered to students-\u0026lt;:riterion-referenced exams and normreferenced exams. Criterion-referenced exams measure student achievement on a specific curriculum or base of knowledge. In the case of students in the Little Rock School District, the Arkansas Benchmark Exam is the criterion-referenced test that students take. It measures how well students are learning the mandated Arkansas standards. As of the 2002-03 school year, the Benchmark Exam was required for students in grades 4, 6 and 8. It also is required as an End-of-Course test for students who take Algebra and Geometry, and all 11 th grade students must take the End-of-Course Literacy Benchmark Exam. LRSD students recorded some significant increases at many schools on the Benchmark Exams. Benchmark results presented here indicate the percentage of students who perform at the proficient and advanced levels. There are no national comparisons on the Benchmark Exam since it an Arkansas-developed and -administered test. Grade 4 Literacy African-American White LRSD 53 90 Arkansas 46 77 Grade4 Math African-American White LRSD 35 82 Arkansas 38 76 Grade 6 Literacy African-American White LRSD 13 49 Arkansas 14 37 Grade 6 Math African-American White LRSD 8 54 Arkansas 12 50 Grade 8 Literacy African-American White LRSD 28 68 Arkansas 25 57 Grade 8 Math African-American White LRSD 4 52 Arkansas 5 33 Algebra African-American White LRSD 15 60 Arkansas 18 54 Geometry African-American White LRSD 17 63 Arkansas 11 47 11 th Grade Literacy African-American White LRSD 20 71 Arkansas 19 57 ~?I ..,\n,o c: m ZCJ\u0026gt; !20 zrC\u0026gt; C: a,::::! 00 z~ C (/) Norm-referenced exams compare student academic performance to that of a national \"norm group\" of students who took the same test. This allows a district to see how its students are doing compared to others, regardless of the specific curriculum taught in school. Students in Arkansas must take the Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition, as a norm-referenced exam. Stanford Achievement Exam results are stated as a percentile. For example, a percentile rank of 72 means that these students did as well or better than 72 percent of the students in the norm group who took the same exam. African-American students in the LRSD were within 1 or 2 points of their counterparts in the state at every grade level. White students in the LRSD scored 9 - 17 percentile points ahead of their peers on the Stanford Achievement Test. Grade 5 African-American White LRSD 35 72 Arkansas 37 62 Grade 7 African-American White LRSD 35 73 Arkansas 37 64 Grade 10 African-American White LRSD 30 72 Arkansas 31 55 Another exam that allows comparisons with students across the nation is the ACT college entrance exam. The district's composite ACT score climbed from 19.0 in 2001-02 to 19.5 in 2002-03. Disaggregated scores are: LRSD Arkansas Nation African-American 17.1 16.7 16.9 White 23.0 21.1 21.7 Students in the LRSD showed significant progress in many areas of all of these exams in 2002-03. When scores are disaggregated and comparisons made both within Arkansas and to other students nationally, LRSD students perform quite well. Looking at the scores for the district, state and nation on all three exams, there is an achievement gap that can be accounted for, in part, by poverty. With more than 50 percent of its students who qualify for the free and reduced lunch program, the LRSD continues to focus on methods to help students who are not performing well on standardized exams. Academic achievement remains the LRSD's top priority.\n:o 0:, m .,,\n:o c: m !z2 \"0 ' zrc, C: 0:, ::::! 00 z~ C \"' -~ 0:,\n:o ~\ng Cr- ZO C)-\u0026lt; ),,\nJ0 nm 0:, s -\"o\"' '-z ~\"' ~ \u0026gt; What About Schools on the School Improvement List? Readers of the local newspaper may wonder why, with LRSD student scores ahead of the state and nation in many areas on required exams, there are several schools on the state's school improvement list. There are several answers to this question. There are some schools in the LRSD which have shown significant improvement on the Benchmark Exam, but they have not reached the level of improvement (Adequate Yearly Progress, or \"A YP\") required by the state. Not only must the entire school meet the A YP, but subpopulations, such as limited-English-proficient students, students who qualify for free/reduced lunch and special education students, must meet the same A YP as all other students. Also, once a school is on the school improvement list, it must meet A YP for two consecutive years to be removed from the list. Some LRSD schools did meet A YP this year, but remain on the list until they meet A YP for a second year. All schools on school improvement, indeed all LRSD schools, continue to look closely at test results to determine areas in which to concentrate lessons in order to help students learn the necessary course material and to improve academic performance in the future. What steps are being taken to assist students in schools on the school improvement list? Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, students in schools on school improvement receive supplemental services and school choice options, depending on which year of school improvement the school is placed. The LRSD offers supplemental services, which consists of tutoring by a provider selected by the Arkansas Department of Education, to students in year two of school improvement. All schools in alert status or on the school improvement list develop their school improvement plan to include proven strategies to help students build skills and knowledge in literacy and mathematics. Professional development activities in these schools are geared toward improving teacher preparation to address identified student needs. Principals of LRSD schools on the improvement list are encouraged to work with principals of schools that have scored well on the Benchmark Exam in order to duplicate successful strategies. Advanced Placement Enrollment In order to improve academic achievement, the LRSD encourages students to take challenging courses. One way to do this is through enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP) classes at the high school level. AP courses are very rigorous and meet national guidelines in terms of curriculum and college preparation. Students in AP classes may take the national AP exams in the spring. Those students who earn at least a 3 on the national AP exam may, in most cases, earn college credit for these classes. The LRSD has worked with teachers, counselors, students and parents to increase student enrollment in AP classes. To that end, we have been successful. The accompanying chart shows the increase in AP class enrollment in LRSD high schools during the past few years. Since the 1997-98 school year, there has been more than 20 percent annual growth in the number of students enrolled in AP classes and a total growth during that time of more than 100 percent. We expect these students to demonstrate  \u0026lt; ,, := 0 a, r- C: c\"icn .-\u0026lt;. -z ~ ~\no en 'il!~ Cz u. , C\u0026gt; g  ~pn ..,\no C:m Zu, !20 zrC\u0026gt; C: a, ::j oO ~?!' en higher levels of academic performance based on the more challenging courses they talce, and their success in high school should continue at the college level. Foundation Provides $100,000 in Teacher Grants It wasn't Ed McMahon delivering the Publishers' Clearing House grand prize, but it was just as exciting for many teachers and principals in the Little Rock School District. April 2 was the day the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock delivered 32 grants totaling nearly $100,000 throughout the district. Foundation members, donors, city dignitaries, LRSD School Board members and others boarded three school buses to personally deliver balloon bouquets and grant checks to surprised teachers! Each grant met certain criteria, whether it was targeting student achievement, parent involvement or improving teacher quality. Honors and Achievements Katherine Wright Knight was named Arkansas' 2003 Teacher of the Year and received the national NEA Foundation Award for Teaching Excellence. Sharon Boyd-Struthers of Rockefeller Elementary\nTimothy Eubanks of Parkview High\nRuth Eyres of J.A. Fair High\nCatherine Koehler of Baseline Elementary\nand Judy Meier of Rockefeller Elementary earned National Teacher Certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. National Board Certification is a credential attesting that a teacher has been judged by his or her peers as one who is accomplished and malces sound professional judgments about student learning. Gillian Glasco and Earnest Sweat, seniors at Parkview Magnet High School, were elected to office at Boys and Girls State. Gillian was elected Governor at Arkansas Girls' State, and Earnest was elected Lieutenant Governor at Arkansas Boys' State. Five students from Central High School were Semifinalists this year in the Siemens Westinghouse Competition in Math, Science \u0026amp; Technology. The Siemens Competition recognizes remarkable talent all over the country and fosters individual growth for high school students who are willing to challenge themselves through science research. The students were Daniel Liu, Satish Mahalingam, Mark Mazumder, Ananth Ranganathan and Xiazhong (\"Jeff') Wang. Mark Mazumder also was named a Regional Finalist and competed against nine other entrants in the Southwest Region at the University of Texas at Austin. Additionally, Mark also was named a National Semifinalist in the Intel Science Talent Search, one of only three Arkansas students to achieve this distinction this year. Often considered the \"junior Nobel Prize,\" the Intel Science Talent Search recognizes America's brightest students for excellence in science and math. Jeff Fuell and Kenneth Patterson, students at Parkview Magnet High School, had artwork selected for use on commemorative stamps that were issued in 2003 by the U. S. Postal Service celebrating the life of civil rights leader Daisy Bates. Dr. Linda Brown, principal of Parkview Magnet High School, was named 2003 Principal of the Year by MetLife and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Nineteen LRSD students were named National Merit Semifinalists in 2002-03, two were named National Achievement Semifinalists, and three were named National Merit Commended Students. The National Merit Semifinalists are: Kyla Achard, Adva Bi ton, Fredrick Brantley, Kevin Burns, David Gutierrez, Catherine Keisler, Daniel Liu, \u0026gt; \"\u0026lt; \"'t:I?= Oa:, ,- C: n(J) .-.\u0026lt; z- _m ~~ ::O(J) ~~ 0(J) z C) 0 ~ :\noa:, m \"Tl:\no C:m Z\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; !:!o zrc, C: ID ::j oO i ?i' (J) -!la:, ::o  ~~ Or- ZO C)-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;n:m:O \u0026amp;l~ ~o nZ -(J) ~ ?\"~ o\n,, ::On C: :r c,o m-\u0026lt;,o- ~\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; -m Z:\no c,s \"0n ::om ~(J) Mark Mazumder, Colin McAlister, Joseph McDonnell, Stephanie Nielson, Nadia Patel, Rachel Rouby, Brennan Taylor and Benjamin Wells, all from Central High School, and Alison Boland, Benjamin Carson, Jessica Lovelace-Chandler and Lorinda Peoples from Parkview Magnet High School. The National Merit Commended students are Annie B. Bauman and Mary Orsini from Central High School, and Dori Scallett from Parkview Magnet High School. The National Achievement Semifinalists are Everette Callaway from J. A. Fair High School and Lorinda Peoples from Parkview Magnet High School. The MathCounts team from Pulaski Heights Middle School captured the state championship. Team members were: Sho Maymia, Miles McCullough, Albert Speed, Corina Oprescu and their coach Trela Cook. Each team member also placed individually in the top ten. The J.A. Fair basketball team captured the Arkansas state 4-A championship. Team members were: Seniors: Melvin Fisher, Vincent Hunter, Earnest Maxwell and Quen Spencer\nJuniors: Lonnie Henry, Shaun Reynolds, Larry Porter and Dwight Watkins\nand Sophomores: Quincy Googe, Charles Hayes and Parris Pattillo. The Head Coach was Charlie Johnson, and the Assistant Coaches were Tom Poole and Erik Jackson. The Central High chess team earned the title of Chess Association of Arkansas Schools State Champions for the 3A-5A Division. Teams are limited to four players at the state level, and Central's team consisted of Victor Harris, Joe Liu, Shep Russell and Johnson Wong. Other team members included David Gutierrez, Daniel Krupitsky, Elizabeth Richardson and Shannon Rodgers. The team's coaches were Joe Gray and Chuck West. A Central High sophomore scored a perfect 36 on the ACT exam. Yang Dai was one of only three students in Arkansas, and 58 nationally, who achieved this distinction. Thirty-nine students were recognized by the Duke Talent Search State Recognition program. The seventh graders took either the SAT or the ACT assessment to qualify for recognition (the same exams administered to college-bound high school students). Students listed were recognized at the State Ceremony\nand students denoted with an asterisk also were recognized at the Grand Ceremony-they scored in the top 2 percent of all participating students in the nation. Dunbar Magnet Middle School: Aska Amautovic, Melody Chang, Dylan Frost, Megan Jackson, Scotty Lankford, Peter Liu*, Linsey Miller, Cameron Murray, Melissa Nichols, Hannah Roher, Hannah Smith, Russell Viegas, Samuel Whitehorn, Anne Ye* and Elaine Zhou. Forest Heights Middle School: Jamie Coonce, Stacy Coonce* and Sasha Ray. Henderson Magnet Middle School: Geoffrey Jackson and Sarita Robinson. Mabelvale Magnet Middle School: Kelicia Hollis and Victoria Kreie. Mann Magnet Middle School: Cyrus Bahrassa, Jillian Carroll, Samuel Clark, Maura Conder, Elizabeth Cox, Abigail Dobson, Patricia Graves, Dillon Hupp, Grace Nam and Jillian Petersen. Pulaski Heights Middle School: Sarah Ball, Ellen Barber, Colton Koehler, Miles McCullough, Colin Rockefeller, David Steward and Kathryn Tull. The Dunbar PT A was one of only three schools in Arkansas to receive the Certificate of Excellence from the National PT A, and it was named the Arkansas PT A Outstanding Local Unit. Students at Metropolitan Career-Technical Center took away 26 medals from the 2002 Skills USANICA competition in Hot Springs. Students earning medals and state\n,o a, m  .,,\n,o cz : m V, !20 zrc, C: a,~ 00 ~:2:' V, -!la,\n,o ~\ng CrZO C)-\u0026lt;  ::0 nm a, :S a, V, ~o oz _v, ~ honors were: Matt Davidson, JeffMerks, Fabian Marks, Nick Spear, Rolonda Foreman, Veronda Lee, LaToya Jacko, Danyell Boyd, Mary Katherine Knight, Dale Jackson, Georgina Pena, Tonya Bums, Shamika Walker, Lynzzie Cash, Tabitha Clark, Bessie Haygood, Megan Moody, Andrea Sanders, Danny Aaron, Jermond Booze, Steven Spencer, Dustin Ashley, Jeremy Baker, Jason Bredlow, Tim Lingo, Ben Royer, Greg Fundyler, Jordan McElrath, Cole Cawthron, Chad Ellis, Ashley Kelly, Tara Womack and Tiffany Neam. Central High School's Fed Challenge team bested the defending two-time champion to win the state Fed Challenge championship. The Fed Challenge involves researching the status of the national economy and making recommendations for actions as if the team members were the actual Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System. Team members were Kevin Luneau, David Mitchell, Jessica Marshall, Chris Burks, Shep Russell and Daniel Liu. Their sponsor was Sam Stueart. The Central High School Lady Tigers varsity women's soccer team won the women's 5-A state soccer championship. The team members were: Anne Claire Allen, Caroline Allen, Jamie Bandy, Lindsey Barron, Kate Burnett, Lauren Cloud, Camille Cook, Allison Corbin, Sally Cunningham, Riley Duke, Sheffield Duke, Stephanie England, Lizzy Gray, Elizabeth Harrell, Marissa Hayes, Cara Janton, Elizabeth Jones, Jessica Jones, Whitney Maloney, Kendall Polansky, Stephanie Rogers, Megan Russell, Lindsey Short, Rosalind Smith, Becca Vehik, Robin West and Claire Wetzel. Their coach was Keith McPherson, the assistant coach and manager was David Duke, and the team's physical therapist was Bill Bandy. Dariane Mull, a 5th grade student at Terry Elementary, won the 5th grade category of the U.S. Rice Producers Association Essay Contest. The contest was open to students in grades 4 to 12 in the rice-producing states of Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas. The Central tennis team won this year's state 5-A state title. The women's team compiled an impressive record of 5-A conference and state championships in 200 I and 2003. The men's team has been 5-A conference and state champs every year from 2000 to 2003. The women's team members were Ashley Batchelor, Dovie Dockery, Ashley Driver, Barrett Jones, Lauren Karney, Jessica Marshall, Holly McGetrick, Nancy Mitchell, Collins Speed and Presley Thomas. The men's team members were Matthew Angulo, Scott Bacon, Nick Clifford, Andrew Crone, Alex DePriest, Brock Dial, Andrew Humphrey, Daniel Krupitsky, Kevin Luneau, Sam McSpadden, David Mitchell, Jay Murphy, Blake Ross, John Shults and Peter Thomas. The team coach was Joy Thompson, and the team manager was Megan Heard. Five LRSD teachers and two students were honored with the 2003 Stephens Award. Jackson T. Stephens and the late W.R. \"Witt\" Stephens formed this program in 1985 to provide scholarships to outstanding students and cash awards to exceptional educators in Little Rock. The award-winning students were Mark M. Mazumder and Nadia A. Patel of Central High School. The outstanding teachers were: Kimberly Dade, Kirby Shofner and Amy Snodgrass of Central High\nVannessa Pace-Hampton, Parkview High\nand Hosea D. Malone, Hall High. Anne Ye, a ?1h grade student at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, won the Arkansas state spelling bee championship and represented Arkansas in the National Spelling Bee in Washington. .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ,,\n= 0 a, re: \u0026lt;\"\u0026gt;Cl) .-.\u0026lt; z- _m ~ gi ::0(/) ~ ~ 0(1) z C') 0 ~\no a, m ..,\no \u0026lt;=m ZCI) !z2 0rC') C:: a, :\nj oO ~\na\n: Cl) -!la,\no. ~ ~ Or- ZO C')-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;n:m:O a, :s a, Cl) -o '-z ~Cl) ~ \u0026gt; David Simmons Henry, an 8th grade student at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, received the John W. Harris Leadership Award from the National Beta Club. Only 50 students nationwide (25 senior high and 25 junior high/middle school) are recognized each year. Central High seniors Adva Biton, Fredrick Brantley and Stephanie Nielson received Achievement Awards in Writing from the National Council of Teachers of English. They were judged as being among the best student writers in the country. Grants The Little Rock School District is committed to having all of its students reading at or above grade level by the end of the third grade. The district received a three-year Arkansas Reading First grant from the Arkansas Department of Education in the amount of $4,412,184. This grant money will be used to implement a comprehensive, researchbased reading program in 12 elementary schools that were determined by 1999-2002 literacy data and other factors to have the greatest need. The Reading First project will build on the district's current literacy plan and will provide human and financial resources to more fully implement that plan. Other new grants implemented in 2002-03: Hall High and Henderson Middle School received 21 st Century Community Learning Center grants to establish after-school and summer academic enrichment programs for the next five years. The schools will share a total of up to $1 million over five years. The U.S. Department of Education selected the LRSD to receive funding under the Professional Development for Music Educators Program in the amount of $706,785 over three years to provide ongoing professional development support for LRSD music teachers. The LRSD received the Teaching American History Grant in the amount of $995,953 over a three-year period. The district and its partners will provide professional development for all American history teachers in grades 5, 8 and 11. Adult Ed Celebrates Milestone The Little Rock Adult Education Center marked 25 years of service to the community. During the past 25 years, the Little Rock Adult Education Center has served nearly 65,000 adults with over 7,000 receiving their Arkansas GED diplomas. The main center and its 18 satellite programs serve over 2,500 adults a year. Classes offered include refresher courses in reading, math and English\nGED preparation\ncomputer-assisted instruction\ncomputer literacy\nfamily literacy\nand English as a second language. SREB Training The Little Rock School District was selected from an elite group of ten urban districts across the nation by the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) to be the first to participate in a new national leadership initiative. The goal of the SREB Leadership Initiative is to prepare school and teacher leaders to lead a comprehensive school improvement effort that will result in increased student achievement. All five LRSD high schools as well as four middle schools (Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale and Southwest) are participating in the program. The leadership initiative will provide ~!ll \"\"\n,:, Cm Zen !20 zrc, c CD:::! 00 z?\n0 en ~ ~ CD\n,:, ~~ 0 rz o C) -\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\n,:, nm CDS CD en ~o _neZn ~ \u0026gt;\ni:,,~ 0~\n,:,(\") C:c ~8 m r- -~m en Z:,:, C) s \"ti(\")\n,:,m ~en school leadership teams an intensive three-year curriculum program beginning with the 2002-03 school year. Construction Progress at LRSD Schools Improvements continue on many LRSD schools, thanks to the millage increase approved by Little Rock voters in 2000. While work wraps up on a few schools and continues on some, it is just beginning on others. During the summer, Wakefield Elementary held a groundbreaking for a building to replace the school that was accidentally destroyed by fire in 2002. Things are progressing rapidly at Mann Magnet Middle School where students will be in the new multi-story building next semester. Central High School's exterior renovations are complete. The interior refurbishment of classrooms and offices continues. Major construction work continues at Williams Elementary and Mabelvale Middle School. Construction has begun at Dunbar, while Hall High's new gymnasium and classrooms are complete. \u0026gt; \" \u0026lt; -0\n= Oa:, r- C: \u0026lt;'5v, -. .\u0026lt; z- _m !I gi\nn V) g\n!\u0026lt; en z~ C) 8 \u0026gt;\nn a:, m  ..,\nn \u0026lt;=m Zv, S!o zrc, C: a:,=! 00 1?\n: V) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: To: OCTOBER 23, 2003 Board of Education From: Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared By: Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development Margo Bushmiaer, Coordinator of Health Services Bobby Jones, Director of Safety and Security Subject Summary Objectives Expectations Population Budget Amount Manager Duration Other Partners Federal award: Emergency Response Crisis Management Grant The District has been selected to receive funding under the Emergency Response Plans for School Safety Initiative Program from the U.S. Department of Education. 1) To establish collaborative partnerships with community leaders to develop and maintain the Little Rock School District Emergency Response/Crisis Management (ER/CM) Plan 2) To revise, update and distribute the LRSD Emergency Response/Crisis Management Plan 3) To provide in-depth ER/CM training 4) To develop a comprehensive communication plan for both internal and external communication with staff and families 5) To equip schools with emergency supplies and equipment 6) To ensure administrative leadership support for LRSD EM/CR Plan An updated comprehensive crisis management plan that meets the safety needs of students and staff. District wide $250,000 Margo Swanson, Project Director October 1, 2003 through April 1, 2005 City of Little Rock, Little Rock Fire and Police Departments, MEMS, Arkansas Department of Health, Centers for Youth and Families ,.  \u0026lt; \"ti\n:: 0 a, re \u0026lt;\"len -..\u0026lt; z~~ ~en ljl\n! c5 Oen z  C) ,g. ~ a, .m.,~ Cm Zen 2o zr C)C a,=! oO 1 ?:= en !\"' 0 0 z ~ 0z en -\na, ~ - g\n!\ng Or- Zn C,.)~-\u0026lt; nm a, s a, en\n:a nZ _en ,~. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Junious Babbs THROUGH: Compliance Committee OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501) 447-2950 E-Mail: jcbabbs(tistuasn.lrsd.kl 2.ar .us Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: DATE: Background First Reading - Revisions to Policy ACBB\nJC\nJCA October 9, 2003 On September 13, 2002, the District Court granted LRSD partial unitary status finding that the District had substantially complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") in all areas except  2.7.1. The Revised Education Plan is referenced in existing policy and incorporates a number of student / school assignments that are race-based. Since LRSD has been declared unitary with regard to student assignment, revision is being recommended. Attached are copies of the proposed revised policy. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board approve on first reading proposed revisions to policies ACBB: Equitable Student Assignment, JC: School Attendance Zones and JCA: Student Assignment / School Choice. (Attachment) : a, m.., :  c: m Zu, !20 zrc\n, C: a, :::! oo z~ 0 (J) fl 8 z ~ 0z (J) ?\":ii o\n,, :\u0026gt;:in C: ::r:: ~8 m,- !!lrn -m Z:,:, c.\u0026gt;s .,,n :m ~(J) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACBB EQUITABLE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT The Board of Education is committed to the implementation of student assignment programs and procedures designed to maintain diversity in Little Rock School District schools to the extent practicable, recognizing that there is no requirement that every Little Rock School District school be racially balanced. Revised: Adopted: April 22, 1999 Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC, ACB, ACBD, JC and JCA\no a, m \"Tl\no c: m Z(I) !20 zrC) C: a,::! oo z~ C (/) !\"\u0026gt; C 0 z \u0026gt;.... 0 z (/) ?-~ c\n,, :On C: ::c C)o m--\u0026lt; ,o- ~\"' -z m\no C) s \"0 C') :Om ~(/) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPH CODE: JC SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONES School Attendance zones will be established by the Board of Education and all modifications or alterations in zone boundaries will be approved by the Little Rock School Board. The basis for LRSD student assignments is the geographic attendance zone which ties each residential street address within district boundaries to a specific elementary, middle and high school. Student assignment priority will be given to the Attendance Zone student. Recommendations to establish, modify or alter attendance zone boundaries will include consideration of the operational needs of the school system. Any recommendation for establishment or alteration of boundaries will include an analysis and justification based on these factors. Revised: Adopted: May 25, 2000\na a:, m \"T1\na c:m Zen S:!o zrc\n, C: a:,::! oo i~ en fl 0 0 z ~ 0 z en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JCA SCHOOL CHOICE It is the policy of the Board of Education to implement student assignment programs and procedures designed to ensure that students may benefit from attending a school other than the one serving their neighborhood attendance zone. The Student Assignment Plan includes attendance zone school precedence and educational choice options that maintain student diversity to the extent practicable. Providing students and their families with school choice is a key component of the assignment plan. School Choice is viewed as a healthy method of providing opportunity for students to take advantage of unique curriculum offerings, special emphasis and program activities. Procedures will be established that enable students to make application to enroll in a school outside of their designated attendance zone. Initial registration begins during a two-week open enrollment period scheduled the first two months of the calendar year. Parents and students will be informed of available options. ATTENDANCE ZONE SCHOOLS - Students are assigned to the designated attendance zone school by their recorded residence. During the open enrollment period, priority will be provided to attend the attendance zone school site. STIPULATION/ ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS were created in 1987. Seats are reserved for students in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Each district conducts an application process and assigns students to these schools. SPECIAL TY MAGNET SCHOOLS with \"themed\" or \"specialty\" programs have coursework that supplements the regular curriculum. They are available to students seeking school options or choices outside of their attendance zone schools. These specialty programs are sited at schools that also serve as attendance zone schools. Students from PCSSD may participate in these specialty programs as M-to-M transfer students. If the number of out of zone applicants exceed the number of program seats available, a weighted random assignment process will be used to identify those students who will be assigned. Criteria indicators considered in the weighted random process include the student's race, achievement test performance and economic status indicated by eligibility for free and reduced lunch. M-to-M Transfer program is a collaborative effort between the LRSD and PCSSD, which allows students school choice across district boundaries if certain criteria are met.\n:o a, m -n\n:o c:m ZC/\u0026gt; Sz!ro C) C: a,:::! 00 z?\nC C/) 0 C 0 z ~ 0z C/) c\n,,\n:o(\") C: :z: ~8 m,- !!lC/\u0026gt; -m Z\n:o C) s \"'0(\")\n:om ~C/) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JCA ( continued) NCLB Transfers available to students in schools identified by the Arkansas Department of Education as \"low-performing\". Staff Preference Transfers allow students who live in the LRSD to attend the schools in which their parents are employed. Act 624, Act 762 and Act 609/School Choice Transfers are Arkansas statuts' which are available to students who wish to transfer across school district boundaries. Transfer No Transportation (TNT) Transfers permit students to attend a school other than their attendance zone school if space is available after a certain number of seats are set aside or \"reserved\" for attendance zone students and if the parent / guardian assumes responsibility for the student's transportation. If demand exceeds available space, the priority will be to promote diversity. Revised: Adopted: May 25, 2000 Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC, ACB, ACBB, ACBD and JC 2 \"m'a , .., \"' C:m Zen !:!o zrC'l C: a,~ oO 1~ en !\"' 8 z )\u0026gt; --, 0 z en\nz,,~ C en \"'n C:r: ~8 m,- ~-men Z\n,c C'l s \"'0C') \"'m ~ en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: October 23, 2003 To: From: Through: Re: Board of Education Robert Jones, Director of Safety \u0026amp; Security Beverly Williams, Director of Human Resources Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Revisions to the District's Drug Testing Program The attached proposed changes in the drug testing program are submitted for board review and approval. The only cost involved will be the reprinting and distribution of procedures manuals. bjg ::0 a, m \"'::o C:m z en !:20 zrc, C: ~5 ~ ?i' en r, 0 0 z ~ iz5 en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II Safety and Security Department  3615 West 25th Street  Little Rock, AR 72204 Telephone 501-447-2075  Fax 501-447-2076 TO: Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources FROM: Robert Jones, Director of Safety and Security DA TE: September 16, 2003 SUBJECT: Amending the Employee Drug Testing Program Effective immediately I recommend that Section 5 of the Drug Testing Program be amended to read as follows: V. Employee Testing for Cause (reasonable suspicion) A. An LRSD administrator who has a reasonable suspicion that an employee under his or her supervision is guilty of abuse and/or untimely use of alcohol or abuse and/or untimely use of controlled substances and/or drugs may require the employee to undergo a drug and/or alcohol test. Reasonable suspicion may be based, among other things, on an employee's observed behavior which is indicative of drug or alcohol use, reports from a reliable source of suspected drug use of possession, or the employee's admission of possession or use of drugs and/or alcohol. B. The administrator will follow the following process in cases where the administrator reasonably suspects abuse and/or untimely use of alcohol or abuse and/or untimely use of controlled substances and/or drugs: 1. Solicit an explanation from the employee for any behavior which creates a reasonable suspicion of a violation of this program. 2. If the employee cannot satisfactorily explain the behavior, the supervisor may request that the employee undergo drug and alcohol tests.\n,ca, m ..,\no Cm z en 52 o zrc, C a,::::! 00 z?:' lil r\u0026gt; 8 z )\u0026gt; --\u0026lt; 5 z en 3. If the employee agrees to be tested, he or she will complete the Waiver form and a specimen will be obtained. 4. If an employee is to be tested for drugs and alcohol, the employee will be taken to the testing site by the Safety and Security Department or an individual designated by the employee's Principal or Director. 5. After testing, arrangements will be made to transport the employee home or back to work depending on the outcome of the tests. 6. If the tests are negative, the employee will be transported back to the work assignment. 7. If a test is positive, arrangements will be made to transport the employee home. 8. If the tests are unknown, arrangements wi 11 be made to transport the employee home. 9. Procedures set forth in Section VII will apply to employee testing for cause. 10. If the employee refuses to undergo all required tests or refuses to complete the Waiver Form, he or she will be advised that such refusal constitutes a ground for immediate termination. If the employee still refuses to cooperate, he or she will be relieved of duty pending appropriate disciplinary action. 11. If the employee confirmation test is positive for abuse and/or untimely use of alcohol or abuse and/or untimely use of controlled substances and/or drugs, he or she shall be tem1inated. 12. If the employee is found not to have violated this program and is otherwise medically fit for duty, the employee will be returned to duty. RJ:dm \u0026gt; \u0026lt; ~\n= Ca, ,- C: c\"\nrn .-\u0026lt;. -z ~~\n,:,rn lj'\n!~ Cm z  C) C C) \u0026gt;\n,:, a, m -n:,:, c:m Zrn S!o zr- C) C: a,::::! co z~ C rn f\u0026gt; C 0 z \u0026gt;.... 5 z rn !=' ~ \u0026gt; z (\") ,\u0026gt;-\n,:, m ~ .\n.,.:., rn ?\u0026lt; ,(.\".). 0rn z C)\n,:, i :,:, ::I\u0026lt; WAIVER FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING The Little Rock School District has a reasonable suspicion to believe that you are guilty of the abuse or untimely use of alcohol and/or controlled substances (drugs). You are being requested by your supervisor to submit to drug and alcohol tests to be conducted at the Arkansas Baptist Hospital. Should you refuse to take the drug and alcohol tests, it will be presumed that you are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, and the refusal to take all required tests may lead to disciplinary actions up to and including termination. Should your test show positive for alcohol or drugs, you may at your own expenses have a second test conducted on your sample at any laboratory certified by the US Department of Health and Human Services or College of American Pathology. I have read the above statement and consent to a drug and/or alcohol testing. Employee's Signature Date and Time Witness Witness\noa, m .., ::0 c:m Zv, !:!o zrc, C: Ill:::! oo ~~ \"' r\u0026gt; C 0 z ~ 5z \"' '/1n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" October 23, 2003 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY ~ald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: First Reading of Revision to Board Policy DGA: Authorized Signatures Act 671 of2003 amended Arkansas Code 6-13-618 requiring the signatures of the Superintendent as Ex Officio Financial Secretary and the primary, or alternate, Board disbursing officer of the District on all checks. It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve Policy DGA as revised and attached to comply with State law. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 AIOI m  .., Al c:m Z\u0026lt;JJ 5! 0 zrQC: ID~ oO ~:i\n: U\u0026gt; !\"\u0026gt; g z ~ 5z U\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DGA AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES The facsimile signatures of the Superintendent of Schools, in his/her capacity of Ex Officio Financial Secretary, and the President of the Board, as the primary board disbursing officer of the District, are required on all District checks. The facsimile signature of the Vice President of the Board, as the alternate board disbursing officer of the District, will be required in the event that the President of the Board's signature cannot be used. Revised: Adopted: March 24, 2000 Legal References: Arkansas Code 6-13-618, as amended Act 671 of 2003 .m~., ~tD c:m Zen S!o zrc, C: tD :::! 00 ~:\":= !\"' 8 .$..'.\n. 15 z en .!=.=,I ~ zn \u0026gt;.... Rl c3 ~ en ?\u0026lt; .n.. . 0 en z C) I ~ \"' '\n4.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: October 23, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: PREPARED BY:  SUBJECT:  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes  Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration  Long Range/Continuation  Other Agencies Involved  Expectations of District eeded Staff  Comments  Recommendation RESOLUTIO AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING BONDS Under separate cover you have received the complete Resolution package to authorize the issuance of $6,385,000 in refunded bonds. To sell bonds. To reduce District debt by $356,000 over the life of the bonds. IA IA Donald M. Stewart, CFO NIA IA IA IA IA one Approval of the Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Refunding Bonds as provided under separate cover. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fa...'C: 501-324-2032 r\u0026gt; 8 z ~ 0z en .~., ~ z n ii! Rl i3 :a -e\u0026lt;n CERTI FICATE I , the undersigned, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the above Di strict , ce r tify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Reso l uti on d uly a dopted by the Board at a regular ( regular or s pecial ) meeti ng of the Board held on the 23 day of October , 2003. The Resolution appears in the official minutes of t he meeting which are in my custody . At the time of the meeti ng the duly e l ected (or appoint ed) , qualified and serving members of the Boar d and their respective votes on the adoption of the Resolution were as follows : Director R. Michael Daugherty H Baker KJJTTJJS Larry Berkl1q Dr. Katherine Mitekell Tony Rose Bryan Day Sus Strickl,md Vote (Aye , Nay , Abstain or Absent) I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law\nthat to the extent required by law due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public\nthat the meeting was open to the public\nthat a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting\nthat all other requirements and proceedings under the law incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled , carried out and otherwise observed\nand that I am authorized to execute this Certificate . CERTIFIED under my hand and seal of the District this 23 day of October 2003 . (SEAL) Secretary 27 fl 0 0 z ~ 0z \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: October 23, 2003 Board of Education FROM: ~Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows : School/Department Item Donor Central High School $400.00 cash to the Dr. Randal Hundley Central High School Debate Team Central High School $1,000.00 cash to the Mr. Robert Fain, President Central High School ofRCF Corporation FBLNBusiness Dept. Forest Heights $2,500.00 cash to be Forest Heights PT A Middle School applied toward the purchase of a school marquee' Forest Park $50.00 cash Frances Jane Cranford Elementary School Forest Park $200.00 cash Charles \u0026amp; ancy Vines Elementary School Jefferson Elementary Decorative butterflies, Lyda \u0026amp; Tom Samuels School valued at $110.00, for of Et Cetera Accelerated Reader Program theme !=' ~ )\u0026gt;, z n ~ ~ .:cx.3., \"' ?\u0026lt; Board of Education October 23, 2003 Page 2 Schoo I/Department Mitchell Academy Mitchell Academy Mitchell Academy Pulaski Heights Elementary School Rightsell Academy School supplies, valued at approximately $150.00, for needy students $100.00 cash to be used to purchase food items for an upcoming field trip School supplies, valued at approximately $500.00, for needy students Services of an art teacher, art supplies and materials, valued at $20,601.00, for the 2003-04 school year School supplies, valued at approximately $500.00, to be distributed to students with specific needs Donor Probation and Parole Officers' Association Mr. Jimmy Morris, member of Omega Phi Psi Fraternity, Inc. St. Paul United Methodist Church Pulaski Heights PT A United Parcel Service (UPS) It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. LittCe Xock Centra{ J-fflJli Sclioo{ 1500 South Park Street Litt[e 'Rock, .'A.rkansas 72202 Phone 501 -447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 9/19/2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF ~fPCUREME T FROM: A CY ROUSSEAU, PRI CIPAL 7~~ SUBJECT: DO ATIO Dr. Randal Hundley of 5515 Country Club Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72207, has graciously donated $400 to the Little Rock Central Debate Team. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ... . ,.) ' - .,.. I,.. .. ... 1. ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt;m :-~ \u0026gt;,- ~Q Om c: m !ll::r:: 31:~ ~~ --\u0026lt;Z c\n, VJ iitt{e 'Rock Centra{ J-if:Jli Sclioo{ 1500 South 'Park Street Litt[e 'Rocle, .'Arkansas 72202 Thone 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 September 18, 2003 To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Nancy Rousseau, Principal c(J~.4~ Re: Donation Mr. Robert Fain, President ofRCF Corporation at 5 Shackleford Plaza, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211, donated $1,000 to the Central High School FBLA/Business Department. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ?\u0026lt; ,x... m5 \u0026gt; ,o o \u0026lt;...-\u0026lt; Om c: m\n,o :x: ~~ mz\n, o -\u0026lt; z C\u0026gt; \"' ?\u0026lt; (\") ,- 0 \"~'\n,o m ~ \"' FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL To: From: Date: RE: Mr. Darral Paradis Director of Procurement Elouise J. Hudson .1~ Principal September 9, 2003 Donation Forest Heights PT A wishes to donate $2500.00 toward the purchase of a marquee' for Forest Heights Middle School. It is recommended this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. , . i. 5901 Evergreen Street  Phone (501) 447-2700  Fax (501) 447-2701  Little Rock. Arkansas 72205 October 1, 2003 TO: From: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management \\J 'heresa Ketcher, Principal Forest Park School SUBJECT: Donations The following donations have been made to Forest Park Elementary School. $50.00 from Frances Jane Cranford $200.00 from Charles and Nancy Vines It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. 1,  I. ... I ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 en z Cl\n,o m f\n,o :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;: '\\ ~------------z~ fl ~~ \\ J EFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ~\\ J:. :': .-::.~ .... September 19, 2003 To: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management From: Roberta Mannon, Principal \"'' Jefferson Elementary School Subject: Donation The following donation has been made to Jefferson Elementary School: Lyda and Tom Samuels\nEt Cetera\n4924 Kavanaugh Boulevard\nLittle Rock, AR 72207: Decorative butterflies for Accelerated Reader Program theme. Value $110.00 It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. . - 2600 N McKinley Street Phone 671-6281 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 September 15, 2003 MITCHELL ACADEMY 2410 South Battery Little Rock, AR 72206 501-447-5700 TO: FROM: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Material Mgmt. Darian L. Smith. Principal -~ ~th SUBJECT: Donations Please accept the donation of school supplies to Mitchell Academy from the Association of Probation \u0026amp; Parole Officers. These supplies will be used for students who need assistance in purchasing supplies. The estimated value of these supplies is $150.00. We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 (/) z C\u0026gt; ~ ~\n,:J\n,:\nSeptember 15, 2003 MITCHELL ACADEMY 2410 South Battery Little Rock, AR 72206 501-447-5700 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Material Mgmt. FROM: Darian L. Smith. Principal /lhi-\u0026gt;1-\u0026lt;1.J\\ SUBJECT: Donations Please accept the cash donation of $100.00 to Mitchell Academy from Mr. Jimmy Morris, a member of Omega Phi Psi Fraternity, Inc. Pi Omicron Chapter. This donation will be used to purchase food items for an upcoming field trip. We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. ! .. .,. : ?\u0026lt; 0 5 Cl) z C) ~ !E :,0\n,,\nSeptember 15, 2003 MITCHELL ACADEMY 2410 South Battery Little Rock, AR 72206 501-447-5700 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Material Mgmt. FROM: Darian L. Smith. Principal SUBJECT: Donations Please accept the donation of school supplies to Mitchell Academy from the St. Paul United Methodist Church, 2223 Durwood Road, Little Rock, AR 72207. These supplies will be used for students who need assistance in purchasing supplies. The estimated value of these supplies is $500.00.  We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. ?\u0026lt; xm :-~ ,- E~ Om c: m\n:c:c ~~ ~-:,:!z:! Cl \u0026lt;J) PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO: Daryl Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM:/\u0026amp;- Lillie carter. Principal DATE: September 9, 2003 RE: Donation The Pulaski Heights P.T.A. wishes to donate the seruices of an art teacher, art supplies and materials for the 2003-2004 school year. The cost is $20,601.00. It is recommended that this donation be approued in accordance with the policies of the board. .~., z :,,. nz ~ ~ m\ng .~... Cl\u0026gt; TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Eunice M. Thrasher, Principal f)rnJ\" Rightsell Academy September 29, 2003 Donation The donor listed below has generously donated school supplies in the amount of approximately $500.00 to be distributed to students with specific needs: United Parcel Services (UPS) 5501 Fourche Dam Pike Little Rock, AR 72206 Contact Person: Dorothy Bledsoe 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. Thank you for you consideration. Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1086 Fax: (501) 447-1158 DATE: October 23, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY~Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes  Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending September 30, 2003 . To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial condition. IA IA Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services IA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved one  Expectations of District N/ A eeded Staff /A  Comments None  Recommendation Approval of the September 2003 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. ?\u0026lt; C'l 5 (J) z C\u0026gt; :,0 m ~ :,0\n,:: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS 2002/03 09/30/02 COLLECTED 2003/04 09/30/03 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 10,362,818 17.70% 57,547,800 11,111,439 DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 786,728 9.83% 10,100,000 807,595 40% PULLBACK 29,400,000 29,600,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 210,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 180,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 150,000 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 109,759 32.28% 380,000 198,1 37 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 41,798 15.20% 200,000 43,822 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 34,210 240,000 42,599 TOTAL 97,432,000 11,335,314 11.63% 98,607,800 12,203,591 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 5,094 21.23% 21,000 5,420 TOTAL 24,000 5,094 21.23% 21,000 5,420 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 10,037,637 18.29% 53,226,139 9,677,479 __f3EIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 8,300,000 VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 119,652 8.93% 1,400,000 266,989 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 1,675,000 ....ARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 68,340 25.00% 273,358 68,340 J'RANSPORTATION 3,685,226 3,875,562 1,243,841 ._INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 3,900,000 368,422 ~ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 109,000 10.83% 920,337 8,417 ~OVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 329,297 560,545 267,486 ~EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 .]AP PROGRAM 285,271 142,636 50.00% 285,245 142,623 ~ RISK FUNDING 650,000 360,000 ....... TOTAL 75,441,106 10,806,562 14.32% 74,776,187 12,043,596 ~EVENUE - OTHER SOURCES .2_RANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 ~NSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 13,857 1,350,000 18,519 .!_RANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 1,632,430 -- TOTAL 3,410,671 13,857 0.41% 3,752,430 18,519 -- !QTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 22,160,828 12.57% 177,157,418 24,271,126 ~ENUE - OTHER !gQERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 1,927,579 7.66% 24,075,790 2,160,329 ~DICATED M\u0026amp; o 3,980,000 4,000,000 21 ,884 ~NET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 1,017,552 24,689,351 2,282,885 -- TOTAL 54,198,923 2,945,131 5.43% 52,765,141 4,465,099 -- .!2:IAL REVENUE 230,506,700 25,105,959 10.89% 229,922,559 28,736,225 % COLLECTED 19.31% 8.00% 52.14% 21.91% 17.75% 12.38% 25.81% 25.81% 18.18% 19.07% 25.00% 32.09% 9.45% 0.91% 47.72% 50.00% 16.11% 1.37% 0.49% 13.70% 8.97% 0.55% 9.25% 8.46% 12.50% ?\u0026lt; n r- 0 en z Cl\n:o m ~\n:o\n,o\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2002/03 09/30/02 EXPENDED 2003/04 09/30/03 EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 13,329,738 13.22% 100,684,982 12,825,743 BENEFITS 24,838,361 3,240,288 13.05% 26,483,772 3,473,524 PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 1,685,201 8.51% 19,719,297 2,914,009 MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 1,372,971 16.45% 8,185,459 2,284,946 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 105,548 6.53% 1,575,580 91 ,687 OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 148,261 1.74% 8,384,567 69,173 DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 4,880,555 39.95% 12,098,342 4,705,779 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176,189,538 24,762,561 14.05% 177,131,999 26,364,861 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 2,121 ,360 8.11% 26,056,193 2,515,820 DEDICATED M\u0026amp; O 3,980,000 493,783 12.41% 4,000,000 1,235,893 MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 2,315,477 9.24% 24,689,351 2,491,447 TOTAL 55,194,668 4,930,621 8.93% 54,745,544 6,243,159 TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 29,693,181 12.83% 231,877,543 32,608,020 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) (4,587,223) (1 ,954,984) (3,871 ,796) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,877,196 3,558,580 3,558,580 _9PERATING 8,557,652 8,489,087 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE ...EDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 (108,295) 1,578,177 1,780,520 -OPERATING 8,675,891 5,887,354 9,052,274 6,933,120 ....!_OTAL 9,325,586 5,779,059 10,630,451 8,713,640 % EXPENDED 12.74% 13.12% 14.78% 27.91% 5.82% 0.83% 38.90% 14.88% 9.66% 30.90% 10.09% 11.40% 14.06% ?\u0026lt; n 5 V\u0026gt; z Cl ::0 m ~ ::0\n,:\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,219.02 CONTINGENCY 0.00 SUBTOTAL 110,501.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 15,698.50 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 23,441 .00 4,451,048.00 11,724,008.39 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 7,679.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 1,517,001.00 1,453,314.69 972,789.70 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31 ,306,506.59 166,300.00 6,306,600.30 12,503,973.73 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 596,507.76 58,711 .57 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 1,706,742.00 12,830,848.25 25,259,483.39 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 1,000.00 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 (1,706,742.00) PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 314,688.33 SUBTOTAL 31 ,107,082.11 315,688.33 (1 ,706,742.00) 0.00 0.00 GRAND TOTAL II ~:lZ l!IQ l!Z\nm 1111 aa ~ l~ IIJQ 11:111 ~:i ~:i ~:ill :illJ Jll END BALANCE 09-30-03 33,282.90 77,219.02 0.00 110,501 .92 17,103.87 2,462,930.01 42,273.97 22,190.56 1,859,476.42 12,662,232.56 1,679,799.91 18,746,007.30 445,618.31 5,266.71 20,367,857.23 1,293,820.97 7,603,465.22 29,716,028.44 :111 :iZ~ :iJZ  ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt;m ,-~ c\u0026gt; or- \u0026lt;O-m-\u0026lt; c:m ::C:x: ~~ mz:,-:, -,z .C,\u0026gt;, ?\u0026lt; n re en z C\u0026gt; :,:, m ~ :,,\nPROJECT ALLOCATIONS PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 09-30-03 ADMINISTRATION 586,846.55 NEW WORK PROJECTS 35,342,501.80 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,883,405.13 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 12,750,611.51 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51,655,707.04 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 11,735,611.78 UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 21 ,661 ,678.20 TOTAL 138,882,176.18 )IMVW3M DNISOl::\u0026gt; 'XI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE ENCUMBERED 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 THRU 09-30-03 1 THRU 09-30-03 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 149,597.63 15,698.50 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11 ,671,442.11 4,451 ,048.00 11,724,008.39 113,930.47 109,609.73 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661 .38 7,679.00 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 1,453,314.69 972,789.70 I 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 I 6,306,600.30 12,503,973.73 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 4,500,374.61 596,507.76 58,711 .57 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 12,830,848.25 25,259,483.39 ENDING ALLOCATION SUBTOTAL 09-30-03 569,742.68 17,103.87 32,879,571 .79 2,462,930.01 223,540.20 42,273.97 4,861,214.57 I 22,190.56 10,891,135.09 , 1,859,476.42 38,993.474.48 I 12,662,232.56 10,055,811 .87 I 1,679,799.91 21,661,678.20 98.474.490.68 I 40,407,685.50 lN3WNMnorov 'IX SDNIMV3H 33AOldW3 x LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 Fund Purchase Maturity Institution Interest Rate Date Date Operating 06-09-03 12-08-03 Regions 1.090% Operating 07-19-03 01-19-04 Regions 0.945% Operating 04-08-03 12-05-03 Pulaski 1.290% Operating 09-30-03 TFN Bank of America 0.930% Total Food Service 09-19-03 TFN Bank of America 0.660% Total Activity Fund 09-16-03 TFN Bank of America 0.740% Total Bond Account 09-08-03 03-08-04 Regions 1.094% Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Metropolitan 1.930% Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 2.250% Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 10-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.440% Capital Projects Fund 01-29-03 01-29-04 Bancorp South 2.000% Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Superior 2.250% Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 11-14-03 Superior 1.900% Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 08-16-04 USBANK 1.420% Capital Projects Fund 01-22-03 01-16-04 Bank of America 1.240% Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 05-14-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% Capital Projects Fund 08-01-03 12-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.220% Capital Projects Fund 09-15-03 03-15-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.430% Capital Projects Fund 09-29-03 TFN Bank of America 0.890% Total Deseg Plan Scholarship 06-11-03 12-04-03 Bank of America 0.920% Total Rockefeller Scholarship 06-24-03 01-15-04 Bank of America 0.760% Total Risk Management Loss Fund 10-16-03 TFN Bank of America 0.700% \u0026gt;4MVW3M !\u0026gt;NISOl:\u0026gt; 'Xl Type Money Market I Money Market Money Market Repo Repo Treasury Bills CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD Treasury Bills CD CD CD Repo Treasury Bills Treasury Bills Repo Principal 20,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 14,335,000.00 14,385,000.00 750,000.00 750,000.00 948,000.00 948,000.00 400,000.00 1,000,934.31 5,116,598.09 10,000,000.00 2,058,896.90 2,500,000.00 11,000,000.00 11,000,000.00 5,299,646.43 9,000,000.00 3,048,218.28 10,221,001.82 3,740,000.00 74,385,295.83 664,995.48 664,995.48 250,909.40 250,909.40 500,000.00 500,000.00 1N3WNMnorov 'IX S!\u0026gt;NIM\\/3H 33AOldW3 x\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":6,"next_page":7,"prev_page":5,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":60,"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}}]}}