{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1053","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":["2003-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--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/1053"],"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 SEP 2 4 7C03 Dff~ Offlr. JF w~uftEGAt101. rlOtiff DliltJG Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting September 2003 0,.\"\n0:c ,., ......,m._.. ..... 3: Oz 0,. el~ m..,\n:c C: z .C..'.\u0026gt;. 0 z U\u0026gt; !ll n. o,.\n:c-\u0026lt; o::z: r,..-..o., n,. o.., F=.., ~ ,m... \u0026lt;\"I m 2~ 3:.., m\n:c -o U\u0026gt; C'\u0026gt; -\u0026lt;m C: 0 0 C: .~.... ?,..\n. ~~ ql ..... o-\u0026lt;\ncm ~ill z C'\u0026gt; m\n:c . .m., U\u0026gt;O .C.,:\n..:.c.. :-\u0026lt;{!? o\n:c :,:_imo ..... o 0~ ~ :3 f) 0 z CJ\u0026gt;\n:c mcc :f: \n:c\"0\n,i\n U\u0026gt; ~ \"T1Z\ncm O\n:c 3: U\u0026gt; o:!: =I.., Nu, m z U\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING September 25, 2003 5:30 o.m. I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Oath of Office - Newly Elected Board Members C. Roll Call II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 111. A. Welcome to Guests B. Performance - Mann Magnet School Dance Dept. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Jefferson Elementary School - Roberta Mannon Andover Place Retirement Residence - Victoria Clark Mann Magnet Middle School - Jim Fullerton and Traci Presley Arkansas Hospitality Association - Montine McNulty and Renee Borchert Stephens Elementary School - Sharon Brooks and Beverly Jones Clinton Presidential Materials Project - Kathleen Pate C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to .speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. L. R. PTA Council 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 n.., )\u0026gt; o\nmlO ,,-- ,_...\nc Oz o\u0026gt;\n,o\nlO o-\u0026lt; m..,\n,o C: ~ 0z U\u0026gt; !XI .n,.o.\n,o-\u0026lt; o:c i=.o., ,n...o., i=.., ~ m,- c5 m 8 P ll:.., m\n,o -o U\u0026gt;n -\u0026lt;m c:o Cc: .~.. ~,- ril f\n~ ... o-\u0026lt;\nam f\nill zn m .\u0026gt; ~.., cno .C.,: .\n,.o. :-'!!! n\na :,:.:_imn ..,.o 0 C) zii!: U\u0026gt; :::! 0 z Cl) 0\na mCD ~ -\na..,\n-:\u0026gt; Cl)~ 'T1Z\nam o\n,o\ncu, n:!: =i.., f\n:j(J) m z Cl) Regular Board Meeting September 25, 2003 Page2 REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (continued): E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update G. Update: Title IX Compliance Report V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Election of Officers B. Reappointment of Planning Commission Representative C. Minutes D. Second Reading: Board Policy BCB- Prevention of Nepotism E. Personnel Changes VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Fuel Cell Project VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: A. 2003-04 Consolidation Application for Special Education and Related Services B. Fiscal Impact Statement- LISA Academy Charter School Application VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Reappointment of District Officials B. Resolution Designating Disbursing Officers for the Board C. Donations of Property D. Financial Report IX. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions X. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XI. ADJOURNMENT C')\"D )\u0026gt;\n:JJ ,. - m,- ,- - ...\nc Oz o\u0026gt;\n:o\n:JJ c-\u0026lt; m..,\n:o C: ~... ,iz.5, , !JI ~ ~\n:o-\u0026lt; 0 :c FO.., n\u0026gt;.o., F.., c'5 m :E m,- 8\n::: :!C:-c m\n:o\ng -\u0026lt;m c:c Cc: .~.. ~,-\n:g ~ ~::l Om\n:JJ\n:o ~,.,, ~ m\n:o \u0026gt;m  \"D \"'0 C:\n:o \"D ... :-\u0026lt;~ C')\n:JJ :,,:_imn ... o 0~ Z::::j ,.,,0 z \"' ~\n:o ma:, ~-\n:o \"D\n,:\u0026gt; \"'~ -.,z\n:om O\n:o 31::v, n:!: =I \"D N c,, m z \"' PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER B. OATH OF OFFICE C. ROLLCALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 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 September 25, 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. The recommendation is that the Board approve the following partnerships: Jefferson Elementary School and Andover Place Retirement Residence Mann Magnet Middle School and Arkansas Hospitality Association Stephens Elementary School and Clinton Presidential Materials Project ~ :n .... c....\n,\n, On en-- :cC: )_\u0026gt; z~m ..... .., m-- iii )\u0026gt; ZC'\u0026gt; 00\n,\n, C: en~\n= !ll !!l C: 0 zm ..... ~ en cz5\nr:: zm ..... r\u0026gt; a, C: 8 .m.... C: ~ m ~ c- ~% zo\"-\ng ~ or \u0026lt;-= me 02 ~ ~ \"t C\nt J EFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL August 22, 2003 To: Debbie Milam, Coordinator, Volunteers in Public Schools From: Roberta Mannon, Principal fJ/iv. Subject: Partnership with Andover Place Retirement Residence, 2601 Andover Court, Little Rock, AR 72207. Contact: Carolyn Lewis, Activity Director. Jefferson Elementary School and Andover Place would like to establish a partnership. We have agreed t\u0026lt;,\u0026gt; the following partnership activities. Jefferson's students will:  Provide monthly artwork for employees.  Provide holiday greetings.  Invite employees and residents to appropriate school functions.  Jefferson Choir will perform Holiday concert for employees and residents. Andover Place will:  Contribute school supplies each August  Provide tutoring for students  Join students for special programs  Provide pen pal correspondence with students. 2600 N. McKinley Street Pt1one 447-5000  Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Mann Magnet Middle School and Arkansas Hospitality Association Partnership Proposal Arkansas Hospitality Association will contribute the following to the partnership:  Motivational speakers to speak to Mann staff at beginning of school year  Support in planning and implementing the school's dedication and grand opening event Mann will contribute the following to the partnership:  Student artwork  Dance performances  Dramatic performances  LRSD booths at Arkansas Hospitality Association events !=' '.\",._\n,, Oo tJ\u0026gt;--, :C)\u0026gt; c::_\n!\" ... \"D m--\u0026lt; ~\u0026gt; ZO 00\n,,c:: tJ\u0026gt;~\n= !D ~ c:: .mCz. . ~ tJ\u0026gt; i:5 z\ni:: m .z. . p a, c:: g .m.. c:: ~ ~ m Stephens Elementary School and Clinton Presidential Materials Project Partnership Proposal Clinton Presidential Materials Project will contribute the following to the partnership:  Speakers for classroom presentations and career day  Special preview exhibit tour for students  \"What is a Presidential Library?\" presentation and behind-thescenes tour for teachers and school staff  Assistance in developing and providing rewards for reading challenge program Stephens will contribute the following to the partnership:  Student artwork  Students will serve as test audience for pilot educational programs  Teachers will assist in development of lesson plans related to Presidential Libraries  DATE: TO: FROM: '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" September 25, 2003 Board of Directors ~onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman 0 SUBJECT: September 2003 Construction Report - Bond Projects I thought you might be interested in where we are financially for the Bond Construction Program. As of the end of July 2003, we have spent and/or obligated approximately $86,000,000 out of the $132,000,000 Bond Fund. This includes both construction and technology upgrade. The bottom line is we are 2/3 of the way through money that has been set aside for construction and technology for a bond issue that was approved by the public in May 2000. In three (3) years a lot has been done to improve our schools and the work is ongoing. The construction of the replacement school at Wakefield has been started. The additions to Parkview High School and Brady Elementary have been advertised for bids from contractors. Construction should begin within sixty (60) days. The design for the renovation of Mitchell is progressing and should 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 rn z -m\u0026lt;\nti z -,:. ~ 0 =i 0\nti en Rl c3 ~ :,-, -\u0026lt; C') % z 0  -\u0026lt; C: \"0 0 ?\nm :\u0026lt; ~ C: -z\u0026lt; m f\n::l m\nti V,\n,, ,r..r. rr c-, c z C T C T T c,,\". X V Facility Name Baseline Central Dunbar J. A. Fair Forest Park Hall Mabelvale MS Mann McClellan Pulaski Hgts. Elem Pulaski Hgts. MS Southwest Southwest CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Project Description Cost Renovation $953,520 Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Renovation/addition $6,161,950 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music room addition $3,155,640 Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Renovation $6,851,621 Partial Replacement $11 ,500,000 Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Renovation $1,193,259 Renovation $3,755,041 Addition $2,000,000 New roof $690,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION FALL/ WINTER 2003 Facility Name Project Description Cost Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 !::st. CompletIon Date Jul-04 Dec-05 Aug-04 Feb-04 Aug-03 Jul-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jul-04 Aug-04 Aug-04 Aug-04 Aug-03 Jun-04 Jul-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Nov-03 !::st. CompletIon Date Jun-04 Jun-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. 1..,\nompIeuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Mitchell Renovation $750,000 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. 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 1::st. CompletIon Facilitv Name Proiect 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. I 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 , - ~ug-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 Facility Name Booker Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady Carver Carver Central Parking Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central Central Central Central Central CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date Energy efficient lighting I $170,295 1 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 , Oct-01 Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 Fire alarm $34,501 Mar-02 Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Sep-02 Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 May-01 Parking lot $111,742 Aug-03 Student parking $174,000 Aug-03 Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Aug-03 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Aug-03 Irrigation System $14,500 Aug-03 Purchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations I $2,000,000 I Dec-02 Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 1 Oct-01 Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Aug-01 Front landing tile repair $22,470 I Aug-01 1-C_lo_v_e_rd_a_le_ E_le_m_._ ___- +E-ne_r_g,,,,y efficient lighting I $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting I $189,743 ~ - Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Nov-02 :D=o=d=d==================E=ne:r=g=y=e=ffi=c=ie=n=tl =ig=h=ti=ng========-------~_-_--:_l-_-_-_-_-_- _$9 0_,66_5---.-_ __ Aug-01 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling _tile_ ___, __ __$1_ 5_6_,2_9_9-+-____J_ u_l-_0__,1 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 1 Aug-02 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Facility Services Fire alarm , $12,000 Aug-03 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm I $315,956 Apr-02 ~F~a_i _r ~P~a_rk_ ______- +E-ne_r=g~y_effi_cie_ntl~ig~h_ti~ng~--------,----,$~9_0~,1_6_2 _ ._ __ Aug-01 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 , Aug-01 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 Nov-00 J. A. Fair !security cameras I $12,500 I Jun-01 J. A. Fair !Athletic Field Improvement -'----~$-3~8,0_0_0-+------J-u-l---03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 J:.3-_. Fa_ir ______ ,_R_o_o_f re~p_a_irs__ _ ____ _L__ $391,871 I _ Aug-03 Forest Park 1D iagonal parking , $111 ,742 ___ Aug-03 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting _ I $119,788 May-0_! Fulbright Energy efficient lighting ----$134,463 - - Jun-01 Fulbright ________ ,_EI_n_ergy monitoring system installation I $11,950 Aug-01 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 - Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot _j__ $140,000- - Sep-02 Fulbright Roof repairs _ =-- - _ $200,000 _O_ct-02 Franklin - - -- - Renovation - $2,511,736 Gibbs - - - - Energy efficient lighting - - $76,447 Gibbs - - --~nergy monitoring system installation - $11,770 Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall - - - - Asbestos abatement ~ $168,222 _ - - Energy efficient lighting ~ $42,931 Energy efficient lighting - -- $296,707-- --11-nf-rastructure improvements - _-:._ -_- _ $93,657 Intercom Hend-e-rs_on -- 1 Security cameras - Energy efficient lighting $10,600 $193,679 $107,835 ,_ $500,000 Henderson Henderson  Roof replacement gym Asbestos abatement Phase I Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-0.1_ Jul-01 Apr-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 2 [TI z ..... m\na z ~ l: C ~\na u, Rl ~ ~ :n ci :zc 0 8 -\u0026lt; c:: ~ m :c: ~ .c..:.:. z m ~ =I m\na u, ?\u0026gt; IT' rlT' c-: 0z C T C T T \u0026lt;': FT ::t V. Facilitv Name Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Descriotion Cost Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units $300,000 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Asphalt walks The total $1 .8 million Walkway canopies is what has been Boiler replacement used so far on the Fencing projects listed Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Irrigation System $14,750 Security cameras $36,300 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Stadium stands repair $235,000 Intercom $46,000 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Fire alarm $16,175 Asbestos abatement $253,412 Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Replace shop vent system $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 HVAC renovation $237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting $81 ,828 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Parking lot $138,029 6 classroom addition $888,778 Parking Improvements $142,541 HVAC controls I $210,000 Roof replacement $273,877 I Exterior lights I $10,784 [ HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301 ,938 I Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Fire alarm I $25,000 Move playground I $17,000 Energy efficient lighting $84,898 7 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 I Parkinq addition $111 ,742 I Est. Completion Date 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 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 3 Facility Name Romine Romine Security/Transportation Southwest Southwest Southwest Student Assignment Student Assignment Tech Center Phase 1 Technology Upgrade Terry Terry Terry Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Washington Washington Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Description Cost Asbestos abatement $10,000 I Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Bus cameras $22,500 Asbestos abatement $28,138 Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Drainage I street widening $250,000 Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Fire alarm $9,000 Renovation $275,000 Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 I Media Center addition $704,932 I Security cameras $8,000 Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Security cameras $7,900 Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Asbestos abatement $182,241 Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Asbestos abatement $191,946 Intercom I $7,100 Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Energy efficient lighting $122,719 I Parking Expansion $110,000 Renovation $246,419 Est. Completion Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Aug-00 Jan-02 Aug-03 Aug-02 Aug-03 Dec-01 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug~ Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Aug-03 Auo-02 4 :,-, _, C') ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; .C.,: 0 ?\nm :\u0026lt; el C_,: z m ~ =1 m ill ,\n,i,.,. ,... rr (\") 0z C T C T T \u0026lt;': rr\n:c V. Date: To: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS September 23, 2003 Board of Directors From: @sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - September This is the forty-seventh 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. :n .... n ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: \"D 0 ~ m :\u0026lt; ~ .C...:. z m ~ m ill ?\u0026gt;' r\"-' (\"\"') 0z C T C T T i'\nrr\n,: er. Audit Report - September 2003 Page 2 of2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. d) Developed skills test for financial position. hnplementing 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 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 501-44 7-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: September 25, 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 computer virus that invaded our network last month has been cleaned up. Additional virus protection has been installed on all district computers.  World Book Online, a web-based encyclopedia, is now available for LRSD students both at school and at home. Students may get the passwords from their local school librarian.  This month technology training has concentrated on assisting teachers in using GradeQuick, an electronic gradebook. Sixteen schools are up and running. Implementation is planned for a total of 28 schools during the 2003-2004 school year.  A request for proposals for the distance learning center equipment at the new Technology Center will go out to vendors on September 26.  Staff from both Computer Information 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 NIA Lucy Neal - Instructional John Ruffins - Technical August 28, 2003 to September 25, 2003 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. fl !I: z .C..:. m en :c ~ .C..:. z m ~ =l m e\"n' .,. ,,.. ,r, .. (\") 0z C 'T' 5\n: 'T' ('\nrr ::t V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August 28, 2003 To: Board of Education From: Johnny Johnson, Director of Athletics Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent- School Services Through: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Re: Title IX Compliance Update As requested by Dr. Daugherty, a Title IX report is presented for your review. Additional information will be provided upon request, and I will be available to respond to any questions or concerns. f) :I: z .C...:. m \"' :\u0026lt; ~ .C...:. z m 5 m ~ .,,. ,\",.,..'. r. c z .C,. ..C,,.. ,c,'.:\n,:: V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TITLE IX REPORT THE TITLE IX REGULATIONS (1975) Virtually all educational institutions receive some fonn of direct or indirect financial support from the Federal government, therefore nearly every university, high school, middle school and elementary school is required to comply with the requirements of Title IX. The original statute, however, did not specifically refer to athletic programs. Based on the intent of Congress as reflected in the debates in both the House of Representatives and the Senate which preceded enactment of the Title IX statute, it was clear that the athletic programs were covered by the mandate of Title IX. Yet it was not until now-defunct Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued the Final Title IX Regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 106, signed into law by President Gerald Ford on July 21, 1975, that the application of Title IX to athletic programs was conclusively addressed. Section 106.41 Athletics: (a) General. No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied on the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or othetwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis. (b) Separate teams. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a tean1 in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to tryout for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purpose of this part, contact spo1ts include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact. (c) Equal opp01tunity. A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In detem1ining whether equal opportunities are available, the Director of the Office of Civil Rights will consider, among other factors: (1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes\n(2) The provision of equipment and supplies\n(3) Scheduling of games and practice time\n( 4) Travel and per diem allowance\n(5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring\n(6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors\n(7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities\n(8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services\n(9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services\n(10) Publicity (a) Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary (HEW) may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex. Adjustment period. A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intran1Ural athletics at the elementary school level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than one year form the effective date of this regulation. A recipient whom operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics a the secondary or post-secondary level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than three years from the effective date of this regulation. In the Little Rock School District, the following sports are offered at the high school level: Men Women Football Volleyball Basketball Basketball Baseball Softball (fast pitch) Track Track Cross Country Cross Country Swimming Swimming Golf Golf Tennis Tennis Soccer Soccer !\"' ii: z .C..:. m \"' :c: :,0 0 .C..:. z m l =l m :,0 \"'\nr\u0026gt; ,m-rr C'l 0z C T C T T ('\nrr ::,: er. The middle schools in the Little Rock School District offer the following sp\u0026lt;Jrts for students: Boys Girls Football Volleyball Basketball Basketball Track Track *Soccer *Soccer *Soccer is a co-ed sport at the middle school level. The past two years, the Athletic Office has offered a golf clinic at First Tee of Arkansas for our middle schools. The Little Rock School District also provides cheerleading, drill teams, and pep squads for young women to participate, but title IX regulations do not recognize these activities as sports and thus their participants cannot be counted when comparing the number of male athletes to female athletes. The Department of Education was assigned the responsibility of overseeing the enforcement of Title IX through its office of Civil Rights (OCR). The OCR developed a \"3-Prong-Test\" to determine if compliance of Title IX is being satisfied. A school needs to satisfy only one of these three prongs in order to comply. 1) A school may provide athletic participation opportunities for female students which are substantially proportional to the female percentage of enrollment at the school. 2) A school may demonstrate a history and continuing practice of expanding its sports offering for women in the very recent past. 3) A school may show that it is fully and effectively accommodating the athletic interests and abilities of the women in its student body, Since the enrollment numbers would not be substantially proportional to female paiiicipants, the Little Rock School District Athletic Office has chosen prongs twoand three to meet Title IX compliance. As stated earlier, the LRSD offers the same number of sports for both men and women (nine). A major component of Title IX compliance deals with the issue as to whether, in an over all sense, evaluating a school's atl1letics program as whole, men and women have comparable access to all \"perks\" of athletic participation. 1n order to measure compliance, the OCR will examine the following eleven areas, represented by the acronym P-L-A-Y-I- -G F-A-I-R. p L A y I N G Protective athletic equipment and other athletic supplies Locker rooms and practice and competition facilities Allocation of travel and transportation benefits and per-diem allowances Years of experience, quality, compensation, and assignment of coaches Institutional housing and dining facilities and related services Nature of publicity-marketing-media services for athletic programs Game and practice times and scheduling F Facilities for access to athletic training benefits and medical services A Academic tutoring services for student-athletes I Institutional support services for athletic programs R Recruiting resources provided to athletic programs Not all eleven areas will be relevant for all educational institutions. Inapplicable for most high schools will be the assessment of gender equity in recruiting resources, academic tutoring for student athletes, and housing/dining facilities for student athletes. The OCR will review only those program areas of the eleven, which apply to a particular school. These components of P-L-A-Y-1-N-G F-A-I-R are some of the main areas that the LRSD Athletic Office works on to insure compliance at all middle school and high schools. For the school year 2002-03, the number of participants for athletics remained constant compared to the previous two years, both for male and female athletes. However, there were four positive situations that benefited the LRSD Title IX position. 1) ew Gynmasiwn at Hall High School 2) Increase in female athletes for swimming 3) Increase in female athletes for fast pitch softball 4) Parkview establishes a girls' soccer team The new gym at Hall High School was built in accordance to Title IX specifications. Both boys and girls locker rooms have equal floor space and lockers. The coaches ' offices for the boys are the same as the girls. The facility turned out beautiful and should benefit all of the sports programs at Hall. The number of students participating in swimming jumped from 52 to 81. Parkview had 23 female swimmers on their team. One big reason for the jump in swimming was that U.A.L.R. provided the LRSD their pool for practices. Fast pitch softball numbers continue to grow. The LRSD has increased the number of female athletes participating in fast pitch softball each year since we began offering the sport in 2001. 2002-03: Parkview High School was able to field a girl's soccer team for the first time in school history. .?,,' XI !j\n~~ -c,Z\n_8 nCl zo .... 31: 31: 31: .~...e on z f\u0026gt; :I: z .C..:. m UI :c ~ .C..:. z m\nm ~ i5 z C.,. ..C,,.. ,c,'.i\nc V. The 2003-04 school year has staiied out on a positive note for the Athletic Office. The preliminary numbers show an increase in middle school and high school football. J.A. Fair has added women's cross country and swimming to their sports they will offer. High School volleyball numbers are up. Also, L.R. Parkview's volleyball team will move into the AAAAA Central Conference beginning in the 2004-05 school year. Construction should begin on the new field house for Parkview sometime during this school year. This will be another facility that will have to comply with Title IX specifications. The Athletic Office for the LRSD will continue to comply with Title IX regulations. Any Title IX concerns will be addressed promptly and thoroughly. It is the goal of the Athletic Office to offer a safe, enjoyable, and educational experience for all athletes in the LRSD. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: September 25, 2003 To: From: Board of Education Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Re: Reappointment of District's Representative to the City of Little Rock Planning Commission The Board is required to periodically appoint or reappoint a representative to the City of Little Rock Planning Commission. Mr. Mizhan Rahman has served as the District's representative for the past several years, and has agreed to continue in that role and capacity. The administration recommends the reappointment of Mr. Mizhan Rahman to the City Planning Commission. \"\u0026gt; \u0026lt; no\u0026gt;= zc !\"\nc .\u0026gt;.,\nz: -0 (J) ..,m 0:,:, ::O\u0026lt; \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;o -om ~(J) m C r\u0026gt; !I: z C: -m\u0026lt; (J) !\" -0 m :,:J ~z z ,m.. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: September 25, 2001 TO: Board of Education FROM: Morris L. Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent of Schools RE: Revision of Board Policy BCB, Prevention of Nepotism, Second Reading Pursuant to Board discussion at the agenda meeting, August 14, 2003, Board Policy BCB, Prevention of Nepotism, has been revised as directed and is attached for second reading. !.D., ~,.... I .... (\") ::c ~ m\nc ~ ::c .!,\", m\nc is z z m,.... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BCB PREVENTION OF NEPOTISM No person will be employed in the Little Rock School District in a position where he/she would be related, (whether by blood or marriage, including spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin), to his/her immediate supervisor. If an employee is transferred to a supervisor's position which would cause a violation of this policy, the subordinate employee will be transferred to a substantially equivalent position as soon as reasonably possible. Under no circumstance will a supervisor be allowed to evaluate the performance of one of his/her relatives. Revised: Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-24-105 Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy GBEA TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS September 25, 2003 Board of Education f 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 AC.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. \u0026gt; \u0026lt; (\")\n= ozc\u0026gt; : !\n\"D :Z \"-nDm\"' O\no ::0 \u0026lt; cno \"D m ~\"' m C ?\" ::0 m \"0 ' r C: --\u0026lt; 5z Personnel Changes Page 2 September 25, 2003 NAME NONE Green, Cassandra Spears, Laurene NONE ONE POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees New Certified Employees Supervisor SPECIAL ED. Special Ed FAIR 9-22-03 8-18-03 Certified Promotion Certified Transfer 68-06 ADCll 1-09 SPE925 ANNUAL SALARY 45000.00 annual 34708.52 prorated 20381.50 annual 19638.42 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 September 25, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Harris, Gloria Hippy Aide 9-5-91 1-10 Reason: None Given HlPPY 9-15-03 HIPY08 Humphrey, Joyce Child Nutrition 1-24-03 1-01 Reason: Abandonment TERRY 8-6-03 FSH5 Johnson, Lisa Child Nutrition 9-23-02 1-02 Reason: None Given FULBRIGHT 9-10-03 FSH5 Lipsmeyer, Priscilla Child Nutrition 9-22-00 1-04 Reason: None Given CENTRAL 6-2-03 FSH5 Mahan, Marsha Nurse 8-27-00 1-15 Reason: Retired ROMINE 10-21-03 NURSES Sheridan, Vicki Instr. Aide 1-4-93 1-06 Reason: None Given WESTERN Hil..LS 9-11-03 INA185 Smittie, Carol Care 8-21-00 1-14 Reason: None Given CARE 8-29-03 CARE Taybore, Roosevelt Custodian 3-30-87 1-08 Reason: Accepted Another PROCUREMENT 8-15-03 CUS12 Position Walls, Kenya Clerical 12-20-02 39-13 Reason: Tem1inated CLOVERDALE EL. 9-15-03 CLKl0 Williams, Kendra Bus Driver 8-12-02 3-02 Reason: Personal TRANS. 9-5-03 BUSDRV ANNUAL SALARY 11339.00 7392.00 7420.00 7476.00 39818.00 12798.00 7.93 17269.00 23340.00 10118.00 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; n := o,.. ~c  31: \u0026gt;- c,Z -0 Cl) ..,m 0~~s -eonmn ~en m C !.E,,l i2l \u0026gt;,- I n\u0026gt;... . c=\n:,: \u0026gt; ~ m ~ en n :,:\n,,, ~\u0026lt; ~l= -0 c3 :g -ze-n --\u0026lt;Z 31:m !::!~ -\u0026lt;en om ..,~ On 33~ n ~ en !El ~ men 0,- .C..:. 0z\n!: ,..z . u, .., i ~ C: r-~ nmC- ,-z ,- )\u0026gt; -.,r- ~ V. o._r\n.r: m\u0026lt; ~c=: Personnel Changes Page 4 September 25, 2003 NAME Alor, Lameka Blackman, Margie Bonds, Dorothy Bunton, Deborah Boykin, Lalicia Britton, Erica POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS New Non-Certified Employees Child Nutrition 8-29-03 1-01 FOREST HGTS. FSH5 Child Nutrition 8-29-03 1-01 FOREST HGTS. FSH5 Care 9-2-03 1-06 CARE CARE Child Nutrition 8-22-03 1-01 HENDERSON FSH5 Custodian 8-25-03 1-01 HALL CUS925 Instr. Aide 9-9-03 1-03 GIBBS INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 7392.00 annual 6947.67 prorated 7392.00 annual 6947.67 prorated 6.84 7392.00 annual 7149.64 prorated 5164.50 annual 4827.68 prorated 7795.45 annual 6910.56 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 September 25, 2003 NAME Broyles, Paris Clanton, Willie Collins, Rebecca Daniel, Nita Davis, Eleanor Derryberry, Linda Doss, Jimmy Fleming, Mary POSITION SCHOOL Care CARE Child Nutrition FULBRIGHT Interpreter SPECIAL ED. Child Nutrition FOREST HGTS. Care CARE Nurses ROMINE Instr. Aide ALC TBCCLIAIS START DATE END DATE 9-2-03 8-22-03 8-7-03 9-5-03 8-18-03 9-2-03 8-25-03 9-15-03 PUPIL PERSONNEL SALARY CLASS 3-05 CARE 1-01 FSH5 55-1 AN925 1-01 FSH5 1-03 CARE 1-07 NURSE 1-10 INA925 47-14 AN! 1 ANNUAL SALARY 7.40 7392.00 annual 7149.54 prorated 26292.00 7392.00 annual 6745.70 prorated 6.43 31651.00 annual 28848.57 prorated 14067.00 annual 13230.58 prorated 30500.00 annual 23867.35 prorated \u0026gt; \u0026lt; n= 0~ :z~c -.,\nz: \"-n\"m\"' 0~ ~\u0026lt; \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;O -om ~\"' m C !..\",' ~ \u0026gt;r- ~ ~.... n ::c\nm ~ \"C\"') ::c .,.. ~\u0026lt; ! i= .,, a,\ng C: -\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; ~z\nii:m m\"' z\"' \"o\"m'\"' ~..,~n ..,m n\"' \u0026gt;r- \"' !\"' ~ m \"0,.. '. C...:. 0z ~ \u0026gt;z . V, ..,- C: X me I~ ~c F~ -0,.. ~u Orr c..X m\u0026lt; ~~ Personnel Changes Page 6 September 25, 2003 NAME Hastings, Betty Hendrix, Ronald Holly, Rosetta Hood, Sabrina Howard, Nakisha Humphrey, Ketra Jackson, Charles POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide FOREST HGTS. Custodian PROCUREMENT Child Nutrition MABELV ALE EL. Custodian KING Child Nutrition WESTERN HILLS Care CARE Instr. Aide WESTERN HILLS START DATE END DATE 8-25-03 8-25-03 8-15-03 8-18-03 8-27-03 9-2-03 9-15-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 INA925 1-05 CUS12 1-01 FSH5 1-01 CUS925 3-01 FSH4 3-05 CARE 1-10 INA185 ANNUAL SALARY 10577.00 annual 9948.10 prorated 7800.00 annual 6605.11 prorated 7392.00 annual 7351.61 prorated 5164.50 annual 4968.02 prorated 5751.00 annual 5460.22 prorated 7.40 14067.00 annual 12166.05 prorated Personnel Changes Page 7 September 25, 2003 NAME Jackson, Sharon Jones, Kiri! Jones, Marilyn Jones, William Jordan, Debbie McCoy, Christopher McDowell, Pamela POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition FOREST HGTS. Care CARE Child Nutrition JEFFERSON Care CARE Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Instr. Aide FAIR Child utntion FRANKLIN START DATE END DATE 8-29-03 9-2-03 8-28-03 9-2-03 9-8-03 8-19-03 8-29-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 3-17 CARE 1-01 FSH5 3-05 CARE 1-01 FSH5 1-05 INA925 1-01 FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 7392.00 annual 6947.67 prorated 9.15 7392.00 annual 6988.07 prorated 7.40 7392.00 annual 6705.31 prorated 12481.00 annual 12008.75 prorated 7392.00 annual 6947.67 prorated \u0026gt; \u0026lt; n= o:,.. zo !\" 3: \u0026gt;\" Dz \"D (/) ..,m O\no\no \u0026lt; u,o -cm ~Cl\u0026gt; gi !.I.,' ~ ,\u0026gt;... ~ l\n~ (\") :c\nm\no Cl\u0026gt; (\") :c .,,.\no\u0026lt; ~p \"D a,\ng c:: ~~\ni::m m\u0026lt;I\u0026gt; z\"' -\u0026lt;Cl\u0026gt; om ~..,~n ..,m o\"' ,... Cl\u0026gt; !I'\no m Cl\u0026gt; 0,.. . c..:.:. 5z ~ \u0026gt;z  Cl\u0026gt; ..,i ~~ n= m,-Cz ,... )\u0026gt; \"Dr-\no V 0._\n,I:T: m\u0026lt; ~~ Personnel Changes Page 8 September 25, 2003 NAME Moland, Marvin Palmer, Juana Rodgers, Sylvia Siepiola, Amanda Smith, Florence Smith, Lessie Thorson, Karen POSITION SCHOOL Custodian BALE Instr. Aide CENTRAL Child Nutrition SOUTHWEST Lab Attendant START DATE END DATE 8-25-03 8-20-03 8-20-03 9-3-03 MABELV ALE MID. Child Nutrition 8-25-03 HALL Custodian 8-19-03 WESTERN HILLS Child utrition 8-25-03 MABELV ALE MID. SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS925 1-02 INA925 1-01 FSH5 1-10 INA925 1-01 FSH5 1-10 CUS925 1-01 FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 5164.50 annual 4827.68 prorated 11106.00 annual 10625.74 prorated 7392.00 annual 7230.43 prorated 14067.00 annual 12744.36 prorated 7392.00 annual 7109.25 prorated 7056.00 annual 6749.22 prorated 7392.00 annual 7109.25 prorated Personnel Changes Page 9 September 25, 2003 NAME Turner, Lois Warren, Alfred Washington, Grace Watson, Izora Williams, Carla Williams, Catherine Williams, Jimmy POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition CENTRAL Instr. Aide STEPHENS Child Nutrition TERRY Child Nutrition MANN Care CARE Child Nutrition HALL Custodian OPERATIO s START DATE END DATE 8-2-03 9-10-03 8-27-03 8-21-03 9-2-03 9-8-03 8-26-03 SALARY CLASS 1-12 FSH5 1-04 INA925 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH5 2-05 CARE 1-01 FSH5 1-01 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 7700.00 annual 7531.69 prorated 12163.00 annual 10782.34 prorated 7392.00 annual 7028.46 prorated 7392.00 annual 7190.03 prorated 7.22 7392.00 annual 6705.31 prorated 8441.37 annual 7112.30 prorated ,. \"\u0026lt; n= 0~ zo !\" 31: \u0026gt;- 0 z -0 Cl) .,.,m 0::0 ::o\u0026lt; \"-o' 0m ~\"' m 0 !.J,.I, ~,. ,.... i: ,-0. (..\".). c=\n:,,.: :!:l m\n:o Y{ :,: .,,.\n:o\u0026lt; ~~ -\ngo m C: ~~ 31:m mzU\"\u0026gt;' --\u0026lt;U\u0026gt; om\n~ .,.,n .,.,m o\"' ,.... \"' !JI\n:o m ~,.... C...:. 5z\ns ,. z . \u0026lt;n .,.,i ffiC r-~ n- m,-Cz ,.... )\u0026gt; -0,..\n:ov 0._\nIcT m\u0026lt; ~rj Personnel Changes Page 10 September 25, 2003 NAME Johnson, Valarie Langston, Calvin Stacey, Robert NONE POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE Non-Certified Promotion SALARY CLASS FROM: 5 hr FSMEAL TO: 7  hr FSMEAL FROM: Instr. Aide TO: Attendance Secretary FROM: 9  mo.Custodian TO: 12 mo. Custodian Non-Certified Transfer ANNUAL SALARY DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 25, 2003 Board of Directors Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Fuel Cell Project Title- Environmental Awareness and Clean Environment Technology Short Summary-UALR professors will instruct science students at Central and Fair this school year in key environmental issues facing Arkansas. A total of 12 - 15 hours will be spent at each school. Included will be an overview at the first session and instruction at the following three sessions to include the principles and applications of fuel cells where emissions are contained to zero-level to enhance the quality of air we breathe. Objectives- assist science students in acquisition of knowledge and skills contained in the Arkansas Science Framework and LRSD Science Standards using fuel cell physics content. Expected Outcomes- the project challenges students to understand the principles of fuel cell physics and application. This project will help students understand and appreciate the importance of a clean environment to the community. Population/Location- the project will involve a few classes of science student~ at Central High School and Fair High School. Budget Amount/Source of Budget- the project is cost free to the Little Rock School District. The project is funded through a grant to UALR from the Energy Office of the Arkansas Department of Economic Development. Manager- Dennis Glasgow is the liaison with UALR for the project. The project under the coordinated management of Markey Ford, Arkansas Energy Office, Mark Bowles, Entergy, Dr. S. Pidugu Dr. and S. Midturi of UALR. James Gilson with ADEQ will participate with two LRSD schools that actively support this project. :,,, n\n\u0026lt;= o,,. zc ~!C :-...,,,,\n.z,,:, ..,m 0\nc\ncs U)() -..m ~\"' m C .!D., ~,... I... n ~ m\nc ~ :r !D\nc m ~,... c..::. 5z !\"' 8 z ~ 5z \".0.. ', .., ~ Duration-July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004 Long Range/Continuation-equipment from the project will be housed at UALR and will be loaned to LRSD science teachers upon request. Participating science teachers will have knowledge of clean energy technology that can be incorporated into their instruction. Other Agencies Involved-the Arkansas Department of Economic Development Energy Office will partner with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), Entergy and Central High School and Fair High School. Expectations of District-Central and Fair teachers will prepare students for presentations by the UALR professors. No other district staff will be required for implementation of the project. Needed Staff-none Comments-the collaborative project will expose students to new energy technology and will allow them to interact with UALR professors. Recommendations-we recommend that the project be approved as described in more detail below. ENVIRONMENT AL AWARENESS AND CLEAN ENVIRONMENT TECHNOLOGY 1. Summary The objective of this project is to promote the understanding and awareness of key environmental issues and associated non-polluting energy technologies, with emphasis in fuel cells, among high school students. The Arkansas Department of Economic Development Energy Office will partner with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), Entergy and select local high schools to instruct the students in key environmental issues facing Central Arkansas and the principles and applications of fuel cells. The project will begin in the schools in October 2003 which is Energy Awareness Month. 2. Background Information The Environmental Protection Agency draft Strategic Plan (2003-08) sets out five goalsClean Air, Clean and Safe Water, Protect and Restore the Land, Health Communities and Ecosystems, and Compliance and Environmental Stewardship-and describes the work they plan to conduct over the next 5 years to achieve the set goals. Community awareness of environmental issues is vital to the success of such a strategic plan. This proposal can provide both industry and regulatory perspectives on key environmental issues, with emphasis on maintaining clean air and a clean environment by the selection and employment of appropriate technologies. Fuel cell technology is one such element where emissions are contained to zero-level to enhance the quality of air we breathe. The target audiences for this project are high school students from community schools who have sufficient background in the physical sciences. The materials delivered serve to increase the students understanding of environmental issues facing Central Arkansas in the areas of air, water and waste management and will increase their awareness of the role of fuel cells on creating a clean (green) environment. This project intends to challenge them to understand the scientific principles of fuel cell physics and applications. Hands-on instruction is central to this project. Basic Principle of Operation of Fuel Cell The fuel cell is composed of an anode (a positive electrode), an electrolyte membrane in the center, and a cathode (a negative electrode). As hydrogen flows into the fuel cell anode, platinum coating on the anode helps to separate the gas into protons (hydrogen ions) and electrons. The electrolyte membrane in the center allows only the protons to pass through the membrane to the cathode side of the fuel cell. The electrons cannot pass through this membrane and flow through an external circuit in the form of electric current. This current can power an electric load, such as the light bulb, car etc. As oxygen flows into the fuel cell cathode, another platinum coating helps the oxygen, protons, and electrons combine to produce pure water and heat. Individual fuel cells can be then combined into a fuel cell \"stack\". The number of fuel cells in the stack determines the total voltage, and the surface area of each cell determines the total current. Multiplying the voltage by the current yields the total electrical power generated. Fuel cells have many advantages over the conventional energy sources besides their high efficiency. Environmentally friendly fuel cell properties could eliminate consumer concern for power generation close to homes and businesses. Depending upon fuel cell type and design, fuel-to-electricity efficiency ranges from 30 to 60 percent. For hybrid fuel celVgas turbine systems, electrical conversion efficiencies are expected to achieve over 70 percent. When by-product heat is utilized, the total energy efficiency of fuel cell systems approaches 85 percent. High-quality heat is available for co-generation, heating, and cooling. Fuel cell exhaust heat is suitable for use in residential, commercial, and industrial co-generation applications. Stand-alone fuel cell systems have the capability of reaching efficiencies greater than 50 percent, even at relatively small sizes (e.g., 10 kW). Hence, fuel cell systems could reduce the impact of electricity production on global climate change by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere per kilowatt-hour of power. They would also reduce resource depletion and dependence on fossil fuels by allowing more power to be harnessed from the same amount of fuel. Fuel cells are assumed to be superior to the grid because they are on site and subject to fewer disruptions (e.g. storms knocking down wires). With no moving parts, fuel cells will have less instances of failure than mechanical systems. The long-term performance and reliability of many of the fuel cell systems have not yet been demonstrated in the marketplace. )\u0026gt; .\u0026lt; 0\n= :z0 ~o)\u0026gt; ..,\nz -.:, Ch ..,m 0\no :O\u0026lt; u,o -.:im ~ Ch m 0 0 :r:: ~ !B ~ :r:: !Jl\no m Ch 0 r. e.:.:. 5z ~ C 0 :z: .).\u0026gt;.. 5 :z: In 0.. , -0 :c 0 3. Project Objectives The objectives of this project are to:  Enhance physical science school curriculum materials and offer both government and industry perspectives on key environmental issues facing Central Arkansas.  Increase awareness of environmental friendly energy sources such as fuel cells to students and the community,  Educate students on the importance of a clean environment to the community,  Instruct high school students on fuel cell theory and applications,  Demonstrate fuel cell mechanics with demonstration interactive exhibits using fuel cells as alternate energy sources,  Collect data through experiments to measure pollutants and compare with conventional technology,  Stimulate enthusiasm in students for science and fuel cell technology at a crucial stage in their education, and  Establish a partnership between the Energy Office, UALR, Entergy, and ADEQ to promote, via various multimedia technologies, ways to improve the environment through the application of appropriate technologies. 4. Implementation of Project The successful implementation of the project will depend on the effective interaction between the sponsors, the Arkansas Energy Office, UALR, ADEQ, Entergy, and the community schools. The project under the coordinated management of Markey Ford, Arkansas Energy Office, Mark Bowles, Entergy, Dr. S. Pidugu Dr. and S. Midturi ofUALR, and James Gilson with ADEQ will participate with three schools that actively support this project. The Little Rock school district participating schools are J.A. Fair and Central High School. The project involves the following tasks:  Coordination between High Schools, the Arkansas Energy Office, Entergy, ADEQ and UALR This is an important step in project implementation and bears a significant role in overall project success. The Principal Investigator (Pl) will have the lead role in this step. The PI will identify a teacher from each school and plan the schedule as well as logistics associated with implementation of project. At each stage of the project, the Principal Investigator will consult with sponsors keeping them informed on the status of the project.  Develop lecture notes Importance of clean environment, (b) Different energy sources and their impact on the environment, (c) Development and operation of fuel cells, (d) Promotion of fuel cells, and (e) Laboratory handouts to carry out experiments.  Develop experiments This involves design of specific experiments for students. This includes preparation of handouts giving step-by-step instructions to carry out experiments and collect data.  Train Undergraduate students The project aims to train an undergraduate student to help the PI to carry out different tasks. The project will also benefit UALR and the local community in the future.  In Class Lecture Delivery The Principal Investigator will take a lead role in educating high school teachers and students about fuel cell technology. The lectures not only provide technological aspects but also involve student discussions.  Testing and Experimentation This session will include a demonstration of fuel cell technology using different fuel cell powered toys such as desktop cars, fans etc. These will use fuel cell power as their primary power source. Students will carry out many simple experiments to see how fuel cells actually function. They will be able to measure many parameters and understand the advantages of fuel cells over conventional energy conversion techniques. After testing and experimentation, students will be in a better position to appreciate the value of fuel cells and their impact on the environment.  Evaluation of project success Evaluation of the project will be obtained through surveys among teachers, students, and other involved participants. 5. Benefits of the Project The proposed program engages students in critically thinking about clean electricity, green transportation and the importance of a clean environment through fuel cells. This helps to produce citizens who are able to care for the environment, protect human health, and nurture local economies. By having the students investigate the fuel cell apparatus and \"toy\" devices, through lecture and hands-on training, the project will help them appreciate the connection between appropriate technologies and their impact on the environment. In the proposed project, the instruction on the principles of fuel cells will increase mathematics, physics, and chemistry knowledge. We will demonstrate the technology with model cars, which are simple to set up and fun to use. We will also use science kits, based on Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cell technology, to conduct many simple experiments, collect data and demonstrate the power of fuel cells. The students will also measure pollutants and compare them with existing technology. These hands-on experiences will stimulate their enthusiasm for science at a crucial stage of their learning. 6. Public Relations and Communications As a result of developments in technology and possible non-attainment designation for ozone in Central Arkansas, state and federal leaders are currently addressing the importance of clean air. This project recognizes the importance of communicating grass root developments on environmentally friendly fuel cell devices as alternate energy resources. With the combined .!I.J, ~.... I .... (\") $: :!:l m\na ~ :r !IJ\na m ~ r. e.:.:. iz5 r\u0026gt; Cl 0 z ~ iz5 en .0.., ,, :x, 0 partnership of the Arkansas Energy Office at ADED, UALR, Entergy, ADEQ, and selected schools in Little Rock School district, Markey Ford through Arkansas Department of Economic Development Marketing will coordinate the communication activities such as advertising, media relations, graphic design and brochure publications to unfold in October 2003 with news services and public relations efforts throughout the project. The project participants will develop web pages and other publications to promote the science and technological aspects of fuel cells. This project will afford students with other opportunities to develop and demonstrate their energy and environmental ideas through various science, engineering, and communications activities. Student activities will increase awareness of the impact of clean energy fuel cells to parents, teachers, administrators, visitors to the schools. We will also explore the publication of project benefits to the public through television, newspapers and other news media in the state of Arkansas. DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: RE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS September 25, 2003 Board of Directors Barbara Barnes, Director Division of Exceptional Children Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent 2003-2004 Consolidation Application for Special Education and Related Services The consolidated VI-B Budget for this year is $3,995,183.00 FY 2004, which does not include the ending fund balance as of June 30, 2003, in the amount of $65,024.43. The total amount of our VI-B Budget for the FY 2004 is $4,060,207.43. The recommendation is that the Board approve the 2003-2004 proposal for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. BB:jej Attachment fD\nJO m ~,... C.. . 5z 0 0 0 z )..\u0026gt;. 5 z U\u0026gt; .0.. , \"I) el PROJECT ABSTRACT Total Project Period: July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004 Requested Funding for Project Period: $3,995,183.00 Primary Target Population and Number Served: The Project will serve students with disabilities that meet the eligibility criteria set forth by the State standards. Paragraph Description: The District will provide a free appropriate education to students with disabilities enrolled in our school district. Major Objectives: Child Find: The District will make every effort to locate and identify all children who may be disabled. Appropriate Services: A full continuum of educational services for disabled students will be provided. Implementation: To the maximum extent appropriate, disabled students shall be educated with students that are not disabled. Evaluation Strategy: The Individual Education Program (IEP) will be used to determine the appropriateness of each student's Program. LINDA WATSON, Ed. D. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 ASSIST ANT SUPERINTENDENT STUDENT DISCIPLINE Phone: (501) 447-3580 E-mail: linda.watson@lrsd.org September 25, 2003 TO: Board of Education FROM: Linda Watson, Ed. D., Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline THROUGH: Morris Holmes, Ed. D., Interim Superintendent Fax: (501) 447-3581 SUBJECT: Fiscal Impact Statement for LISA Academy Charter School Application The Little Scholars of Arkansas (LISA Foundation), Little Rock Arkansas, has submitted an application to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to implement a Charter School, LISA Academy, during the 2004- 2005 school year. The proposed Charter School would be initially offered for 200 fifth, sixth, and seventh grade students during the 2004-2005 school year and depending on the availability of funds, one grade (50 students) per year would be added until the school has reached sixth through twelfth grades. The school would have a maximum population of 450 students. Since this would be an open-enrollment charter, the school could potentially draw students from the District's magnet and desegregation transfer student population and from the District at-large Some of the components of the LISA Academy will duplicate services and programs already offered in the Little Rock school District  A partnership with UALR  Emphasis on science and technology  College Preparatory Program  Gifted and Talented Classes  Advance Placement Courses at the high school level  School will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily (ACC Program, open 7:30 am to 9:00 p.m. Monday thru Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Friday) Administrative Recommendation The ADE has requested that a fiscal impact statement be submitted by the school district(s) that may be affected by the school's operation. The school would have a definite impact on the Little Rock School District, because in the initial year of operation it could pull approximately $1 million dollars in funding from the District. The administration recommends that the Board vote to affirm that the operation of the LISA Academy Charter School would have a negative fiscal impact on the District and would adversely affect the District's desegregation efforts. !I'\no m ~,.. C: -\u0026lt; iz5 !\"\u0026gt; 0 0 z .l.\u0026gt;... iz5 In 0.. , \"\no' 0 Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS September 25, 2003 Board of Education Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Reappointment of District Officials As part of the annual reorganization of the Board, it is recommended that the Board reappoint the persons who serve officially as the Board's representatives as part of their day-to-day responsibilities. These individuals and their official titles are: Treasurer: Mark Milhollen, Director of Financial Services Ex Officio Financial Secretary: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Formal approval is recommended by the administration. bjg ?\u0026lt; V,(') C: .... -co -\u0026lt;v, cnz ~C) \"D :n om :...n. :~n !\" :mn .~... .C..:. 0 z\n,: V, 0 0 0 z .).\u0026gt;.. 0 z V, .0. , \"D ~ '54..n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" DATE: September 25, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: %:ald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer  Subject  Summary Resolution Designating Disbursing Officers for the Board Act 671 of 2003 requires the Board of Directors to designate, by resolution adopted by majority vote, one (1) of its members who shall serve as the primary board disbursing officer of the District and one (1) member as an alternate Board disbursing officer in the absence of the primary Board disbursing officer.  Objectives To comply with State law for the provision of disbursements. --------~  Expected Outcomes The Board of Directors will have one (1) primary and one (1) alternate disbursing officer. --------------  Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration NI A NIA Donald M. Stewart, CFO Beginning with Board approval of the attached resolution at the first regular meeting following the annual school election in 2003 and ending on the date of the approval of disbursement officers following the annual school election in 2004.  Long Range/Continuation No long range plans for this issue.  Other Agencies Involved The resolution will be filed with the Pulaski County Treasurer and the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration as required by Act 671 of 2003.  Expectations of District NI A ---------- ---  Needed Staff  Comments  Recommendation NIA None Approval of the attached Resolution designating the Board President as the primary disbursement officer for the Board and the Board Vice-President as the alternate disbursing officer for the Board. 810 W Mark.ham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 .!:,:,l z \u0026gt;z n ,\u0026gt;.... r, C 0 z .\u0026gt;.... 0z V\u0026gt; .0, , -0 ::0 0 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DISBURSING OFFICERS FOR THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR 2003-2004 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors shall designate at the first regular meeting following the annual school election one (1) of its members who shall serve as the primary Board disbursing officer as required by Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-618\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors may designate one (1) or more Board members as an alternate Board disbursing officer in the absence of the designated primary Board disbursing officer as provided by Ark. Code Ann. 6- 13-618\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County designates the President of the Board as the primary disbursing officer of the District and the Vice-President of the Board as the alternate disbursing officer of the District in the absence of the President of the Board. President Vice-President Adopted: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: September 25, 2003 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/Department Central High School Central High School Central High School Central High School Fair Park Elementary School $1,500.00 cash to the Central High School Incentive Program $1,200.00 cash to be applied toward completion of the reflecting pool Microwave oven, valued at $50.00, for use in the faculty lounge $1,000.00 cash to the Central High Tiger Football Program $400.00 cash and school supplies valued at $200.00. The cash will be used to purchase agenda books for students. Donnie Pointer of Coca-Cola Bottling Company Mr. Buddy Matson and Ms. Phyllis Brandon with the understanding that school will erect a bench or plaque in honor of the Class of 1953 Mr. Peter Kosuta Mr. Sam Stueart Electronic Data Systems Board of Education September 25, 2003 Page 2 School/Department Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School $10.00 certificate to be used as teacher incentives Five (5) free desserts and appetizers, valued at $70.00, to be used as teacher incentives Two (2) $25.00 certificates to be used as teacher incentives Two (2) entrees and drinks, valued at $20.00, to be used as teacher incentives Two (2) $25.00 gift cards to be used as teacher incentives Two (2) $25.00 certificates to be used as teacher incentives Label machine and cordless telephone, valued at $100.00, to be used as teacher incentives. Free oil/filter change and full detail, valued at $75.00, to be used as teacher incentives Two (2) $10.00 certificates to be used as teacher incentives Wall clock, valued at $50.00, to be used as teacher incentives Front dash speakers, valued at $75.00, to be used as teacher incentives Donor Corky's Ribs and Barbeque Cozymel's Coastal Mexican Grill Joubert's McAlister's Deli Men's Warehouse Oak Forest Cleaners Office Depot Parkway Mazda-lnfiniti Regas Grill Staples Sound Sensations Board of Education !.=.,' September 25, 2003 z \u0026gt; Page 3 z C') ,\u0026gt;....\n,o School/Department m Item Donor c3 :!l Forest Heights Two (2) t-shirts, valued at StarBucks Middle School $34.00, to be used as teacher incentives Forest Heights Three (3) $10.00 certificates Tony Roma's Middle School and six ( 6) certificates for free appetizer w/purchase of entree, ~ valued at $72.00, to be used as C/)C') C:,.... teacher incentives ~o ~~\n,o C'l m\n,o Forest Heights Two (2) $10.00 certificates to be Romano's Macaroni Gri 11 ~m ~ ~ Middle School used as teacher incentives ....\n,o ::\u0026gt;\u0026lt; CJ) Forest Heights Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Meghan Pittman of Arkansas Middle School newspapers, valued at $250.00, Flag and Banner as part of the Democrat's Newspapers for Education ,\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;. ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;::c Program ~~ liiz ZC') Forest Heights Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Cloud Keyes of Alessi Keyes :l:C/l zm Middle School newspapers, valued at $125.00, Construction Company .... as part of the Democrat's Newspapers for Education Program Forest Heights Two (2) $10.00 gift certificates Frank Batisto of Dixie Cafe Middle School to be used as teacher incentives Forest Heights Two (2) $25.00 gift certificates Al Watkins of The Butcher Middle School to be used as teacher incentives Shop Steakhouse Forest Heights Six (6) Lan/Desktop Computers, Davis Lovercheck of Alltel Middle School valued at approximately $500.00 Communications each, to assist Mrs. Wang in implementing her multimedia grant Forest Heights Three (3) $10.00 gift certificates The Faded Rose, Inc. Middle School to be used as teacher incentives Board of Education September 25, 2003 Page 4 School/Department Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Mabelvale Magnet Middle School Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Romine Interdistrict Elementary School Romine lnterdistrict Elementary School Little Rock School School District Secondary Schools Item Five (5) cases of Pendaflex expanding files valued at $100.00 each 17 reams of Astrobright cardstock paper valued at $102.00 School supplies valued at $300.00 School supplies valued at $500.00 $100.00 cash to the Mabelvale Builders' Club to be used to purchase supplies and to provide members' incentives $636.00 cash to the Golf Team to be used to purchase golf bags $500.00 cash to be used to purchase a storage container for Pre-K equipment and additional Pre-K instructional materials School supplies, valued at approximately $500.00, to be distributed to students with specific needs Copies of the book entitled Paul Laurence Dunbar High School of Little Rock. Arkansas to each of the District's secondary school libraries. The total value ofthis donation is $1,200.00. Mr. Charles Minton Mr. Michael Woods Andover Place Retirement Residence St. Paul United Methodist Church Kiwanis Club of Southwest Little Rock Mr. Jerry Peters of Webster University The Wal-Mart Foundation EDS Arkansas Solution Centre The National Dunbar Alumni Association of Little Rock, Arkansas, Inc. to be presented by the association with the compliments of Mr. Charles Stewart of Regions Bank Board of Education September 25, 2003 Page 5 School/Department Little Rock School District Item Lexmark inkjet printers with \"Print Gallery\" CD-ROM containing high-resolution art masterpieces and teachers' guides to each of the District's 47 schools. The approximate value of this donation is $6,800.00. Donor Lexmark International through the Lexmark Print Art Educational Program It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. ''The Most Beautiful High School in America\" Little Rock Central High School 1500 South Park Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72202 Phone 447-1400  Fax 447-1401 MEMORANDUM To: From: Through: Date: Re: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Regina Ezell, Assistant Princiw17 Nancy Rousseau, Principal - / IL-August 15, 2003 Donation Central High School solicits Board approval to accept from its patron the cash donation of $1,500 to CHS Incentive Program from Donnie Pointer, Coca-Cola Bottling Company. Littfe 'Roci Centra{ :J{ifJli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutli 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 August 22, 2003 To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: ~\u0026gt;a,,., A, , , A - ' Nancy Rousseau, Principal / ~ Re: Donation to Little Rock Central High School Mr. Buddy Matson and Ms. Phyllis Brandon very graciously donated $1200 to Central High School. Their desire is that the donation goes toward the completion of the reflecting pool\nwith the understanding that the school will have a bench or plaque erected to honor the Class of 1953. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. )\u0026lt; ,,.... .) \u0026lt; c::c is~ C: :,0\n,:,z z C) ,E\nu, z.m.. . ..ittCe 'Rock. Centra{ JfffJli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .:Arkansas 72202 'Pfione 501-447-1400 :rax 501-447-1401 August 22, 2003 To: From: Re: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Nancy Rousseau, Principal~ ~ Donation to Little Rock Central High School Mr. Peter Kosuta of 5136 Cantrell Rd. Little Rock, AR 72207 donated a microwave, valued at $50.00, for our faculty lounge. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. LittCe 'Rock Centra{ Jfigli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street .itt{e Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 'Pfione 501-447-1400 :Jax 501-447-1401 DATE: AUGUST 26, 2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~~ SUBJECT: DONATION Mr. Sam Stueart of 1717 Teresa Circle Benton, AR 72015, very graciously donated $1,000 to the Central High Tiger Football Program. It is my recommendation that this donation be approved tn accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ?\u0026lt; tJ)(\") C:,... \"DO ..... tJ) cnz ill C) i3 ill '\n:,:,~ -I\n,:, :,\ntJ) ,\u0026gt;-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt; :,:,. c:c \u0026lt;-~ gi:!! ::oz ZC) 31:tJ\u0026gt; mz -I I FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darrell Paradis Procurement M From: Samuel Branch Principal Date: September 3, 2003 Re: Donations Electronic Data Systems (EDS) donated money and school supplies valued at $600.00 for students use at our school. The money, $400.00, was donated to purchase agenda books for students. We are requesting that the District accept these donations. EDS contact person: Phylinthia Givens 500 President Clinton Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ,.._ ,,.. ....-\nT f'~\\ . ,_ I  . ...' ... ..,. FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL To: Mr. Darral Paradis Director of Procure~_\n!lt From: Elouise J. Hudson~ Principal Date: August 11 , 2003 RE: Donations Please accept the following donations to Forest Heights Middle School to be used as teacher incentives: Business Corky's 12005 Westhaven Dr. Little Rock, AR 72211 Cozymel' s Coastal Mexican Grill 10 Shackleford Dr. Little Rock, AR 72211 Joubert's 7303 Kanis Rd Little Rock, AR 72204 Mc Alisters's Deli 12019 Westhaven Dr. Little Rock, AR 72211 Donation/Approximate Value $10.00 Certificate 5 Free Desserts \u0026amp; 5 Appetizers $70.00 2 $25 .00 Certificates $50.00 2 Entrees \u0026amp; Drinks $20.00 5901 Evergreen Street  Phone (501} 447-2700  Fax (501) 447-2701  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:z: ~i iz ZG') :!:en .mz.. . Men's Wearhouse 12305 Chenal Pkwy Little Rock, AR 72211 Oak Forest Cleaners 8717 W Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72211 Office Depot 11400 W Markham St Little Rock, AR 72211 Parkway (Mazda-Infiniti) 12206 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72211 Regas Grill 317 S Shackleford Rd Little Rock, AR 72211 Staples 12309 Chenal Pkwy Little Rock, AR 72211 Sound Sensations 7500 Kanis Rd Little Rock, AR 72204 2 $25.00 Gift Cards $50.00 2 $25.00 Certificates $50.00 Label Machine, Cordless Telephone $100. 00 1 Free Oil/Filter Change \u0026amp; Full Detail $75.00 2 $10.00 Certificates $20.00 Wall Clock $50.00 Front Dash Speakers $75.00 ',- - p. A \"\\\nI J, - ~ .. ~ StarBucks Chenal Pkwy, Little Rock, AR 72211 Tony Romas's 11 Shackleford Dr. Little Rock, AR 72211 Romano's Macaroni Grill 11100 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72211 2 I-Shirts $34.00 3 $10.00 Certificates \u0026amp; 6 certificates for free appetizer with purchase of entree $72.00 2 $10. 00 Certificates $20.00 Also, please accept the following donations of Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Newspapers as part of the Democrat's Newspapers for Education program: Meghan Pittman, Arkansas Flag and Banner, P.O. Box 164868, Little Rock, AR 72216, donation valued at $250.00. Cloud Keyes, Alessi Keyes Construction Company, P.O. Box 25414, Little Rock, AR 72221 , donation valued at $125.00 Thank you for your consideration I .,.. ,, :) , .., \"' \" .. .. . ~ \u0026gt;\u0026lt;  - 0 :c 5 ! C::,, :,, z zc, ii: V\u0026gt; z.m. . FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL To: Mr. Darral Paradis Director of Procurement From: Elouise J. Hudson Principal Date: August 18, 2003 RE: Donations Please accept the following donations to Forest Heights Middle School to be used as teacher incentives: Business Frank Batista Dixie Cafe 1301 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Al Watkins The Butcher Shop Steakhouse 10825 Hermitage Road Little Rock, AR 72211 Donation/Approximate Value 2 $10.00 Gift Certificates 2 $25 . 00 Gift Certificates Also, please accept the donation of 6 computers from Davis Lovercheck, Lan/Desktop, Alltell Communications, #1 Allied Drive, Little Rock, AR 72202, estimated cost $500 each, total $3,000.00, to Mrs. Wang to assist her in implementing her multimedia grant. ~= ...... _l ~-~ ~ ... ~ :r~ - ,. .. J ....... ... -- .. , 5901 Evergreen Street  Phone (501) 447-2700  Fax (501) 447-2701  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL To: Mr. Darral Paradis Director of Procureme~ From: Elouise J. Hudson~ Principal Date: August 29, 2003 RE: Donation The Faded Rose, Inc. P.O. Box 7563, Little Rock, AR wishes to donate 3 $10.00 ($30.00) certificates to Forest Heights Middle School to be used as teacher incentives. It is recommended this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration ,,_.......,. , ............ ' . . f ~-- ~ ... \" . - ..  5901 Evergreen Street  Phone (501 ) 447-2700  Fax (501) 447-2701  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 )\u0026lt; ,.. ?\u0026lt;  :c ~i iiz ZG') !I: Cl\u0026gt; .mz.. . J EFFERSON ELEMENTARY S CHOOL August 21, 2003 To: From: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management Roberta Mannon, Principal t.i . Jefferson Elementary School Subject: Donation The following donation has been made to Jefferson Elementary School. Mr. Charles Minton, 53 Lefever Lane, Little Rock AR 72227: Five cases of Pendaflex expanding files valued at $100.00 each (total value $500.00). It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ' 'I' 2600 N McKinley Street Phone 447-5000  Little Rock, A rkansas 72207 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL August 25, 2003 To: From: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management Roberta Mannon, Principal f 1/l. Jefferson Elementary School Subject: Donations The following donations have been made to Jefferson Elementary School. Mr. Michael Woods, 12 Cinderella Circle, Little Rock AR 72204: Seventeen reams of Astrobright cardstock paper valued at $102.00. Andover Place Retirement Residence, 2601 Andover Court, Little Rock, AR 72207: School supplies valued at $300.00. St. Paul United Methodist Church, 2223 Durwood Road, Little Rock, AR 72207: School supplies valued at $500.00 It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. . . - ... - 2600 N. Mc Kinley Street Phone 671-6281 Little Rock. Arkansas 72207 !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z (\") \u0026gt;,... ill c3 =l ,\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;. \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\" c:i: gi :z0 z C) mE \"' z... . Mabe/vale Magnet Middle School 10811 Mabe/vale West Road Mabe/vale, AR 72103 To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From:~nn Blaylock, Principal Date: September 3, 2003 Re: Donations Please accept the donation of $100.00 from the Kiwanis Club of Southwest. These funds were donated to our Mabe/vale Builders Club. The purpose of the donation is to buy supplies for the Builders Club and provide incentives for our members. Our students are very excited about their involvement with the Kiwanis Club of Southwest Little Rock. The SWLR Kiwanis have been our Partners-In-Education since 1996. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Aug , 21 03 03: 15p F. 1 VENDOR 2426567 Parkview Arts/Science Magnet HS CH::CKNO 754344 P.O.NO INVOICE ~O INVOICE DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PAID 0 Ping J Bags 08/13 / 2003 IM $ 636 . 00 Mt, P1-11\u0026lt;.AD IS , !ll/Lj NMUC ,s IG?t~I/\n111ct[u,.0G, . IA1Zll ,HC Galr CoACH Ar PA-R-IOJIEW fhc\n,11 Sct\not\u0026gt;l. /!111\u0026lt;, (JE/2./21/ Pe: tf:\"rt S , F~b'W\\ //Vt.\"ESTc-\"ii .. LlNi11. AT L,Hk, l\u0026lt;oc.k:.. hAs Ar\nA.1N ckJ{ATll) fuNb5 tD l)UI\u0026lt;.. f\nc\u0026gt;IF T~ I Fem r1-1t.-: /u1\u0026lt;.clf#s\u0026amp; tJf G'ot..F 6Ac\ns. Could we. p/~sE Acktvowletx\n, ~ ,. ,, 111-EJR... r\noJt\"'fL011.s,ry ANI\u0026gt; 5CND JHW-. A !f/AfllK. yov.. Le-rrc:.7:2.. - _ AddK'.. ~ . W C::r3S-r\u0026lt;=11... {). N , J/. AsA.P. /ffl: c~.S /S  ~00 t-'vC'fl.erroLSUITGiSrJo L,--HIG 12.ocf\u0026lt;... ~ 7)__\n)..0 / !f/A t-1 k 5 1 ~e~ Go\\~ MJh i 1 2UG3 p~W f\u0026amp;.i1 WEBSTER UNIVERSITY 08/18 / 2003 CHECK TOTAL $636.00 ********$6 36. 00 PAY EXACTJ ,. y  SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX DOL:,A .~. S AND 00 CENTS    l t\u0026gt;llo l'IIUl0t0t Parkview Arts/Sc ience Magnet HS 2501 Barrow Road Little Rock, AR 72204 11 o 7 s i. 3 1., i. 11 , : o a 1, s 1, 7 a g 7,: s a o  o o rn~, so Ei 1., 11 SECOS:D SIGNATURE RFQu:rn OVER SJG .00 Au~ 21 03 03: 15p Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Phone : (501) 447- 2300 2501 Barrow Road Little Rock, AR 72204 FAX : (50 1) 447 - 2301 Total# of Pages:\n)_ (Including this cover page) ~--- Date Se~t: 8 \n). I  0 3 Time Sent Please notify us immediately if not receiving properly by calling (501) 447- 2300 COMMENTS: \"Best By Choice\" ROMINE INTER ISTRICT SCHOOL Theme: Computer Science and Basic Skills August 27, 2003 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: RE: Lillie Scull, Principal d (  . Donation The donor listed below has generously donated $500.00 to purchase a storage container for Pre-k equipment, and additional Pre-k instructional materials. Wal-Mart The Wal-Mart Foundation 702 SW 8th Street Bentonville, AR 72716-0150 Contact person: Renita Thompson 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. ~- ,- rP\"\"'r' f'f'  , ....' .. -t., ,.. ... ' ::.. :: ~ \"'n C:,... -0 0 -\u0026lt;en ciiz\no C) qi~ 5'\n: --\u0026lt;\no ~ 0(. DI~ \\ iJi / Theme: Computer Science and Basic Skills August 27, 2003 TO: FROM: RE: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Lillie Scull, Principal :Jf:. S Donation L The donor listed below has generously donated school supplies in the amount of approximately $500.00 to be distributed to students with specific needs: EDS Arkansas Solution Centre 500 President Clinton Avenue Suite215 Little Rock, AR 72201 Contact person: Levita Scull 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. r- ..~. .,.. .,.- ~ r-- f I\"' \"~ - -\" ... t .. , .... ,,. .. :: TO: FROM: Little Rock School District Department of Instructional Technology 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 September 2, 2003 Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services SUBJECT: Donation of Books The National Dunbar Alumni Association of Little Rock, Arkansas, Inc. is donating copies of the book Paul Laurence Dunbar High School of Little Rock, Arkansas to each of the District's secondary school libraries. These books are presented by the association with the compliments of Mr. Charles Stewart of Regions Bank. The value of these books is $1200. It is recommended that these donations be accepted according to the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. .... :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:c cg\n! l5\n:a iz ZC\u0026gt; lC en zm... . Little Rock School District Department of Instructional Technology 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 September 5, 2003 TO: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management FROM: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services SUBJECT: Printer Donation Through the Lexmark Print Art Educational Program, Lexmark International has offered to donate a Lexmark inkjet printer to each school in the Little Rock School District. The printers come with a \"Print Gallery\" CD-ROM with more than I 00 high-resolution art masterpieces and teachers guides. The value of this donation is approximately $6800. It is recommended that this donation be accepted according to the policies of the Little Rock School District. I I DATE: TO: THROUGH: Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (5011 447-1086 Fax: (5011 447-1158 September 25, 2003 Little Rock School District Board of Directors ~d M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending August 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.  Population/Location N/ A --------------------------  Budget Amount/Source NIA  Manager Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services  Duration NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District N/ A  Needed Staff Comments  Recommendation NIA None Approval of the August 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 AUGUST 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2002/03 08/31/02 COLLECTED 2003/04 08/31/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 9,596,952 16.39% 57,547,800 10,520,580 18.28% DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 582,550 7.28% 10,100,000 527,648 5.22% 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 9,562 2.81% 380,000 28,873 7.60% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 37,196 13.53% 200,000 36,679 18.34% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 240,000 TOTAL 97,432,000 10,226,261 10.50% 98,607,800 11,113,781 11.27% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 5,094 21.23% 21,000 5,420 25.81% TOTAL 24,000 5,094 21.23% 21,000 5,420 25.81% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 5,020,099 9.15% 53,226,139 4,838,739 9.09% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 8,300,000 VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 119,652 8.93% 1,400,000 114,835 8.20% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 1,675,000 EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 68,340 25.00% 273,358 TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 3,875,562 INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 3,900,000 ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 109,000 10.83% 920,337 POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 560,545 267,486 47.72% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 142,636 50.00% 285,245 AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 360,000 TOTAL 75,441,106 5,459,727 7.24% 74,776,187 5,221,060 6.98% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 1,350,000 TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 1,632,430 TOTAL 3,410,671 0 0.00% 3,752,430 0 0.00% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 15,691,083 8.90% 177,157,418 16,340,262 9.22% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 882,062 3.51% 24,075,790 797,161 3.31% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 4,000,000 15,800 0.39% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 24,689,351 TOTAL 54,198,923 882,062 1.63% 52,765,141 812,960 1.54% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 16,573,145 7.19% 229,922,559 17,153,222 7.46% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2002/03 08/31/02 EXPENDED 2003/04 08/31 /03 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 4,573,892 4.53% 100,684,982 4,497,431 4.47% BENEFITS 24,838,361 1,349,868 5.43% 26,483,772 1,407,317 5.31% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 1,860,832 9.40% 19,719,297 1,809,458 9.18% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 656,943 7.87% 8,185,459 866,525 10.59% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 54,616 3.38% 1,575,580 3,435 0.22% OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 51 ,213 0.60% 8,384,567 47,886 0.57% DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 4,880,555 39.95% 12,098,342 4,705,779 38.90% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176, 189,538 13,427,918 7.62% 177,131,999 13,337,831 7.53% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 883,108 3.38% 26,056,193 1,131,685 4.34% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 377,718 9.49% 4,000,000 582,601 14.57% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 730,750 2.92% 24,689,351 709,338 2.87% TOTAL 55,194,668 1,991,577 3.61% 54,745,544 2,423,624 4.43% TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 15,419,494 6.66% 231,877,543 15,761,455 6.80% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 1,153,650 (1,954,984) 1,391,766 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; 0 649,695 535,924 1,578,177 1,947,916 OPERATING 8,675,891 10,820,817 9,052,274 12,029,286 TOTAL 9,325,586 11,356,741 10,630,451 13,977,202 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 08-31-03 $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 15,698.50 17,103.87 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 2,742,208.56 9,290,107.28 6,582,229.56 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 29,869.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 1,074,540.89 1,157,159.61 536,879.31 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31,306,506.59 3,679,231 .44 13,539,869.91 14,087,405.24 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 600,922.23 58,711.57 1,675,385.44 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 0.00 8,112,601 .62 24,045,848.37 22,971,146.95 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 444,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 22,074,599.23 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 77,713.04 7,366,489.93 SUBTOTAL 31,107,082.11 77,713.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 31,184,795.15 GRAND TOTAL Dli iHZ lDll l!Z ZZ Zl~ ll~ J2.J2ll D lli lill:llii i~ ll~:i a~a ~z ~ililiW!li Fund Purchase Date Operating 06-09-03 Operating 07-19-03 Operating 04-08-03 Operating 08-29-03 Total Food Service 08-18-03 Total Activity Fund 08-27-03 Total Bond Account 03-10-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-29-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 Capital Projects Fund 07-15-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-22-03 Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 Capital Projects Fund 08-01-03 Capital Projects Fund 09-17-02 Capital Projects Fund 08-18-03 Total Deseg Plan Scholarship 06-11-03 Total Rockefeller Scholarship 06-24-03 Total I Risk Management Loss Fund 08-20-03 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED August 31, 2003 I I I I Maturity Institution Date 12-08-03 Regions 01-19-04 Regions 12-05-03 Pulaski TFN Bank of America TFN Bank of America TFN Bank of America I 09-08-03 Regions 01-16-04 l Metropolitan 01-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 10-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 01-29-04 Bancorp South 01-16-04 Superior 11-14-03 Superior 08-16-04 I USBANK 09-02-03 USBANK 01-16-04 Bank of America 05-14-04 Bank of the Ozarks 12-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks 09-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks TFN Bank of America 12-04-03 Bank of America 01-15-04 Bank of America TFN Bank of America lN3WNHnorov \"IX S9NIHV3H\"X '. Interest Rate I Type I I I I I I I I i ' I I I I I I ' 1.090% I Money Market 0.945% Money Market 1.290% Money Market 0.970% Repo I 0.910% I Repo I 0.740% I Treasury Bills 1.190% CD I 1.930% CD 2.250% I CD 1.440% CD 2.000% I' CD 2.250% CD 1.900% I CD 1.420% CD 1.130% CD 1.240% Treasury Bills 1.360% I CD 1.220% CD 2.200% CD 0.910% I I Repo 0.920% Treasury Bills I 0.760% Treasury Bills I 0.700% I Repo lHOd3H S,ld0S S\u0026gt;IHVW3H 9NISO1:\u0026gt; \"XI Principal 20,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 13,075,000.00 13,125,000.00 1,255,000.00 1,255,000.00 948,000.00 948,000.00 400,000.00 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 5,000,000.00 5,299,646.43 9,000,000.00 3,048,218.28 10,000,000.00 4,930,000.00 I 80,354,294.01 664,995.48 664,995.48 250,909.40 I 250,909.40 500,000.00 I 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_1096","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":["2003-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--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/1096"],"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 AUG 2 7 2003 omtEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School Distri Board of Directors' Meetl August 2003 F.Y.I. Date: 9 -,,.17 -13 / Ann  Gene / Horace  Margie 0 Melissa / Polly  Linda Returnto: ~ n-c\n,,,~ r- rr...-.\n-r: Oz o\u0026gt; el~ m..,\noc -z\non o-\u0026lt; F~ C,1/) \u0026gt; F \"C~ C\"C a, 0 r-\no c\"i-\u0026lt; nl!! o::o\nr:m\nen zm o ..,.Cz\u0026gt; 1/) ~ 5z 1/) RECEIVED AUG 2 7 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting welcome Bae/el August 2003 (\")\"tl \u0026gt;\no r-mr-r...-. :-i::: Oz o\u0026gt;\no\no c--\u0026lt; m..,\ncc -z\no (\") o:::! r-0 r-z (\") C/) \u0026gt; F -,:,~ c-,:, a, 0 ~~ (\")~ 0\no !Cm !C (\") zm o C) .... z cri3 !XI 0z C/) (\") :::\n\u0026gt; p::\n mn z:::\nC/)\u0026gt; (\")--\u0026lt; i\n!CC/) m .~,, C. (\" \u0026lt;... 0(\" C/) - ~) \u0026gt; 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 August28,2003 5:30 p.m. 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. Update: Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary School F. Internal Auditors Report G. Technology Update V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Regular Meeting - July 24, 2003 Special Meeting - July 29, 2003 Special Meeting - August 14, 2003 B. Personnel Changes C. First Reading: Revision of Board Policy BCB - Prevention of Nepotism (\")-0 .\u0026gt; ::m0 ,- ,- ,- - ...\n3: Oz o\u0026gt;\no::O c-\u0026lt; m-n\ncc: -z\no\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; o,--i\u0026lt;5 ,- z (\")CJ\u0026gt; F Regular Board Meeting August28,2003 Page2 VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Collaborative Grant Proposal with UALR B. 21 st Century Community Learning Centers Grant Proposal C. End of Course Test Results - Algebra I, Geometry and Literacy VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: A. Adoption of Resolution on Elimination of Reduced Meals Category B. School-Based Dental Hub/ Clinic VIII. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION A. Athletic Events - Changes to Gate Prices IX. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Stephens, Inc. Bond Issue Bid B. Forest Heights Excess Property C. Request for Dedication Deed: Williams Magnet School D. Request for Dedication Deed: Wakefield Elementary School E. Second Reading - Revisions to Policy DGD: VISA Purchasing Card F. Donations of Property G. Approval of 2003-2004 Operating Budget H. Financial Report X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT ,... C'\u0026gt; \"C \u0026gt;,.,. .....\n.\n.m,._c... -43: Oz o\u0026gt; ~ ~ m..,\ncc -Z\ncC'\u0026gt; o::i r-0 r-z C'\u0026gt; en \u0026gt; F I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER I ROLL CALL Ill. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. CITATIONS B. CITIZENS COMMENTS \\,,, , VII\"\\ 0. JOSHUA '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: August 28, 2003 TO: Boar f Directors FROM: onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman SUBJECT: August 2003 Construction Report-Bond Projects This has been a very busy summer with a lot of construction in our schools. In some cases, it has been frantic. I am happy to report that all of our schools opened on time and are fully functional. Even the cafeteria at Mabelvale Middle School was ready to serve food to the students in an air-conditioned room. The new elevator in Central High has been completed. For the first time, the physically handicap have access to most areas in the building. I am amazed at what was accomplished in a few weeks this summer. I would look at a building one day and it would look like a disaster. Several days later, I would look at the same building and the change for the better was unbelievable. This never would have happened without the cooperation and understanding of the principals. The Facility Services Department did an outstanding job of coordinating the work. The bids were taken for the replacement school at Wakefield Elementary on July 31 st - The low bidder's price was below the architect's construction cost estimate. The contract has been awarded to Bell Construction Company, and the groundbreaking ceremony was held this past Saturday, August 23' d  I hope you were able to attend. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services, will give you a verbal update of plans for the renovation of Mitchell and Rightsell. Please call me at 447-1146 if you have any questions. 810 W Mark.ham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !.I,,I m ~ zz ,m.. n :,:,c. z Cl m \"' :,, ~ m\n,:, il m:,,. 23r\n,:,\u0026gt; .... C: C =! 0\n,:, \"' p .... Pl :z:c 0 8 -\u0026lt; .C,,: C ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD AUGUST 28, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date 1--=,A--d--_m_in,---i-_st_ra_tio_n_ ____- -\"F-i_re_ al_a_rm_ $32,350 Aug-03 1--B,--a--_sel_in,--e--_ ______- =R-_en_o_v_ation _________ $953,520 Jul-04 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Dec-05 1-D-_u_n_bar_ _______ __,_R,__en_o_v_a_tion_/addition ' $6,161,950 Aug-04 1--J_. A. Fa_ir _______ __,_RI__oof_repairs I $391,871 I Aug-03 16 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music '1 J. A. Fair room addition ______ $3,155,640 Feb-04 Forest Park Replace window units w/central I-NAG!--- $485,258 I Aug-03 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $8,637,709 Jul-03 Mabelvale MS Renovation j $6,851,621 Dec-03 Mann Partial Replacement _____ $11,500,000 Dec-03 McClellan Classroom Addition I $2,155,622 Jul-04 Pulaski Hgts. Elem I RReennoovvaatt! I o 0 nn _____ ~ $$1 ,193,259 I Aug-04 Pulaski Hgts. MS -----,-,-------- _____ ~ 3,755,041 Aug-04 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Aug-04 Southwest New roof $690,000 Aug-03 Tech Ctr I Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Jun-04 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Jul-04 -- ,_Willia_m_s ________ R_eno_v_ation I $2,106,4921 Jun-04 ,_Willia_m_s _______ -+I_P_ark_ing expansions I $183,717 1 Jun-04 Wilson 1 Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 Nov-03 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SUMMER/ FALL 2003 I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Jun-04 Parkview !Addition $2,121,226 Jun-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name Project Description I I t:sr. 1..,omp1euon Cost Date Mitchell I Renovation I $750,000 1 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation , . Unknown Rightsell I Renovation -----+-----$-66- 0- ,-00-0-+----U- n- known VVilson Energy monitoring system installation Woodr-uf-f -------+I-P-ar-k-\"n'i.1,_0-addition - $193,777 Unknown Unknown BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description I I t:::st. comp1et1on Cost Date  Administrati-on- -----+Asbe-sto-s -ab-ate-me-nt- --------- $380,495 Mar-03 Adm in is tr- at io-n --- Administration Annex i\\ltemative Learning Ctr. Alternative Learning Ctr. Badgett __-:= _-:=_-=_~Badgett ~ ----- Bale Bale Bale Fresh air system-___ _ __ $_55,000 ___ Aug-03 Energy monitoring system installation - __ May-02 I Energy monitoring system installation ---.-- $15,160 Oct-01 Energy efficient lighting ___ ~ --$82,000 _,_l_-_-=--=--=--Dec-01 Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Fire alarm -=--=--=--=----=----_-_-_,.... . -_- --c-,,--,,-$-,.1...8,250 Aug-02 Classroom addition/renovation ' $2,244,524 Dec-02 --- Energy monitoring system Mar-02 al roof replacement + $269,587 Dec-01 HVAC --- + ~64,587 Aug-01 Facility Name Booker Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady Carver Carver Central Parking Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central Central -Central -Cen-tral 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 Forest Park Forest Park Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Franklin Gibbs Gibbs Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Henderson Henderson Henderson CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD AUGUST 28, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date I Energy efficient lighting $170,295 I Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation : $23,710 Oct-01 Asbestos abatement I $10,900 I Feb-02  Fire alarm I $34,501 Mar-02 Energy efficient lighting I $80,593 Sep-02  Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 Energy monitoring system installation I $14,480 I May-01 Parking lot I $111,742 Aug-03 Student parking $174,000 Aug-03 Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair I $265,000 ' Aug-03 1Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Aug-03 Irrigation System $14,500 Aug-03 Purchase land for school Unknown , Dec-02 Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 Ceiling and wall repair I $24,000 Oct-01 Fire Alarm System Design/Installation I $80,876 Aug-01 Front landing tile repair I $22,470 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Jul-01 , Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Jul-01 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Nov-02 Energy efficient lighting $90,665 I Aug-01 Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 , J-ul-0-1 Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Aug-02 , Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Fire alarm $12,000 Aug-03 HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 - Apr-02 Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Aug-01 Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Apr-01 '. Press box $10,784 Nov-00 - Security cameras $12,500 Jun-01 I Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 I Jul-03 Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 Diagonal parking $111,742 I Aug-03 Energy efficient lighting $119,788 I May-01 1 Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Jun-01 Energy monitoring system installation I $11,950 Aug-01 'Replace rooftop HVAC units -- $107,835 I Aug-02 Parking lot $140,000 I Sep-02 Roof repairs -----+- $200,000 Oct-02 Renovation $2,511,736' Mar-03 Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Jul-01 Asbestos abatement I $168,222 Aug-01 I Energy efficient lighting I $42,931 I Jul-01 Energy efficient lighting $296,707 I Apr-01 Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Aug-01 I Intercom Feb-01 I Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 1Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Jul-01 Roof replacement gym I $107,835 -- May-01 Asbestos abatement Phase I I $500,000 Auq-01 2 !ll \"D m ~ z z ,m-n ~ z G) m CJ) =z\" m-\u0026lt;\ntl~ mc3 ,\u0026gt;\ntl \u0026gt; -\u0026lt; C: 0 =I 0\ntl U\u0026gt; p m-\u0026lt; n :,: z 0,- 8 -\u0026lt; C: \"D 0 ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD AUGUST 28, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description Cost Henderson !Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 I IRC I Energy efficient lighting I $109,136 Jefferson !Asbestos abatement $43,639 I Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Laidlaw , Parking lot $269,588 Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 Mabelvale Elem. I Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting I $106,598 Mabelvale MS I Renovate bleachers $134,793 Mann 1 Asphalt walks The total $1.8 million Mann Walkway canopies is what has been Mann - !Boiler replacement used so far on the I Mann - I Fencing -- 1 projects listed Mann Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. ! McClellan 'Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 McClellan Security cameras $36,300 McClellan Energy efficient lighting $303,614 McClellan Stadium stands repair $235,000 ' McClellan Intercom $46,000 I McDermott 1 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 McDermott I Replace roof top HVAC units I $476,000 i -- - Meadowcliff !Fire alarm I $16,175 Meadowcliff - - Asbestos abatement $2s3,412 I Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Metropolitan Replace cooling tower $37,203 I Metropolitan -- Replace shop vent system $20,000 Metropolitan - Energy monitoring system installation I $17,145 Mitchell Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Mitchell 'Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 --- - Mitchell Asbestos abatement - $13,000 Oakhurst HVAC renovation $237,237 --- IE nergy monitoring system installation $10,695 Otter Creek Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Otter Creek 1Asbestos abatement $10,000 -- Otter Creek Parking lot $138,029 --- -- - 4 O-tter Creek 6 classroom addition - --- ... $888,778 Otter Creek Parking Improvements ... $142,541 -- Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 f- -- Parkview Roof replacement $273,877 -- Parkview Exterior lights $10,784 -- Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 +-- - Parkview Locker replacement $120,000 Parkview Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Procurement - . Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 ----- - Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 I Move playground -- -- $17,000 - Pulaski Hgts. Elem - -- Rightsell Energy efficient lighting _.___ $84,898 -- Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Rockefeller Parking addition $111 ,742 Est. Completion Date 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 -Ju-l-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 Auo-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD AUGUST 28, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facilitv Name Project Description Cost Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 I Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 I SecurityfTransportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Southwest Drainage/ street widening $250,000 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data I Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry ,Driveway \u0026amp; Parking I $83,484 Terry I Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield - , Energy efficient lighting I $74,776 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Washington Security cameras $7,900 - Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement I $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson !Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $800,000 Western Hiiis Asbestos abatement $191,946 Western Hills - Intercom $7,100 -Western Hills _ ~gy efficient lighting I $106,000 I -- Williams -- Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 Est. Completion Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Aug-00 Jan-02 Aug-03 Aug-02 Aug-03 Dec-01 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Aug-03 Aua-02 4 .!.D, m ~ z z ,m- (\") ,::.c z Cl m CA ~ .... ~ ::c z 0  .c.:,: Cl ~ m TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: '.:-4.n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 itt~ol District Board of Directors l ~~f Facility Services orris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools ~-Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary School Updates Pursuant to questions raised at the July Board of Directors Meeting, the following information is provided with regard to the most current status on Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary Schools. As of the start of the school year, we have concluded our annual maintenance-inspections and cleaning of the heating-ventilation units at Mitchell Elementary and will be starting Rightsell Elementary School in the very near future. While finding them in relative good order, we did succeed in completing some minor repairs that will improve the moisture problems. Relative humidity tests taken in early August at Mitchell Elementary School revealed that the relative humidity ranged between 68 to 72 percent. This is not optimum, and steps are being taken to lower that humidity. We intend to take additional tests and to include carbon-dioxide tests once school is in attendance. The results should be available within a week to ten days. With these tests we can further plan what necessary steps must be taken to improve the facilities. Based on previous tests that we have done during our studies of the schools, we have concluded that the schools are safe for staff and children. Once the staff and children are back in the schools, there will be an influx of beneficial fresh air that will further improve the situation but not to the extent that we should see once we complete our bond project. On 18 August, we formulated a plan that includes both short-term and intermediate steps to be taken in both of these fine old elementary schools. It also includes a revised maintenance schedule. Our goal is to bring Mitchell's and Rightsell 's air quality within acceptable industry-standards and to provide the best environment that we can for conducting school at these facilities. We are continuing our long-range planning for renovation projects at both of these facilities. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 A decision was made that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure the indoor-airquality standard at Mitchell Elementary School is met so that school can remain at that facility until the summer of 2004. It is our intention, at that time, to begin the major renovation-work at this school and to relocate these children to the old Badgett Elementary School in East Little Rock. Our intention is to do the work at Rightsell as soon as the plans and specifications can be completed in early Spring, at which time we will begin work on that facility immediately. DEC:cg Attachments .?.,' m :,:, ~ zz ,m- C') ~ z C) m Ul LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August 28, 2003 To: Board of Directors From: ~ Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - August This is the forty-sixth 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 implementation of technology by participation in the technology committee(s). b) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. c) Participating with the Technology Committee. !D \"D m ~ zz m,.... (\") ~ z C, m CJ) p ..... Pl X z 0 ~ C:\ng ~ m Audit Report - August 2003 Page 2 of2 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. 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. 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 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. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August28,2003 To: Board of Directors From: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Through: Subject: Technology Update The following new technology activities have taken place in the last month:  The District was recently notified that the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant was funded in the amount of $506,553. This is a tri-district partnership grant that provides technology training for teachers in the three districts of Pulaski County. Projects include on-line training courses for teachers, as well as face-to-face classes. The grant also funds new computer labs for Woodruff and Dodd.  We are continuing to receive questions and provide answers to the organization that oversees E-Rate. We have been told that our applications are in final review at this time.  Computer Information Services has recently installed a web-based reporting system that will make data more accessible to users in the District. Training on the new system will begin this fall.  Internet access to the District has been sporadic for the last two weeks due to problems on the state network. The District has also experienced serious e-mail problems during that time. An update on both of these problems will be provided at the August 28 board meeting. !JJ \"D m ~ zz ,m... (\") z~ C) m \"' TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 28, 2003 Board of Education Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Proposed Substitute Teacher Salary Schedule and Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the proposed change in the substitute teacher salary schedule and the following personnel changes at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with AC.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. fl .... .um..,.\nc ~ C: mr- ~~ ~lJ\n! 0 .0, , (\") 0 C: '?' Personnel Changes Page 2 August 28, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS ANNUAL SALARY Proposed Revision in the Substitute Teacher Salary Schedule for 2003-04 Substitute teacher without a 4-year degree Substitute teacher with a 4-year degree $48.00 $53.00 Long Term Substitute teacher is 20 days or longer $85.50 * This rate of pay is to begin on the first day of the known long term assignment. * *(Individual must be degreed and have a teaching certification or have special skills/qualifications) Rationale: * This change makes the District compatible with neighboring districts. ** This change keeps the District in compliance with No Child Left Behind and Arkansas ACT 1623. Resignations/ferminations Certified Employees Alexander, Laquinda Elem II 1-2-01 3-04 Reason: Accepted Another 31242.00 RIGHTSELL 7-25-03 TCH925 Position Aryee, Jessica Elem III 8-9-00 1-05 29309.00 Reason: Leaving City STEPHE s 7-10-03 TCH925 Bailey, Rosalyn Health 8-21-73 6-21 53213.00 Reason: Retired HALL 6-2-03 TCH925 Benage, Duane German 7-18-94 6-13 44566.00 Reason: Contract Ended MANN 6-2-03 TCH925 Personnel Changes p Page 3 ... men August 28, 2003 ...\n,, men C: E~ :i:::m enz 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0. , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY n 0 C: 'f' ?\" Rls en:- o  Eo -\u0026lt;:I: Bierbaum, Kimberly Kindergarten 8-13-98 4-06 34637.00 oz z-en Om Reason: Accepted Another BOOKER 8-12-03 K925 :!:\n,, r-\u0026lt; Position Oc'5 zm .C..: en\n,, ::. Brannick, Sharon Elem ill 8-9-00 1-04 28588.00 0 z Reason: Personal KING 7-21-03 TCH925 Bull, Kathy Kindergarten 8-13-98 2-07 32978.00 p Reason: Leaving City WATSON 8-2-03 K925 Ill-\nO\n,, Childers, Robert English 8-7-02 4-03 31574.00 ~~ zo m\nz\nReason: None Given PUL. HGTS. MID. 7-1-03 TCH925 c30 ::!-o enc :!l:r-c'i Douglas, Martha Voe. Home Ee. 11-4-68 6-21 53213.00 -\u0026lt; Reason: Retired PUL. HGTS. MID. 6-9-03 TCHlO Faucette, Michael English 8-13-98 6-06 37419.00 Reason: Terminated CENTRAL 8-13-03 TCH925 ?\"~ C) - Gadberry, Sarah Social Studies 8-22-77 5-20 50788.00 ~~ z_.-\n\u0026lt;,, Reason: Retired CENTRAL 6-2-03 TCH925 ~~ 0 ... c3 ~ en\u0026gt; Garrett, Christopher Elem IV 8-7-02 1-04 28588.00 )\u0026gt; ,... ,-en -\u0026lt; Reason: Personal OTTERCREEK 7-28-03 TCH925 C: (') ,).\u0026gt;.. ~\n,, Hagood, Vicki 4 Yr Old 8-13-98 1-06 30630.00 Reason: Leaving City STEPHE s 8-8-03 4YROLD Hall, Timothy Civics 8-13-02 6-12 43545.00 !D ~ Reason: Accepted Another CENTRAL 6-15-03 TCHI0 = ..,n Position\n,,m oz c3 c! ~~ ,... C) ~ .z. . Personnel Changes Page 4 August 28, 2003 NAME Hancock, Melinda Reason: Accepted Another Position Headley, Debbie Reason: Health Holl, Maria Reason: Leaving City Hutson, Bryan Reason: Accepted Another Position James, Kenneth Reason: Accepted Another Position Lusk, Jennifer Reason: Returned to School Mackey,Anna Reason: Leaving City Manley, Rayleen Reason: Leaving City McClain, Carey Reason: Personal McClellan, Dale Reason: Leaving City POSITION SCHOOL Elem I CHICOT Voe. Music START DATE END DATE 8-7-02 8-1-03 10-22-02 CLOVERDALE MID. 6-2-03 ElemV 8-7-03 WILLIAMS 7-24-03 Physical Ed. 4-15-01 MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 Superintendent 5-3-01 SUPERINTEDENT 6-30-03 German I 9-12-90 PARKVIEW 6-2-03 English 8-21-00 CLOVERDALE MID. 8-4-03 ElemV 8-13-01 MEADOW CLIFF 8-5-03 English 9-9-98 WASHINGTON 8-1-03 Counselor 8-20-90 STEPHENS 8-1-03 SALARY CLASS 1-03 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 1-06 TCH925 1-13 TCH10 1-01 AUNC12 4-12 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 5-20 CNL925 ANNUAL SALARY 27567.00 31651.00 30630.00 37777.00 145054.00 40763.00 28588.00 29609.00 31651.00 50788.00 Personnel Changes .r.\u0026gt;. Page 5 m (../.) August 28, 2003 :,c m (/) C mr- ~ii_l 1'\n! Cl POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0. , NAME n SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY 0 C '?'\ni,, :,c\u0026lt; ~:= o,.. Moore, Shelley Elem II 8-12-99 1-08 32672.00 ~ Cl -I,!: oz Reason: Accepted Another ROMINE 7-8-03 TCH925 z -CJ) nm Position :!:::ic r- \u0026lt; Cl n zm .C..C /) Paglianite, Rebecca English 8-13-98 1-06 30630.00 :n =l Reason: None Given CENTRAL 7-17-03 TCH925 5 z Peevy, David Physical Science 7-22-99 1-04 28588.00 Reason: Accepted Another CENTRAL 7-17-03 TCHl0 r\u0026gt; Position ~ tD !I n:,c ~~ Perez, Brenda Adult Ed 7-1-99 6-11 42524.00 Z Cl mz ~0 Reason: None Given ADULT ED 6-2-03 TCH925 ::! \"C (/)0 :!: r- n Pickering, Judith English 8-24-87 5-20 50788.00 -\u0026lt; Reason: Retired FAIR 6-2-03 TCH925 Peterson, Kathy Applied Math 4-1-98 4-02 31064.00 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-3-03 TCH925\ni,,~ Petty, Cindy Elem IV 8-13-01 2-13 39104.00 C, - ~i:'\nReason: Accepted Another BALE 8-6-03 TCH925 z-\u0026lt; ... ::ic Position\ng ?5 0 ...\ng ~ (/) )\u0026gt; Phillips, Teressia Algebra I 8-7-02 3-02 29711.00 ,)\u0026gt;- r- (/) -e\u0026lt;n Reason: None Given CENTRAL 7-31-03 TCH925 ,)\u0026gt;- ~ :,c Pierce, Charlene Elem ill 8-12-96 2-11 37062.00 Reason: Retired STEPHENS 7-30-03 TCH925 Pusch, Lisa 4 Yr Old 8-13-97 1-08 32672.00 !l' ~ Reason: Leaving City FAIR.PARK 8-7-03 4YROLD !:l :\"C,c mn oz Saine, Nathasha Math 8-21-92 3-07 34305.00\ng ~ ~~ Reason: Leaving City CENTRAL 8-1-03 TCH925 ,- C, ~ .z. . Personnel Changes Page 6 August 28, 2003 NAME Sanders, Sharon Reason: Leaving City Sibell, Tracy Reason: Leaving City Singleton, Veronica Reason: Leaving City Tate, Katrina Reason: Personal Wofford, Charlene Reason: Leaving City POSITION SCHOOL Counselor START DATE END DATE 8-12-96 TERRY/FULBRIGHT7-25-03 Geometry 8-12-99 HALL 6-2-03 Clerical 8-23-01 CENTRAL 5-16-03 English 8-13-01 SOUTHWEST MID. 7-18-03 Elem I 8-7-02 FRANKLIN 8-1-03 Association Leave SALARY CLASS 4-08 CNL925 1-05 TCHl0 38-13 CLKl0 1-03 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 36679.00 29609.00 22656.00 27567.00 31651.00 Association Leave for Katherine Wright-Knight to be Little Rock Class Room Teacher Association President for the years of2003-3004 and 2004-2005. New Certified Employees Abernathy, Paula Elem I 8-18-03 1-14 38798.00 CHICOT TCH925 annual 37383.49 prorated AboulFettouh,Maha French 8-7-03 6-02 33846.00 MCCLELLAN TCH925 Personnel Changes 0 Page 7 .... m V...J. August 28, 2003 ::0 m VJ C mr- ~~ ~~ 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0, , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY C'\u0026gt; 0 C '!' .,,. ::o\u0026lt; ~:== o  !::o --\u0026lt;lC Andrews, Tracy English 8-7-03 1-03 27567.00 czSz -VJ C'\u0026gt;m HENDERSON TCH925 :!:::o r-\u0026lt; Oi\"5 zm C VJ Atkins, Ashley Elem II 8-7-03 4-01 30553.00 .... ::0 :::i FULBRIGHT TCH925 5 z Barlow, Heather Kindergarten 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 GEYER SPRINGS K925 0 ~ CD !I Blalock, Kellie Elem II 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 C'\u0026gt;:,o ~~ GEYER SPRINGS TCH925 zo mz\ng0 ::!-., Burns, Josiah Elem IV 8-7-03 1-06 30630.00 VJ 0 lC ,-- i\"5 KING TCH925 -\u0026lt; Boccarossa, Jennifer Elem IV 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 CHICOT TCH925 .,,.~ Cl- Breeze, Scott Boys PE 7-17-03 4-01 32940.00 ~~ .z...\" \"::o' MCCLELLAN TCHl0\n\u0026amp; ~ o\"\"' c3 ~ VJ  Bright, Trina English 8-7-03 4-07 35658.00 ,... ,... VJ -\u0026lt; MCCLELLAN TCH925 co ,... fl' ::0 Butler-Green, Rachel Biology 8-7-03 2-03 28894.00 MCCLELLAN TCH925 Carter, Fred Social Studies 7-17-03 1-11 38526.00 ?\" ~ HALL TCHI0 !I -.:,C'\u0026gt; :,om oz Clark, Molly Elem I 8-7-03 1-01 25546.00\ng ~ ~~ TERRY TCH925 ,-- Cl ~ .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 8 August 28, 2003 NAME Clary, Angelia Clegg, Pamela Cole, Elwood Coleman, Leah Corballis, Christopher Criss, Pamela Cox, Stacey Cunningham, Marian Dorsey, Mary Ernst, Melody POSITION SCHOOL Elem II MCDERMOTT Elem II ROMINE Counselor WATSON Elem Ill WAKEFIELD Elem Ill STEPHENS Special Ed CHICOT Speech WESTERN HILLS Elem IV MITCHELL English DUNBAR ElemV MITCHELL START DATE SALARY END DATE CLASS 8-7-03 1-01 TCH925 8-7-03 4-02 TCH925 8-7-03 4-12 CNL925 8-7-03 1-01 TCH925 8-8-03 1-01 TCH925 8-11-03 1-01 SPE925 8-7-03 62-12 SPE925 8-1-03 1-01 TCH925 8-7-03 1-10 TCH925 8-1-03 1-07 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 27056.00 40763.00 26526.00 26546.00 annual 25854.70 prorated 26546.00 annual 26269.48 prorated 45000.00 26546.00 34714.00 31651.00 Personnel Changes fl Page 9 .... m en August 28, 2003 .... ::0 emn C: mr- ~~ e==nmz 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL 0 -n NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY (') 0 C: ~ ?\u0026gt; ~s en:- i2  C: 0 .... == Featherston, Melissa Elem IV 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 czSz - en WILSON TCH925 Om :!:::o r-\u0026lt; Oi\"j zm c: en Fells, Kecia Counselor 8-7-03 5-15 45204.00 .... ::0 =l GIBBS CNL925 5z Finney, Jason Civics 8-7-03 4-05 33616.00 MANN TCH925 fl ~ al ~ Fletcher, Carmen Elem III 8-7-03 1-06 30630.00 (') ::0 ~~ WASHINGTON TCH925 zo m\nc30 Fowler, Terri Elem IV 8-7-03 1-01 26546.000 iiic3\ni::,- n BASELINE TCH925 -\u0026lt; Franks, Deedra Speech 8-7-03 62-12 45000.00 Special Ed. SPE925 French, Cathy Elem IV 8-7-03 6-16 47629.00 ?\u0026gt;'\n!= C) - ~ij'\nRIGHTSELL TCH925 z--\u0026lt; .... ::0 ~ ~ o\"\"' Giese, M'Lou Math 8-7-03 1-16 40839.00 \"C c5 oz en\u0026gt; MCCLELLAN TCH925 \u0026gt;,... ,... en -\u0026lt; C: (') ,\u0026gt;... !\" Glasgow, Jennifer Elem II 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 ::0 PUL. HGTS. ELEM. TCH925 Grayson, Lequieta Counselor 7-29-03 4-10 41746.00 CENTRAL CNLlO i:t' ~ Harris, Christopher \"C (') English 8-7-03 4-02 31064.00\no m oz CLOVERDALE MID. TCH925 c3 c! ~~ ,... C) ~ .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 10 August 28, 2003 NAME Harris, Veronica Hill, Renee Hughes, Timothy Jackson, Marlo Jackson, Susan Johnson, Carolyn Johnson, Doyle Jones, Elizabeth Jones, Katherine Kamanga, Kelli Kessler, Sabrina POSITION SCHOOL Writing SOUTHWEST Oral Com. HALL Spanish START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 CLOVERDALE MID. ElemV 8-7-03 MEADOW CLIFF Counselor 7-29-03 FAIR Data Processing 8-7-03 HENDERSON Counselor 7-29-03 PARK.VIEW Biology 8-7-03 FAIR Kindergarten 8-7-03 MEADOW CLIFF Special Ed 8-7-03 DODD Literacy Coach 7-21-03 MABELV ALE ELEM. SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 5-01 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 5-12 CNLl0 4-04 TCH925 4-18 CNLl0 1-02 TCH925 1-01 K925 1-03 SPE925 4-07 TCH!l ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 27056.00 31931.00 35658.00 45434.00 32595.00 50552.00 \"27056.00 26546.00 27567.00 42158.00 Personnel Changes ~ Page 11 .... m .C.J.'.) August 28, 2003 :,c m CJ') C: mr- ~~\ni::m \"'z 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0, , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY (\") 0 C: ~\n,,, :,c\u0026lt; ~ ?= o  King, Alisha Biology 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 ~o -\u0026lt;\nI: PARK.VIEW TCH925 c5z z  -CJ'\u0026gt; Om :!: :,c r-\u0026lt; Kirby, Adam Special Ed. 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 Oc'i zm .C..:. CJ') CENTRAL SPE925 :,c =l 0 z Kitzmiller, Rachel Science 8-7-03 4-02 31064.00 FOREST HGTS. TCH925 ~ Lee, Paula Special Ed. 8-7-03 1-03 27567.00 Ill~ PUL. HGTS. ELEM. SPE925 n:,c ~~ zo mz Leibig, Priscilla Elem IV 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 ~~ g~ GIBBS TCH925\ni::.- c'i -\u0026lt; Logan, Vickie Biology 8-7-03 6-17 48650.00 PARK.VIEW TCH925 Lollies, Princess Special Ed. 8-11-03 1-14 38798.00\n,,,~ STEPHENS SPE925 annual C:,- ~~ 37585.56 z--\u0026lt; .... :,0 prorated\ng g o~\"\"\n' CJ')  Mahomes, Cynthia Social Studies 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 )\u0026gt; .... r-CJ'\u0026gt; -\u0026lt; CENTRAL TCH925 C: (\") )..\u0026gt;.. ~ :,c Mann, Kristi Special Ed. 8-7-03 2-15 41146.00 ROCKEFELLER SPE925 Marshall, Wendy Special Ed. 8-7-03 1-08 32672.00 ?' ~ SOUTHWEST SPE925 !l -a (\") :,cm oz McAdoo, Charlie Business Ed. 8-7-03 1-01 27237.00 ~~ ~~ MCCLELLAN TCH950 .-c:, ~ .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 12 August 28, 2003 NAME McCann, Jason McGee, Keith Midkiff, Amanda Mistie, Helen Moreland, Hillary Morgan, Treva Moss,Amy Myrose, Robert Neeley, Ruth Obiagwu, Chukwuma POSITION SCHOOL Art CENTRAL Civics CENTRAL Kindergarten BOOKER English START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 7-17-03 8-15-03 8-7-03 CLOVERDALE MID. Elem III 8-7-03 KING ElemN 8-1-03 MABELV ALE ELEM Reading Recovery 8-7-03 BOOKER General Math 8-7-03 ALT. LRN. CTR. Elem. III 8-7-03 FULBRIGHT Physics 8-7-03 HALL SALARY CLASS 1-03 TCH925 4-05 TCHl0 1-01 K925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 6-06 TCH925 4-06 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-11 TCH925 6-04 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 27567.00 33616.00 26546.00 annual 25716.44 prorated 26546.00 26546.00 37419.00 34637.00 26546.00 35735.00 35377.00 Personnel Changes r\u0026gt; Page 13 ..... m \u0026lt;J) August 28, 2003 ..... ::c m \u0026lt;J) C mr- ~~ 1'l\n~ POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .00.. , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY (\") 0 C :' ?\" ~s en,... o\u0026gt; O'Conner, Jacqueline English 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 l: 0 _, lC FAIR TCH925 ozz\n=\nen :cm Peterson, Kathy Math 8-7-03 4-03 31574.00 5~ zm cen FAIR TCH925 ..... ::c =I 5z Pettis, Lashawn Elem IV 8-7-03 1-03 27567.00 ROMINE TCH925 Phillips, Amanda English 8-7-03 r\u0026gt; 1-05 29609.00 IXJ~ HALL TCH925 C\"l\nc ~~ zo mz Pittman, Laura ElemV 8-7-03 4-05 33616.00 i3 0 :::!-,, BOOKER TCH925 enc lC ,- n -\u0026lt; Post, Melinda ElemV 8-7-03 3-10 37368.00 MEADOW CLIFF TCH925 Redmond, Rhonda Elem IV 8-7-03 4-07 35658.00 ?\"~ BALE TCH925 C:,- ~~ z--4 _,\nc Redus, Junniest ElemV 8-7-03 1-09 33693.00\n:g ?S ~g CARVER TCH925 oz \u0026gt;en ,\u0026gt;- ,- en -\u0026lt; Register, Sandra Elem II 8-7-03 6-20 51713.00 en \u0026gt;,-!\"' TERRY TCH925 ::c Rogers, Pamela Kindergarten 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 PUL. HGTS. ELEM. K925 !I\u0026gt; Saderup, Rhonda 37700.00 ~ ELEM II 8-7-03 4-09 .., = (\") RIGHTSELL TCH925\ncm oz \u0026lt;3~ ~~ ,- c:, ~ .z... . Personnel Changes Page 14 August 28, 2003 NAME Sanders, Renata Scott, John Sheffield, Azizi Shollmier, Mary Smiley, Beverly Smith, Chenell Smith, Melinda Smith, Shannon Stallings, Carla Swanigan, Carrie Taylor, Jennifer POSITION SCHOOL Elem I WAKEFIELD Instrumental PARK.VIEW English CENTRAL Voe. Music DUNBAR Chemistry HALL Special Ed. CLOVERDALE EL. Special Ed. ROMINE Elem ill KING Health METROPOLITAN Elem I MITCHELL Elem I BASELINE START DATE SALARY END DATE CLASS 8-7-03 1-04 TCH925 8-7-03 1-03 TCH925 8-7-03 4-04 TCH925 8-7-03 4-08 TCH925 8-7-03 1-02 TCH925 8-7-03 62-5 SPE925 8-7-03 6-11 TCH925 8-7-03 4-01 TCH925 8-1-03 1-01 TCH950 8-1-03 1-02 TCH925 8-7-03 1-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 28588.00 27567.00 32595.00 36679.00 27056.00 36516.00 42524.00 30553.00 27237.00 27056.00 26546.00 Personnel Changes p Page 15 .... m .(./.). August 28, 2003\n:o m (/) C: mr- ~\n~~ C POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0., , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY (') 0 C: '?' '?\u0026gt; ~s (I):- Taylor, Michael ~ Social Studies 7-17-03 1-05 31922.00 C: C --\u0026lt; lC MCCLELLAN TCHl0 czSz O-cmn :E\n:o r-\u0026lt; Terry, Lashay Elem II 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 C('i zm C: (/) DODD TCH925 ....\n:o =l 5z Thomas, Natalie Elem III 8-7-03 1-06 30630.00 BRADY TCH925 p Thompson, Bruce American History 7-17-03 4-19 52169.39 ~ 0::, ~ FAIR TCHl0 C'l\n:o ~~ zc mz Tims, Neitasha ElemN 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 ~P. ii:l~ ROMINE TCH925 lC r-c'i -\u0026lt; Tudor, Shu Chi Elem III 8-7-03 4-04 32595.00 GIBBS TCH925 Wage, Margery Kindergarten 8-7-03 4-01 30553.00 ?\"~ MEADOW CLIFF K925 Cl - z~--~\u0026lt; _,\n:o Washington, LaPara English 8-7-03 4-02 31064.00\ng ?i o\"\"' FAIR TCH925 o\"C zc5 cn   r-r- (/) -\u0026lt; West, Talisha 4 Yr Old 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 C: (\") ~ r- FAIR.PARK 4YROLD\n:o White, Jerald Metal FA 7-29-03 1-04 28588.00 METRO. TCHI0 !\"' White, Jonas American History 26546.00 ~ 8-7-03 1-01 ~ -cC'l SOUTHWEST TCH925\nom oz\ng~ ~~ r- Cl .z~.. . Personnel Changes Page 16 August 28, 2003 NAME White, Susan Wicker, Amanda Williams, Frank Willies, Vora Wilson, Karen Wirzfeld, Katherine Williams, Alicia Wren, Beth Woods, Cobbs POSITION SCHOOL Special Ed. WASHINGTON ElemV WILLIAMS Math HENDERSON Elem I STEPHENS Counselor TERRY Elem V WESTERN HILLS Special Ed. STEPHENS Special Ed. BALE Elem I FRANKLIN START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-8-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 62-12 SPE925 1-03 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-06 TCH925 4-18 CNL925 1-05 TCH925 4-02 SPE925 1-02 SPE925 1-02 TCH925 Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Avery, Frankie Reason: Leaving City Custodian SOUTHWEST 8-27-02 9-2-03 1-02 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 45000.00 27567.00 27056.00 30630.00 46889.00 29609.00 31064.00 27056.00 27056.00 13955.00 Personnel Changes p Page 17 .... m .C..f.) August 28, 2003\n,c m Cf) C: mr- ~ii:l :!:m u,z 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0., , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY n 0 C: ':J\n,,,\n,c\u0026lt; ~ ?= o  ~o --\u0026lt;:!: Banks, Keith Instr. Aide 8-12-99 1-06 12798.00 c5z z -u, Om Reason: None Given STEPHENS 8-6-03 INA925 :!:\n,c r-\u0026lt; O(\"\nzm C: Cf) Barber, Mae Custodian 5-23-88 1-11 18844.00 ....\n,c =I Reason: Personal WESTERN HILLS 8-29-03 CUS12 0 z Cloud, William Custodian 8-29-91 4-11 30986.00 Reason: Retired CENTRAL 8-12-03 CUS12 p m1 Crowder, Cleda Clerical 8-10-87 39-20 28764.00 n\n,c ~ ~ Reason: Retired FAIR 6-4-03 CLK10 zo mz \u0026lt;30 :::!-c CflO Davey. Clarice Instr. Aide 2-10-03 1-03 11635.00 lC ,- n Reason: Accepted Another FAIR.PARK 7-25-03 INA925 -\u0026lt; Position Donald, Betty Instr. Aide 8-21-00 1-03 11635.00 Reason: Accepted Another BASELINE 7-21-03 INA185 ?\"\n5, Position C) - ~n~ z__-.\n-\n\u0026lt;,c Fentry, Kimberly Care 8-30-94 1-16 8.19 l~ 0 .... Reason: None Given CARE 5-30-03 CARE c3 ~ u,  ,... ,-u, -\u0026lt; Harris, Vivian Care 11-9-78 2-03 6.94 c:n ,... !\" Reason: None Given CARE 5-30-03 CARE\n,c Hope, Barbara Clerical 8-7-78 39-20 28764.00 Reason: Retired HALL 6-10-03 CLKl0 !Jl ~ Hunter, Laura Child Nutrition 1-11-02 3-09 8290.00 ~ -en Reason: Health MABELV ALE MID. 7-31-03 FSH550\n,cm oz c3 ~ 5'.,?::!! ,... C) ~ .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 18 August 28, 2003 NAME Marcrum, Janice Reason: Retired Neal, Shellie Reason: Retired Ollison, Yolanda Reason: None Given Porter, Jere! Reason: Terminated Pruitt, Robert POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Child Nutrition WILSON Care CARE Custodian JEFFERSON Instr. Aide Reason: Returning To School GIBBS Robinson, Vickie Clerical Reason: Personal HALL Seaton, Timothy Security Officer Reason: Accepted Another MCCLELLAN Position Thompson, Jesse Child Nutrition Reason: Terminated FAIR.HIGH Turner, Kerrie Security Officer Reason: Accepted Another CENTRAL Position Turner, Romona Instr. Aide Reason: Accepted Another CENTRAL Position START DATE END DATE 12-6-89 8-4-03 8-24-87 8-4-03 4-1-03 5-30-03 9-13-99 7-23-03 9-03-02 5-30-03 8-13-98 5-30-03 9-28-00 8-1-03 2-14-03 7-23-03 10-1-02 8-11-03 10-8-02 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 5-15 FSH6 1-17 FSH5 1-05 CARE 1-05 CUS12 1-06 INA925 31-11 CLK925 36-14 SOFR9 1-01 FSH5 36-17 SOFR9 1-10 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 9345.00 7840.00 6.68 15600.00 12798.00 17316.00 15390.00 7312.00 16831.00 14067.00 Personnel Changes .0.. Page 19 m .e.n. August 28, 2003 ::,0 emn C: ~~ ~m en z 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0. , n NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY 0 C: '?' ?\u0026gt; RI s en:- 0 \u0026gt; Wallace, Cesalie Nurse 8-9-00 1-07 31651.00 .~.. o ~ c5 z Reason: Accepted Another MABELV ALE MID. 8-1-03 NURSES z-nemn Position ~~ 0(\"\nzm .c.:. en Williams, Charles Child Nutrition 9-12-02 1-02 7340.00 ::,0 =I Reason: Terminated BRADY 7-23-03 FSH5 c5 z New Non-Certified Emi!lovees 0 ID~ n::,o ~~ Akins, Douglas Bus Driver 8-11-03 2-02 8378.00 zo mz ~P. TRANS. BUSDRV g~ ~ .... 0 -\u0026lt; Baker, Tamara Occ .. Ther. 8-7-03 60-6 35448.00 SPECIAL ED. AN925 Booth, Jesse Security Officer 8-11-03 36-16 16336.00 FAIR SOFR9 ?\u0026gt;~ G'l - Boykin, William Security Officer 8-11-03 36-16 16336.00 ~~ z-\u0026lt; -,::io FOREST HGTS. SOFR9\ng~ o\"\"' ~~ en\u0026gt; Brim, Allen Security Officer 8-11-03 36-10 13657.00 ,,..- ,... en -\u0026lt; ACC - METRO SOFR9 c: n ,\u0026gt;... !\" ::,0 Bunting, Abram Security Officer 8-11-03 36-16 16336.00 METRO SOFR9 Burnett, Toby Secretary 7-29-03 39-12 22656.00 ~ !:i WAKEFIELD CLKl0 !l -on :,om oz ~c! ~?.! ,-c, ~ ~ Personnel Changes Page 20 August 28, 2003 NAME Bush, Alicia Castleberry, James Collins, Mamie Dukes, Raynard Ellis, Virginia Goad, Gina Golston, Shawn Jones, Angela Manley, Eric Maxwell, Robin McNeil, Sonia POSITION SCHOOL Supervisor START DATE END DATE 7-28-03 CHILD NUTRITION Navy 7-1-03 PARK.VIEW Child Nutrition 8-12-03 ALC Security Officer 8-11-03 FAIR 0cc. Ther. 8-7-03 SPECIAL ED. 0cc. Ther. 8-7-03 SPECIAL ED. Security 8-11-03 SECURITY Security Officer 8-11-03 HALL Security Officer 8-11-03 MANN Bus Driver 8-11-03 TRANS Media Clerk 8-7-03 FRANKLIN SALARY CLASS 55-6 ADN12 65-01 AN12 1-01 FSH5 36-10 SOFR9 60-10 AN925 60-13 AN925 37-04 ANl0 36-10 SOFR9 36-14 SOFR9 3-01 BUSDRV 31-03 CLK925 ANNUAL SALARY 30528.00 annual 28329.98 prorated 35448.00 7392.00 13657.00 39936.00 43680.00 16800.00 13657.00 15390.00 9540.00 13632.00 Personnel Changes Page 21 August 28, 2003 POSITION START DATE NAME SCHOOL END DATE Merritt, Reginald Drug Abuse 7-16-03 PUPIL PERSONNEL Moore, Antonio Security Officer 8-11-03 MCCLELLAN Peach, Laura Secretary 7-29-03 CENTRAL Starks, M.T. Security Officer 8-11-03 ROMINE Sterley, Pamela Child Nutrition 8-12-03 WESTERN HILLS Thomas, Sandra Secretary 7-29-03 GIBBS Tucker, Jason Security Officer 8-11-03 WATSO Withers, Myrtle Clerical 7-22-03 VIPS SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 47-17 33396.00 AN11 36-10 13657.00 SOFR9 38-12 21984.00 CLKl0 36-11 14065.00 SOFR9 1-01 7392.00 FSH5 39-12 22656.00 CLKl0 36-10 13657.00 SOFR9 38-19 27912.00 CLK105 ,:') ..... m .u...,. ::\u0026gt;, m u, C: mr- ~i\nJ ~~ 0 .0,. ., C') 0 C: r' ?\" ~s u,,.... o\u0026gt; ~o --t:!C ozz n:c\"m'\n=~ 0(\"\nzm C: u, ..... ::\u0026gt;, =i 0z ,:') a,~ C'\u0026gt;::\u0026gt;, ~~ zo mz \u0026lt;30 ::! -0 u, 0 :!Cr- n -\u0026lt; ~~ C) - ~~ z--t --t::\u0026gt;J ~~ 0 ..... -oO oz u\u0026gt;, ,\u0026gt;- ,- u, -\u0026lt; C: C') \u0026gt;~ r- ::\u0026gt;, !ll !::i !l DATE: TO: FROM: RE: VWQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 August28,2003 Board of Education Morris L. Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent of Schools Revision of Board Policy BCB, Prevention of Nepotism, First Reading Pursuant to Board discussion at the agenda meeting, August 14, 2003, Board Policy BCB, Prevention of Nepotism, has been revised as directed and is attached. 0 .... m !!l\no m (J) C: m!:\n~~ ~~ 0 .0,. , (\") 0 C: '?\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BCB PREVENTION OF NEPOTISM No person will be employed in the Little Rock School District in a position where he/she would be related, (whether by blood or marriage, including spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin), to his/her immediate supervisor. If an employee is transferred to a supervisor's position which would cause a violation of this policy, the subordinate employee will be transferred to a substantially equivalent position as soon as reasonably possible. Under no circumstance will a supervisor be allowed to evaluate the performance of one of his/her relatives. Revised: Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-24-105 Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy GBEA Date: To: From: Through: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 28, 2003 Board of Education Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Collaborative Grant Proposal with UALR The University of Arkansas at Little Rock is preparing a grant proposal to the National Science Foundation that involves interactive virtual environments. The technology was recently added, for example, to theme park attractions at Universal Studios. The technology exploits a variety of techniques to integrate the virtual with the physical in a scalable, mixed reality environment. The UALR grant proposal will develop the technology for instructional uses. For example, a science teacher might have a virtual environment in which she is in the room with a virtual instructor and virtual students. She can interact with the instructor and the students as they perform a lab experiment. This episode can be a professional development experience for the teacher as she learns how to conduct the lab with her own students. Students can also benefit from a virtual environment in which materials and resources are available to them virtually that may be cost prohibitive for the school to actually have. Dr. Mary Good, Dean of the College of Information Science and Systems Engineering, and Dr. Angela Sewall, Dean of the College of Education, from UALR will give a short presentation to the Board about the possibilities for collaboration in this project. .,. ~s CJ),.- l2  c:C ... 3C \u0026lt;zSz n~ :r!:- \u0026lt;\"' C?\nzm C...: CJ) \"='I \u0026lt;5 % DATE: TO: \\V LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 August28,2003 Board of Education FROM: Morris Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Linda Austin/4 Director of Planning and Development RE: Grant Proposals: 21 st Century Community Learning Center Program Background Information The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) released the 2003-2004 21 st Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) grant competition for proposals. The grants are supported through the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The purpose of the 21 st CCLC program is to establish community learning centers that operate during out-of-school hours. Programs must provide students in high poverty schools with intensive academic enrichment opportunities along with other activities designed to complement the students' regular academic program. The District submitted two proposals, Woodruff Elementary and McClellan High School. Both schools elected to participate in the 21 st CCLC grant by virtue of the pressing academic and social needs of their students as well as their high numbers of free and reduced lunch eligible students (Woodruff: 85% and McClellan: 50%). The Woodruff 21 st CCLC program design offers a broad array of services, programs, and activities that are specifically designed to meet the needs of elementary school students. An example of some of the services to be delivered at Woodruff include: 1) a one-hour before school program, 2) a three-hour after-school program, 3) three 1-week intersession programs, 4) a visual and performing arts enrichment program, 5) a multitude of rich cultural activities, 6) an array of family services, and 7) a monthly Super Saturday program. To support and enrich grant implementation, Woodruff has established community partnerships with Wildwood Park, Twin City p .... m !!l\n,:, m U) C: ~~ ~~ 0 .0, , n 0 C: ':'\n,-~ \u0026gt;'\" .... U) ::en r-::c: ~o n l2 I!! U) \u0026gt;m o\n,:, ~~ u,m i5 U) z Bank, Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association, and State Farm Insurance. The McClellan 21 st CCLC program design offers a unique program geared for high school age students. Highlights of the program include a six-week credit recovery summer school program for 9th grade students, a two-week 9th grade transition summer program, a before and after school tutoring program, nine 2-hour parent/family sessions, and a drug and violence prevention program. Collaborative partnerships have been established with the UALR College of Information Science and Systems Engineering, Centers for Youth and Families, Professional Counseling Associates, ITT Technical Institute, and Southwest Regional Medical Center. The grants were submitted on July 11, 2003 in order to meet the July 11, 2003 submission deadline. Fiscal Impact The Year One request for Woodruff is $149,463. The total five-year award request for Woodruff is $538,067. The Year one request for McClellan is $148,241. The total five-year award request for McClellan is $533,668. The requested funds are primarily targeted for teachers stipends for out-ofschool tutoring programs, transportation, equipment and software as well as an evening snack for each participant. Local match is not required. Recommendation The staff requests approval for the submission of this grant. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August 28, 2003 To: From: Through: Re: Board of Directors -~ennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent End of Course Algebra 1, Geometry, and Literacy Results - Summary of End of Course Results for Algebra 1, Geometry, and Literacy - We are reporting the results of the End of Course (EOC) Algebra 1, Geometry, and Literacy Exams. Improvement in student achievement occurred in all three areas. Generally, subgroups of students in our district made similar or greater progress than the same subgroups at the state level. - The purpose of this report is to identify overall trends in student achievement, by subgroup and by school, on the EOC Algebra 1, Geometry and Literacy Exams. - Staff members will use the results to identify specific areas of strength and need in student learning in Algebra 1, Geometry and literacy so that curriculum, instruction, and professional development can be tailored to the needs of students in each school. Schools have received data about individual student performance on these exams, have an item analysis for each item on the exam, and will soon have the released items from each of the exams. This degree of detail will allow each school to be specific when identifying strengths and needs. -Expectations are that district staff and school-based staff will use the results of the EOC tests, including the item analyses and released items, to make adjustments in the mathematics and literacy programs that will lead to improved student achievement during the 2003-04 school year. -We recommend that each school thoroughly disaggregate the EOC data to provide the level of specificity needed to adjust day-to-day instruction so that this year's students continue or exceed the progress made by students that is reflected in the 2003 results. !.D., :c\nr::: en ~ emn en -0 ~ -0 m ~ -\u0026lt; .,,. ~s en,... o  l:o --\u0026lt;!C c5 z z ~~ F~ On zm .c...:. en ~ c5 z .,,.~ \u0026gt;,... __, en :c (\") ,-- :c !:!jO n~ !\u0026gt;!! men o\n,\n,\nr:::\u0026lt; cno enm o en z \u0026gt; .~.... ?\u0026lt; m CD -0 C: :c en ~z p, rn -en Zen ~~ gi s zn om CD en a On the EOC Algebra 1 Exam 30% of students were proficient or advanced in 2002-03 compared to 21 % in 2001-02. This improvement of 9% compares to a statewide improvement of 8%. Sixteen percent (16%) of African American students were proficient in 2002-03 compared to 11 % in 2001-02. Sixty percent (60%) of Caucasian students were proficient or advanced in 2002-03 compared to 44% in 2001-02. Hall, Cloverdale, Dunbar, and Mann all experienced growth of 20% or more from the previous year's administration. The schools with the highest overall scores were Dunbar and Pulaski Heights with 87% proficient or advanced and Forest Heights and Mann with 79% and 72% proficient or advanced respectively. The high school with the highest overall score was Hall with 32% proficient or advanced. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the students were proficient or advanced on the EOC Geometry Exam in 2002-03 compared to 17% in 2001-02. This improvement of22% compared to a statewide improvement of 8%. A variable that most likely contributed to our large improvement was the re-sequence of math courses last year that placed Geometry after Algebra 2 instead of before Algebra 2. The change was made so that more ninth grade students could take advantage of Pre-AP Physics, which has an Algebra 2 co-requisite. The change created a one-year transition where about half as many students took Geometry. Seventeen percent (17%) of African American students were proficient or advanced in 2002-03 compared to 6% the year before. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Caucasian students were proficient or advanced in 2002-03 compared to 43% the year before. The school with the greatest improvement was Central, which increased from 27% to 67% proficient or advanced. Central also had the highest number of students who were proficient or advanced in geometry with 67%. The next highest was Hall with 32%. The percentage of students in Algebra 1 and Geometry in the below basic range decreased dramatically. In Algebra 1 the percent of students below basic dropped by 11 percentage points from 2001-02 to 2002-03. Cloverdale has the largest decrease in below basic with a drop of28%. Hall has the second largest decrease with 26%. Dunbar, Forest Heights, Mann, and Pulaski Heights had or were close to zero students in the below basic category. In Geometry the percent of students who were below basic dropped by 35 percentage points from 2001-02 to 2002-03. J. A. Fair had the largest improvement with a decrease of 61 % of students who were below basic. Central had the lowest overall percent of students in the below basic category with only 8%. In literacy the percent of students who scored proficient or advanced increased from 32% to 36% over a one-year period and from 17% to 36% over a two-year period. The increase last year of 4% is equal to the statewide increase of 4%. The two-year growth exceeded the state's growth over the same period by 6% (LRSD 19%, state 13%). All five high schools experienced growth in literacy achievement over the two-year period. Parkview had the most growth in literacy among the high schools 15% over a one-year period and 30% over a two-year period. The school-by-school results for each test will be provided to Board members under separate cover. TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHILD NUTRITION DEPARTMENT 1501 JONES STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 August 28, 2003 Board of Education Merlin M. McCoy, Director of Child Nutrition THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent RE: Adoption of Resolution on Elimination of Reduced Meals Category This is the year for the reauthorization of all Child Nutrition programs by the Congress of the United States. In a recent legislative session of American School Food Service Association on reauthorization, it was a unanimous decision to ask Congress to eliminate the reduced price status in school meals programs and provide free meals to all children with family incomes below 185 percent of poverty. One strategy for rallying support is to ask school boards to adopt a resolution in support of this change in the reauthorization bill. I would recommend that the LRSD join the thousands of school food service providers nationwide in support of this change in the law. Senator Elizabeth Dole has prepared the bill to submit to Congress in support of this request. I am including with this correspondence a resolution for your review and adoption. Thank you for your consideration and support. !\" \"Tl :,:: 3: en ~ m en e.,n, ::0 0., , m s\n,,,~ \u0026gt;,.... .... en :i::n r-:,:: ~8 0 r!\u0026gt;!! mcn 0::0 3:\u0026lt; gi~ 5 en z\n,,, en?\u0026lt;\nla, .,, C: :,:en ~% _CIJ rn -en Zcn nm ig ~ zomn a, en 6 RESOLUTION BOARD OF EDUCATION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FEDERAL CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS Whereas, the federal child nutrition programs, including the school lunch and breakfast programs, are important to the health and education of the children of Little Rock School District\nand Whereas, the child nutrition programs must be reauthorized by the Congress of the United States during the current fiscal year\nand Whereas, reduced price school meals are offered, in participating schools, to children with family income between 130 percent of the poverty line and 185 percent of the poverty line\nand Whereas, many families in the reduced price income category are finding it difficult to pay the reduced fee and, for some families, the fee is an insurmountable barrier to participation\nand Whereas, the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) provides free benefits to all participants with family income below 185 percent of poverty\nNOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Little Rock School District supports reauthorization of all federal child nutrition programs\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Little Rock School District urges the Congress of the United States to eliminate the reduced price school meals programs, and to provide free meals for all children with family incomes below 185 percent of poverty\nand BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this RESOLUTION shall be sent -to the Arkansas Congressional delegation in Washington, D.C. Judy Magness, President Larry Berkley, Secretary Adopted: August 28, 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August 28, 2003 To: From: Through: Board of Education Margo Bushmiaer, Coordinator of Health Services Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent Administrative Services Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Re: School-Based Dental Hub / Clinic Pain related to dental decay is responsible for absenteeism and lack of concentration during class. Children with low socio-economic status are likely to have at least three more decayed or filled primary teeth than children from families with higher income levels. In collaboration with the Dental Health Action Team, we are presenting the proposal for \"Future Smiles: School-Based Dental Hub\" for your review. The dental hub/clinic, located at Wakefield Elementary School, will be for children at highest risk for dental problems. Dental Services will be coordinated by UALR Share America in partnership with twelve (12) agencies represented on the Dental Health Action Team and the Little Rock School District. These agencies have a three-year history of providing preventive services to our students. The attached proposal represents a five (5) year plan to implement these services beginning in August 2004. We recommend that the \"Future Smiles: School-Based Dental Hub / Clinic\" be approved as submitted. :e fl\n= 0 r-m \u0026gt;O 31:n \"'\u0026gt; ~g G} z Zo !!lm m ~~ ::c 0 0 r- 08/01/03 PROPOSAL FUTURE SMILES: SCHOOL-BASED DENTAL HUB - THE PROBLEM Tooth decay is the single most common chronic childhood disease 5 times more common than asthma 7 times more common than hay fever Nearly twice as many children with low Socio-economic status (SES) ages 2-9 years have at least three decayed or filled primary teeth than do children from families with higher income levels. *National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. (2001, Feb). A Plan to Eliminate Craniofacial, Oral, and Dental Health Disparities. BARRIERS IN ACCESS TO DENTAL HEAL TH SERVICES Lack of awareness of importance of oral health Lack of or insufficient dental insurance Lack of transportation Uncompensated time from work Limited income Maldistribution of dentists Dentist non-participation with Medicaid/ARKIDS First Low Medicaid program reimbursement rates for dental services \"One proven strategy for reaching children at high-risk for dental disease is\" providing oral and dental health services in school-based health centers ... supporting linkages with health care professionals and other dental partners in the community\" *Grant Makers in Health Issue Dialogue .. (2001, May). Filling the Gap: Strategies for Improving Oral Health. Issue Brief. HISTORY UALR Share America and the Office of Oral Health have collaborated for three years on projects to improve the oral health for children in underserved areas of Little Rock. To that end, Share America formed the Dental Health Action Team three years ago \"to work together to improve oral health outcomes and reduce disparities among children.\" The DHAT has provided dental screenings and referrals to more than 3000 children in Little Rock Public Schools and Head Start Programs each year. - I - 08/01/03 The screening data show that 58% of children have tooth decay, 28% have untreated decay, and an alanning 5% of those children screened had emergency dental needs. Unfortunately, less than 2% of the children had dental sealants, a proven primary preventive measure. Building on the screenings in 2001, a school-based program was established to provide dental sealants to more than one-hundred 2-3rd graders in the six partner schools and Head Start Programs working with UALR Share America (Bale, Wilson, Wakefield, Franklin, Stephens, and Chicot). Existing preventive services include annual dental screening and sealants. During the fall, students with a completed consent fonn are screened to identify tooth decay and any teeth that require sealants. During February \"National Children's Dental Health Month\", sealants are placed, with 4 stations set up in the schools and staffed by volunteer dental professionals. The process takes approximately 15-25 minutes using the light cured system.  Currently we have a 50-65% return rate for parental consent fonns. PROGRAM DESIGN: The Dental Health Action Team proposes to establish a \"school-based dental hub/clinic\" for the children at highest risk. School-based dental programs create immediate access to oral health care by taking the services to the populations in need. The hub, located at Wakefield Elementary School, would serve children enrolled in the Share America Program in six elementary schools. In addition to the services provided by the clinic, Share America will continue to utilize the mobile dental equipment to provide annual screenings and the sealant program in the six schools. The clinic would enhance the preventive oral health services currently offered and provide comprehensive oral health services for children. While the current Share America students will be the initial source of clients, we would anticipate serving other at-risk income populations such as Head Start clients and students eligible for the school free and reduced lunch program within the six schools. OBJECTIVES: Increase the proportion of children who use the oral health system each year. Increase the proportion of low-income children and adolescents who receive preventive dental services each year. Our ultimate goal is to provide crucial preventive services to 100% of those children at-risk in these elementary schools. Reduce the prevalence of children and adolescents with untreated dental decay. Reduce the proportion of children and adolescents who have dental caries in their primary or permanent teeth. Explore the possibility of expanding school-based dental hubs to other schools. *Based on objectives for the Nation in Healthy People 2010. Program Management:  Dental services will be coordinated by UALR Share America in partnership with the Dental Health Action Team and Little Rock School District.  A Memorandum of Agreement between the Little Rock School District and the DHAT will outline programs and operations and renewed annually.  A Steering Committee made up of representatives from each partner organization, parents and key individuals from the community at large will oversee the program. Member organizations include: UAMS, Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Arkansas Dept. of Health, Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, Arkansas Dept. of Education, Cooperative Extension, UALR, LRSD, Arkansas State Dental Association, St. Vincent Health System, - 2 - .!J.,l :c\nr:: en ~ m en en -0 ~ -0 m ~ ~p re r-m \u0026gt;C :r::n en\u0026gt; ~g G) z Zc:, !!Jm m ~~ :c 0 0 r-\n,-~ )\u0026gt; :__, en :c (\") r- :c !!Jo n~ !\u0026gt;!! en m c\n,:,\nr::\u0026lt; eenn \u0026lt;m'\u0026gt; 5 en z )\u0026gt;\n.,, ?\u0026lt;\n:l tD -0 C: :c en ~% p\u0026gt;~ -z eenn .n m\n,:, ~s zC\"\u0026gt; cm a, en i5 08/01/03 Arkansas Minority Health Commission, Pulaski County United Way, Arkansas Children's Hospital, and Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.  Six elementary school sites, serving approximately 2300 underserved school children, will participate in program benefits to include annual screenings, sealants and follow-up services through the clinic Operations:  Services will begin in the fall of 2004, assessed each year, and expanded over a five-year period as follows: Phase I (2004-2005) - Serve the emergency/immediate needs for students referred by screenings from all six partner schools and restorative needs for Wakefield Phase II (2005-2007) - Serve the restorative needs of children for all 6 schools Phase Ill (2007-2008) - Serve the comprehensive needs of all children in 6 schools and middle school students in Share America Youth Leadership Program  Hours of operation are 9-1 :30 Monday through Friday for ten months (September-May) and will follow the LRSD school schedule. During the summer months the clinic will target students attending Share America summer camps at Wakefield and Stephens Elementary.  DHA T will contract with a local hospital or organization to hire a full-time dentist. The first year staffing will include a full-time dentist and assistant with an effort to recruit bilingual staff. Staffing needs will be assessed annually.  Patient Eligibility: Uninsured with efforts to enroll in ArKids 1st. by working through LRSD nurses  Billing through clinic: Medicaid\nDentist must be Medicaid provider  Services: Phase I - Root Canal (prior authorization)\nfillings\nextractions, stainless steel crowns, and Nitrons Oxide. Services reassessed annually.  Forms, application and materials translated into Spanish  UALR Share America will transport Share America students from the other five schools.  Dentists, dental hygienists and dental hygiene students will continue to provide all preventive services including dental screenings and sealants on site in the six elementary schools.  UAMS dental hygiene students will continue to provide dental cleanings, fluoride, sealants, and x-rays at the UAMS clinic as needed. Share America will continue to provide transportation. Equipment: The following equipment is needed for startup:  Evacuation system (central vac)  Compressor  Autoclave  x-ray (split between two chairs) with processor and daylight loader  two patient chairs  four stools  two units  locked cabinets  bathroom - handicap accessible  counter top with sink  small refrigerator The DHAT will work with a dental supply company to compile a comprehensive list for equipment and supplies. -3 - 08/0 )/03 Partnership Support  The school district will assist with data collection and provide clinic space, utility and custodial services at no cost to the program.  UALR Share America will serve as the coordinating organization and provide transportation for children from the six school sites.  Parents and volunteers will work with clinic staff and individual school nurses and administrators.  County/State health and social service departments will assist with necessary permits, waivers, regulatory inspections, etc. for opening clinics in schools. Department of Human Services will assist with recruitment and enrollment of students who meet Medicaid eligibility and billing for Medicaid-eligible school children for dental treatments.  United Way will provide $100,000 of startup funding and assist with on-going fund raising through their annual campaign. United Way has included Future Smiles in the 2003- 2004 campaign materials  The Steering Committee will coordinate ongoing fundraising efforts to include the Annual United Way Campaign, Medicaid billing, and corporate partners. Law \u0026amp; Insurance: Clinic must meet regulations set by LRSD, OSHA, HIPAA, and Biohazard Removal/Infection Control Assessment  An annual evaluation will include an assessment of policies, procedures, services, staffing, and operations. The Steering Committee will coordinate the data collection and provide recommendations to the DHAT and LRSD.  Data collection will be both quantitative and qualitative and may include: 1. # of children served and services provided\ndemographics\ndental sealant retention rates\n# of children needing restorative care, and the# receiving care 2. Dental Screenings to determine decayed, missing, and filled (DMF) on primary and permanent teeth. 3. Dental Forms to determine frequency of dental visits and medical history. 4. Calculate the number of children served and type of services provided 5. Quantify the ability of the project to reduce cavities in high risk groups 6. Determine if school attendance is affected by \"healthier children\" 7. Demonstrate that providing dental services \"on-site\" can be an effective, efficient way to prevent cavities. 8. Annual Financial Report 9. Qualitative data will identify perceptions and attitudes of the parents and information about why (and why not) children received restorative care. The data collected will include: i. parent's understanding of and attitudes toward dental health before and after the education presentation and parents' opinions about barriers to receiving dental care Annual Operating Budget Start-up funding of up to $150,000 for the first year would provide the equipment, hire the professional staff necessary and provide a basis for on-going funding through Medicaid and AR KIDS first billing. Dentist @ 50% Dental Assistant @ 50% Start-up Equipment Materials/supplies $50,000 25,000 60,000 15,000 $150,000 - 4 - !I' \"Tl :c 3: (J) ~ m (J) (J) \"0 ~ \"0 m ~ ,\n,., ,~ :--\u0026lt; (J) :en ..... :c mo \"n\" '.o- ~ ~ o\no 3: \u0026lt; en n \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;m o(J) z ,. .~... ?\u0026lt; m CD \"0 C: :c (J) ~z '~ _(J) z\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; p~ gi :$ zC\"\u0026gt; om CD rJ\u0026gt; i5 '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 TO: Board of Directors FROM: 0,if\u0026amp;ohnny Johnson, Director of Athletics 1 'J-Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Changes to Gate Prices at Athletic Events The Little Rock School District is proposing an increase in adult ticket prices for the upcoming 2003-04 athletic seasons. The increase is$ 1.00 over last year's price for adult tickets, with no increase in student ticket prices. All middle school events will be $3 for adults and $2 dollars for students. High school events will be $5 for adults and $3 for students. As a new feature this year, the LRSD proposes to offer a \"Super Pass\" that will enable the recipient to attend all middle and high school athletic events during the 2003-04 athletic seasons. One adult Super Pass will cost $85. One student Super Pass will cost $50. A family Super Pass can be purchased for $150, which will allow a family of up to five to attend all athletic events in the LRSD. Employee family passes can still be purchased for $10, which enables the immediate family members of a LRSD employee to attend all athletic events. Passes will be available for purchase at the Administration Business Office and the Athletic Department located in the former Garland School building. It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the 2003-04 athletic gate prices as submitted. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 \u0026gt; .~,, ::c: 3: \"' ~ m \"\"'' \"0 ~ \"0 m ~ -\u0026lt;\n,, ?\u0026lt; iri a, \"0 C: :CCI\u0026gt; ~z P' rn -\"' Zcn r\u0026gt; ~ ~~ zC\"\u0026gt; cm a,\"' i5 lvfi1 MW\ntrm~ f\\J. 'U w.. tJlwv J ~ t,. ~. tw\ntM)/.) ~ '54.n Individual Approach to a World ojKnowledge\" DATE: August 28, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY~-M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer  Subject Bond Issue Bid by Stephens Inc.  Summary Changes to the regulations controlling bond issue bidding have created the opportunity for Stephens Inc. to bid on !2istrict bond sales\nthey are requesting approval to bid.  Objectives To increase the number of bids on the LRSD bond sales. Expected Outcomes The LRSD financial advisor will be allowed to bid on the District's bond sales, increasing the number of bidders.  Population/Location NI A Budget Amount/Source NIA Manager Donald M. Stewart, CFO  Duration Beginning with Board approval / ending with this bond sale. Long Range/Continuation No long range plans for this issue. Other Agencies Involved Arkansas State Securities Department  Expectations of District Needed Staff Comments Recommendation NIA IA one Stephens Inc. has requested permission from the District to submit a bid on the upcoming refunding bond sale. Mark McBryde has explained the changes in regulations and the process by which bids are taken in the attached letter. It is recommended that Stephens Inc. be allowed to submit a bid on the pending bond issue. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 m o\n_, g i5 .. \"' :5~ ~Q ...,z \"o'c C3\u0026gt; (') ,\u0026gt;- ~Q :n 0 0 z ~ 5z en July 23, 2003 HAND DELIVERY Dr. Don Stewart Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Don: Stephens Inc. JUL 2 4 ::03 This letter will follow up Monday's conversation regarding the District's upcoming refunding bond sale. During our conversation we discussed the ability of Stephens Inc. to bid on this issue. Since this is a relatively new process, I wanted to explain the situation in detail. Since January, our firm has been concerned about the significant supply of Arkansas school bonds that will be offered for sale during 2003. We have made efforts to increase the salability of bonds by asking for input from firms that frequently bid these issues. As well, Stephens is attempting to increase marketability by dropping the conversion requirements on essentially all of these upcoming bond issues. Earlier this year, I met with the Arkansas Department of Education and Arkansas State Securities Department regarding the ability of Stephens Inc. to bid on school bond issues where we currently serve as fiscal agent. On April 25, 2003, the Securities Commissioner issued an order permitting Stephens to submit bids on Arkansas school bonds where the firm also serves as fiscal agent. Our ability to submit a bid on issues of this type will expire on December 31, 2003. The process of a fiscal agent submitting a bid on a school bond issue is new to this state. It is, however, done in numerous states throughout the nation. At Stephens, we believe our ability to bid will improve competition and be beneficial for all Arkansas school districts. Let me offer a recent financing that confirms our thoughts on this matter. Earlier today, Stephens was the successful bidder on bonds sold by Dumas School District. We represent Dumas as fiscal agent and the School Board had previously authorized Stephens to bid on this issue. By accepting the low bid from Stephens, the District's interest cost was reduced by $8,110.15. The procedure used in bidding these bonds is an electronic process where neither the bidder or the fiscal agent has knowledge of the bids prior to the sale. Complete confidentiality 1s maintained, so that Stephens is not able to view bids prior to the scheduled opening. Investment Bankers www .Stephens.com 111 Center Street P.O . Box 3507 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 501-374-4361 Fax 501-377-2666 Enclosed you will find a letter which the Board should consider at its next meeting. This letter is to acknowledge that Stephens may bid on the District's bond issue. I can tell you that it is our intention, with the District's consent, to submit a bid on your bonds. If the Board elects to allow Stephens to bid on the proposed refunding, please place the enclosed letter on the District's letterhead, have the President and Secretary sign, and return it in the envelope provided. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Mark McBryde .!X.,I :,:\ni:: V, ~ m V, V, \"D ~ \"D m ~ -\u0026lt; :E r\u0026gt; F C r-m  C ll::n V, \u0026gt; ~g ClZ Zc ~mm !ll!=:' :,: 8,... :\"' C 0 z ~ 5 z V, '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 Stephens Inc. P. 0. Box 3507 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Stephens Inc.: In connection with the District's pending bond issue, we acknowledge that your firm is serving as fiscal agent. Furthermore, we understand that the State Securities Commissioner has issued an order dated April 25, 2003, which will permit Stephens Inc. to also submit a bid when the District's bonds are offered for sale. In accordance with MSRB Rule 23, we understand that Stephens Inc. may bid on the District's bonds and we furthermore consent to this process. Sincerely, President Little Rock School Board Secretary Little Rock School Board 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 '~n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 TO: Litt! ock School District Board of Directors FROM: ~irector of Facility Services THROUGH: ~orris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools -y,o 1..1r. Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer TITLE/SUBJECT: Excessing of LRSD Property Short Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcome: Population/Location: Budget Amount/Source of Budget: Manager: Duration: Long Range/Continuation: Other Agencies Involved: Expectations of District: eeded Staff: Comments: Recommendations: To excess property with intent of sale. To dispose of property not necessary for LRSD operations. To sell property to private individual. Forest Heights Middle School, University and Evergreen Streets. NIA Director of Facility Services Permanent Sale NIA Private individual (buyer) TBD. To sell property. NIA See below. Approval by Board. In March of 1983, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors excessed the property immediately adjacent and to the west of Forest Heights Junior High School. Since that action, two parcels of the property have been sold. One was sold in 1985 to the American Cancer Society, Arkansas Division, and one in 1995 to the Williamson Family, Limited, partnership. Of the total property-excess in 1983, the northern one-third is still available for sale. The Little Rock School District Administration has received an inquiry as to whether this property is available for sale. The property is as described on the attached resolution. It is requested that Board of Directors approve this updated resolution for the sale of the property and allow the administration to proceed to have the property appraised and receive offers for its possible sale. DE:cg:boardforestheightsprop Anachment 810 \\Y/ Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 ~o \u0026gt;\n,:o mm :!lo ~o 0~ m,-omz 3: 0 mm Zm ~o :n 0 0 z ~ 0z (/) 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: Northern most 1/2 of Lot 2, Forest Heights Middle School Property -- between University Avenue, Evergreen Street, the practice field and the grounds of Forest Heights Middle School, and the northern border of the southern 1/2 of lot 2. WHEREAS, said lands are hereby found to be surplus to the needs of the District and are, accordingly, no longer needed for school purposes and should be abandoned and sold\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas: 1. 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 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 or related facilities for school purposes of the District. President Secretary ADOPTED: _____ _ Date '54n Individual Approach to a World ef Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 TO: - FROM: --J~~~a.ton, Director of Facility Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent ~-Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Title/Subject: Right of way Dedication Deed: Williams Elementary School. Short Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcomes\nPopulation/Location: Budget Amount/ Source of Budget: Manager: Duration: Long Range/Continuation: Other Agencies Involved: Expectations of District: eeded Staff: Comments: Recommendations: Request by City of Little Rock for right of way adjacent to school. To grant to City property for a right of way. To meet City codes for public rights of way. Williams Elementary School. N/A Director of Facility Services Permanent transfer to City. /A City of little Rock Public Works . _, ~ Transfer required pursuant to construction. /A See below. Approval by Board. The City of Little Rock has requested that the Little Rock School District provide them with a right-of-way dedication deed for footage south of Evergreen Drive and adjacent to Williams Magnet School. This includes a 20-foot radial dedication at the comer of Evergreen and Bryant. Please see the attached Exhibits A and B. The purpose for the dedication is to allow the City to widen Evergreen, install sidewalks, and install and maintain public utilities. Assessment of the requested dedication indicates that granting it to the City would have no negative impact on the operation of Williams Magnet School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be permitted to grant this dedication deed to the City of Little Rock. DE:cg:boardwilliamsrightofway Attachment 81 0 \\X-'. 1arkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001\n.: .,, z \u0026gt;z (\"') ~ CJ) :n g z ~ 0z \"' CORPORATION DEDICATION DEED Know All Men By These Presents: That, Little Rock Public School District, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas and doing business under the laws of the State of Arkansas, for and in consideration of the benefits accruing to it and to the public generally, does hereby dedicate, give, and convey unto the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the purpose of a widening a public street, installing a public sidewalk, and installing and maintaining public utilities, and other public purposes, a strip of land owned by it, situated in Little Rock, Pulaski County, in the State of Arkansas, to-wit: EXHIBITS A and B To HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and unto its successors and assigns forever for the purpose of the public uses and benefit herein described, together with all and singular the tenements, appurtenances, and hereditaments thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Little Rock Public School District, a corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its Ex-officio, attested by its signature and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, all in accordance with and pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the said Little Rock Public School District on this ____ day of ______ , 2003. Corporate Seal Mark Milhollen, Ex-officio Date STATE OF ARKANSAS ) ) COUNTY OF PULASKI ) ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this ___ day of ______ , 2003, before me, a Notary Public, duly commissioned, qualified, and acting for said County and State, appeared in person the within-named Mark Milhollen being the Ex-officio Financial Secretary of the Little Rock School District, and who had been designated by Little Rock School District to execute the above instrument, to me personally well-known, who stated that he was the Ex-officio Financial Secretary for the said Little Rock School District and was duly authorized in his respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation and further stated and acknowledged that he had so signed, executed, and delivered said foregoing instrument for the consideration, uses, and purposes herein mentioned and set forth. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal as such Notary Public on this ____ day ______ , 2003. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ~..., 0\na, C: 8 ~ :n 8 z ~ 0z CJ) EXHIBIT A PREPARED: 7 /15/03 I Gcrnwoo1,G,,s 11 T -r Portion of cAdoo Lane closed I I 21 20 19 18 I J__I -L J__J 17 16 L 15 14 N 88 54'55' 1,/ 0.20' o S 0049,57, E -.-\"\",_1 -'-'----~-=-.::EVERGREEN _S_T_R--\"E=E_T ____ 24.89' ========J='r u=-=.N\":r'c 8'8\"'5\"'3\n,0\n-\n0:,-,' I,/~ = s 995300-\n-E ~=~= '07' E O' Description: Right-of-Woy Dedication 580.44' 580.50' N 33'48'31' E 35.51' NE COR., SE 1/ 4 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 SEC. 36, T-2-N, R-13-W Port of the NW1/4 SW1/4, Section 36, T-2-N, R-13-W, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the NE Corner of the SE1 / 4 NE1 / 4 NW1 / 4 SW1 / 4 of said Section 36\nthence N 88'54'55\" W, a distance of 59.43 feet to the SW Corner of Tract A, Glenwood Heights Addition filed for record in Plot Book 6, Page 7, said point being on the South Right-of-Woy line of Evergreen Street being the POINT OF BEGINNING\nthence N 88'54'55\" W along said Southerly Right-of-Woy line, o distance of 20.20 feet\nthence S 0049'57\" E along said Southerly Right-of-Woy line, a distance of 24.89 feet\nthence N 88'53'00\" W along said Southerly Right-of-Woy line, o distance of 580.44 feet\nthence S 00'03'07\" E, o distance of 5.00 feet\nthence S 88'53'00\" E, o distance of 580.50 feet\nthence N 33'48'31\" E, o distance of 35.51 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.073 Acres (3204 sq. ft.) more or less. 200 100 0 100 110674 on Oct. 11 part of Tract A' Heights Addition, al t of Glenwood 200 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 ,, 100' EXHIBIT B PREPARED: 7/15/03 17 T .. r GLENWOOD HEIGHTS 13 SUCCESS ADDITION 6 J A I I PorJlon of McAdoo I Lene closed by brdlnence #10674 on Oct. 14, 1957, being  pert jof Tract \"A\" of Plenwood Heigh s Addition, as ~ I I 15 5 \"' ~ Ll shown on pie t of lenwood Hei his. ~ EVERGREEN STREET NE COR., SE 1/4 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 SEC. 36, T-2-N, R-13-W Description: Right-of-Woy Dedication Portion of McAdoo lane closed by ordinance 110674 on Oct. 14, 1957, shown hereon as part of Lot 12, Block 5 of Success Addition. 10 Port of Lots 1 \u0026amp; 12, Block 5, Success Addition filed for record in Plot Book 1, Page 128 and ports of the Alley and McAdoo Lone closed by Ordinance No. 10674 on Oct. 14, 1957, City of Little Rock, Puloski County, Arkansas being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the NE Corner of Lot 1, Success Addition\nthence S 000500\" E along the East line of said Lot 1, a distance of 29.98 feet\nthence along a curve to the left having a Radius of 20.00 feet, on Arc Length of 31.39 feet and a Chord bearing and distance of N 45\"03'00\" W, a distance of 28.27 feet\nthence S 89\"59'00\" W, a distance of 285.49 feet to the West line of said Lot 12 (being the centerline of McAdoo Lone closed by Ordinance No. 10674 on Oct. 14, 1957)\nthence N 0003'55\" W along the West line of said Lot 12, a distance of 10.00 feet to the existing South Right-of-Woy line of Evergreen Street\nthence N 89\"59'00\" E along said South Right-of-Woy line, a distance of 305.46 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.072 Acres (3140 sq. ft.) more or less. 200 100 0 100 1- UJ UJ a: 1- (/) S 000500 E 29.98' 200 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 \" 100' G:\\03-141\\Survev\\03141.dwQ\n,:: .., z \u0026gt;z (\"') \u0026gt;..... Cl) :!: C \u0026gt; \"m-mc :!lo ~o 0~ m,- 0 mz 3::: C mm Zm -\u0026lt;c\n:n 8 z ~ 5 z C/) '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 TO: FROM: aton, Director of Facility Services THROUGH: is L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent r. Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Title/Subject: Right of way Dedication Deed: Wakefield Elementary School. Short Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcomes: Population/Location: Budget Amount/ Source of Budget: Manager: Duration: Long Range/Continuation: Other Agencies Involved: Expectations of District: eeded Staff: Comments: Recommendations: Request by City of Little Rock for right of way adjacent to school. To grant to city property for a right of way. To meet city codes for public rights of way. Wakefield Elementary School. NIA Director of Facility Services Permanent transfer to City. NIA City of little Rock Public Works Transfer required pursuant to construction. IA See below. Approval by Board. The City of Little Rock has requested that the Little Rock School District provide them with a right-of-way dedication deed for a strip of land along the south side of Westminister Drive and adjacent to the Wakefield Elementary School site. This includes a 20-foot radial dedication at the southeast corner of Westminister and Lancaster. Please see Exhibit A, attached. The purpose for the dedication is to convey title to a sewer-main extension upon its completion and connection to Little Rock Wastewater Utility's main line. Assessment of the requested dedication indicates that granting it to the City would have no negative impact on the operation of Wakefield Elementary School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be pern1itted to grant this dedication deed to the City of Little Rock. DEC:cg:boardwakefieldcttyseY.er Attachment 810 \\Y/. 1arkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 .0.., 0\na, C: 8 .m.... .?,=, z \u0026gt; % (\")\ne cn ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 cn z C\u0026gt; ~ ~ ~ en :\" 0 0 z ~ 5z cn CORPORATION DEDICATION DEED Know All Men By These Presents: That, Little Rock Public School District, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas and doing business under the laws of the State of Arkansas, for and in consideration of the benefits accruing to it and to the public generally, does hereby, dedicate, give and convey unto the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the purpose of a public street and the installation and maintenance of public utilities, and other public purposes, a strip of land owned by it, situated in Little Rock, Pulaski County, in the State of Arkansas, to-wit: EXHIBIT A To HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said City of Little Rock, Arkansas and unto its successors and assigns forever, for the purpose of the public uses and benefit herein described, together with all and singular the tenements, appurtenances and hereditaments thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Little Rock Public School District, a corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its Ex-officio, attested by its signature and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, all in accordance with and pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the said Little Rock Public School District on this ___ day of ______ , 20 __ . Corporate Seal STATE OF ARKANSAS ) ) COUNTY OF PULASKI ) ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this ___ day of ______ , 2003, before me, a Notary Public, duly commissioned, qualified, and acting for said County and State, appeared in person the within-named Mark D. Milhollen , being the Ex-officio Financial Secretary of Little Rock School District, who had been designated by Little Rock School District to execute the above instrument and who is to me personally well-known, and who stated that he was the Ex-officio Financial Secretary for the said Little Rock School District and was duly authorized in his respective capacity to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation and further stated and acknowledged that he had so signed, executed, and delivered said foregoing instrument for the consideration, uses, and purposes herein mentioned and set forth. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal as such Notary Public on this ____ day ______ , 2003. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:\n,: .., z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;,.... en :n 0 0 z ?\n0z en EXHIBIT A PART OF THE N1/2 SW1/4 SE1/4 OF SECTION 30, T-1-N, R-12-W, LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 49, WAKEFIELD VILLAGE NO. 3, SAID CORNER LYING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID N 1 /2 SW1 / 4 SE 1 / 4 AND THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LANCASTER ROAD\nTHENCE N03.03'19\"E ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 446.73 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING\nTHENCE CONTINUING N0303'19\"E, 24.76 FT. TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTMINISTER DRIVE\nTHENCE S8T37'01' E ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 553.50 FT. TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 36, WAKEFIELD VILLAGE NO. 2\nTHENCE SOJ 15'56\"W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 36, 5.00 FT.\nTHENCE N8737'07\"W ALONG A LINE 5.00 FT. SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTMINISTER DRIVE, 533.72 FT.\nTHENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 20.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, A CHORD BEARING ANO DISTANCE OF S4743'06\"W, 28.12 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2,851 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS. (BEARINGS BASED ON ARKANSAS STATE PLANE COORDINATES - NORTH ZONE) r - ~---- 1 WAKEFIELD VILLA.GE PlAT BK. 6, PG. 7~ 1/0. 3 Memorandum Date: August 28, 2003 To: Little Rock School District Board of Directors From: Qt::D-7 Paradis, Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management Throug{~. Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools Re: Second Reading - Revisions to Policy DGD: VISA Purchasing Card (Pro-Card) Title Revisions to Policy DGD: Visa Purchasing Card (Pro-Card) Summary: The Board of Education approved on second reading Policy DGD at their regular meeting on February 27, 2003. During the implementation of the purchasing card program, it has come to our attention that the District can benefit from the use of the card in some cases where the purchase amount exceeds $1,000. An example would be to pay the District's utility bills with the card. Attached is a copy of the Policy approved in 02/03 along with recommended changes in bold print. Objective: Allow the Procurement Department the flexibility to use the purchasing card for purchases over $1,000 upon written approval of the District's Chief Financial Officer. Expected Outcomes: We anticipate a reduction in administrative costs plus an mcrease in the rebate offered by VISA for these purchases. Population/Location: All schools and departments Budget Amount/Source of Budget: There will be no cost for implementing this change. Manager: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management 0 ~ 0 i CD C 8 -m-, :\"' C 0 z ~ 0 z en Duration: Change will take effect upon the approval of the Board and will continue as long as the purchasing card program is in use. Long Range: NI A Other Agencies Involved: None Expectations of District: Further streamline the District's purchasing process. Needed Staff: No additional staff required Comments: None Recommendation We request the Board of Education approve the proposed revision to Policy DGD: VISA Purchasing Card (Pro-Card) 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DGD PROCUREMENT VISA PURCHASING CARD (PRO-CARD) Schools and departments may apply to the Procurement Department for the issuance of Visa Purchasing Cards (Pro-Card) to authorized employees. The cards may be used for purchases of $1,000 and less within restricted limits established by the Procurement Department. All Pro-Cardholders must comply with the terms and conditions of the cardholder handbook and agreement approved by the Procurement Department. The card may also be used for purchases over $1,000 upon the recommendation of the Procurement Department and written approval of the Chief Financial Officer. The location Principal or Director will issue cards to approved individuals. ProCards are best assigned to individual staff members that make frequent, small dollar purchases. All charges are the liability of the District. Cross Reference: LRSD Pro-Card Handbook ,~.., g i a, c:: 8 m -t ~~ \u0026gt; :c ~ ,\n! O\no c::\noZ z C) 3\nU\u0026gt; m z -t :\"' 0 0 z ~ 0z U\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: August 28, 2003 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: Schoo I/Department Booker Arts Magnet Elementary School Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center GE microwave oven, valued at $75 .00, for use in the teacher's lounge 1994 issan Sentra XE, valued at $9,000.00, for instructional use in the Auto Tech Program 2000 Saturn LS2, valued at $14,919.26, for instructional use in the Auto Tech Program Donor Jeff and Cheryl Carson Nissan Motors General Motors Corporation It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. .?.=, z \u0026gt;z C\") ii! (J) To: From: Subject: Date: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement av~ Cheryl A. Carson , Principal, Booker Arts Magnet School Donation of Property June 3, 2003 Jeff and Cheryl Carson, 4115 Ridge Road, North Little Rock, AR 72116, wish to donate a General Electric microwave oven valued at $75.00 for use in the Teacher's Lounge. The model number on the microwave oven is JE 2800 001 , and the serial number is TZ926001 S. I recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with Little Rock School District policy. Thank you for your consideration of my recommendation . TO: FROM: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Michael Peters~rincipal Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center DATE: August 6, 2003 SUBJECT: DONATIONS Please accept the following vehicles donated to Metropolitans Auto Technical Program. These vehicles are to be used only as instructional items and will not be license or driven: A. B. 1994 Nissan Sentra XE Color - Blue ( 4) door Valued: 9,000.00 Donator: Nissan Motors, Memphis Tenn. 2000 Saturn LS2 Color - Black cherry ( 4) door Valued: $14,919.26 Donator: General Motors Corporation, Ypsilanti, Mi We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance with the policies, and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Metropolitan Career-Technical Center 7701 Scott Hamilton Drive  Little Rock, Arka nsas 72209  (501) 447-1200  Fax (501) 447-1201\n.: .., z z\u0026gt; (\") ~ Cl) DATE: TO: THROUGH: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET  LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 August 28, 2003 L~ Rock School District Board of Directors ~onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject 2003-2004 Operating Budget  Summary The proposed Operating Budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal year is presented for approval. ----- _. _ O_b....:j:c_ec_t_iv_e_s ______T_ o_irn_,p,_l_ement_a_n a_,p-\"p-_roved operating bud_g_e_t. _____  Expected Outcomes The District will operate under the approved budget.  Population/Location All schools and departments in the District.  Budget Amount/Source NIA  Manager Mark Milhollen  Duration July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004  Long Range/Continuation NIA  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District NIA Needed Staff NIA Comments See below.  Recommendatio-n ---~Ap~pro-val of the 2003-04 Operating Budget. The Board of Directors has received the proposed Operating Budget for the fiscal year 2003- 2004 under separate cover. It is recommended that the budget be approved as submitted. ?\u0026lt; n 5 U\u0026gt; z C\u0026gt; :x, m ~ ~ U\u0026gt; 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 August 28, 2003 Little Rock School District Board of Directors ~ M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY:~ark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes -~pulation/Locatio~ Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending July 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  Budget Amount/Source NI A  Manager Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services  Duration NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District NI A  Needed Staff NIA  Comments one  Recommendation Approval of the July 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 JULY 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % DRAFT 2 RECEIPTS % 2002/03 07/31/02 COLLECTED 2003/04 07/31/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 8,681,861 14.83% 57,547,800 9,574,108 16.64% DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 317,592 3.97% 10,100,000 308,857 3.06% 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 1,915 0.56% 380,000 3,923 1.03% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 24,322 8.84% 200,000 19,729 9.86% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 240,000 TOTAL 97,432,000 9,025,690 9.26% 98,607,800 9,906,617 10.05% REVENUE-COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 21 ,000 5,420 25.81% TOTAL 24,000 0 0.00% 21,000 5,420 25.81% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 53,226,139 REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 8,300,000 VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 10,000 0.75% 1,400,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 1,675,000 EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 68,340 25.00% 273,358 TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 3,875,562 INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 3,900,000 ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 920,337 POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 560,545 EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,245 AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 360,000 TOTAL 75,441,106 78,340 0.10% 74,776,187 0 0.00% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 1,350,000 TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 1,632,430 TOTAL 3,410,671 0 0.00% 3,752,430 0 0.00% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 9,104,030 5.16% 177,157,418 9,912,037 5.60% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 13,371 0.05% 24,075,790 19,048 0.08% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 4,000,000 8,169 0.20% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 24,689,351 TOTAL 54,198,923 13,371 0.02% 52,765,141 27,217 0.05% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 9,117,401 3.96% 229,922,559 9,939,253 4.32% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED EXPENDED % DRAFT 2 EXPENDED % 2002/03 07/31 /02 EXPENDED 2003/04 07/31 /03 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 1,452,954 1.44% 100,684,982 1,439,812 1.43% BENEFITS 24,838,361 641 ,866 2.58% 26,483,772 692,479 2.61% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 1,573,678 7.95% 19,719,297 1,454,502 7.38% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 231,783 2.78% 8,185,459 366,134 4.47% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 737 0.05% 1,5.75,580 357 0.02% OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 41,167 0.48% 8,384,567 26,373 0.31% DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 12,098,342 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176,189,538 3,942,185 2.24% 177,131,999 3,979,656 2.25% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 245,551 0.94% 26,056,193 526,781 2.02% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 191,713 4.82% 4,000,000 225,249 5.63% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 545,037 2.17% 24,689,351 113,654 0.46% TOTAL 55,194,668 982,300 1.78% 54,745,544 865,684 1.58% TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 4,924,486 2.13% 231,877,543 4,845,340 2.09% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 4,192,915 (1 ,954,984) 5,093,912 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; 0 649,695 676,510 1,578,177 2,720,112 OPERATING 8,675,891 13,719,497 9,052,274 14,959,236 TOTAL 9,325,586 14,396,007 10,630,451 17,679,348 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 07-31-03 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,519.02 77,519.02 CONTINGENCY 1,052,354.15 1,052,354.15 SUBTOTAL 1,163,156.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,163,156.07 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 7,849.25 24,953.12 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,652,764.76 1,143,207.09 10,485,398.03 7,024,159.64 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 0.00 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,964,674.82 332,163.49 389,855.19 2,242,656.14 RENOVATION PROJECTS 33, 168,642.55 1,592,043.11 10,719,979.29 20,856,620.15 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 127,353.49 535,927.73 1,671,738.02 SUBTOTAL 57,196,177.71 0.00 0.00 3,202,616.43 22,131,160.24 31,862,401.04 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 444,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 19,411,714.41 19,411,714.41 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST STATE OF ARK 469,063.03 469,063.03 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 61,801.78 7,350,578.67 SUBTOTAL 28,913,260.32 61,801.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 28,975,062.10 GRAND TOTAL IIZ 2Z2 :i9~ 10 6l 110l ZII 2.W2 J 202 !il6 ~~ 22 1~1 160 2~ 62 000 619 21 PROJECT CATEGORIES ADMINISTRATION NEW WORK PROJECTS SECURITY PROJECTS LIGHTING PROJECTS MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR RENOVATION PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS TOTAL PROJECT ALLOCATIONS THRU 07-31-03 586,846.55 35,357,280.16 265,814.17 4,853,535.57 11,429,705.52 53,351,543.00 11,735,611 .78 20,705,535.38 138,285,872.13 lN3WNMnorov 'IIX SDNIMV3H 'IX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2003 I EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE ' ENCUMBERED ! THRU 07-31-03 : THRU 07-31-03 1 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 I 889,772.32 : (485,325.77) 149,597.63 I I 7,849.25 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11,671,442.11 I 1,143,207.09 I 10,485,398.03 : 113,930.47 109,609.73 ' 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661 .38 i 791.385.63 I 3,455,350.67 1 I 4,218,294.40 I 332. 153.49 I 389,855.19 1 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 1,592,043.11 10,719,979.29 575,016.53 4,325,201 .40 4,500,374.61 ' 127,353.49 I 535,927.73 1 I I I I 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 I I 3,202,616.43 , 22,131 ,160.24 I I S\u0026gt;fllVW3ll DNISOl:l 'X ENDING ALLOCATION SUBTOTAL 07-31-03 561,893.43 1 24,953.12 28,333,120.52 7,024,159.64 223,540.20 42,273.97 4,853,535.57\n0.00 9,187,049.38 1 2,242,656.14 32,494,922.85 20,856,620.15 10,063,873.76 , I 1,671 ,738.02 20,705,535.38 85,717,935.71 j 52,567,936.42 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT - - SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND - - - - - FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2003 - - -- Fund Purchase Maturity Institution Interest Rate Type - _F'rincipal - Date Date - - - - Operating 06-09-03 12-08-03 Regions 1.090% Money Market -- _ ~0,000.00 Operating 07-19-03 01-19-04 Regions 0.945% lv!oney Market 20,000.00 - Operating 04-08-03 12-05-03 - Pulaski 1.290% Money Mark~ --~O ,Q00.00 Operating 07-23-03 TFN Bank of America 0.820% Repo Jl,225,000.00 - Operating 07-15-03 08-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.090% CD z.221,860.96 Operating (Payroll) 06-02-03 08-01-03 Bank of America 1.040% Treasury ~ills !.,5?5,264.8() - Operating (Payroll) 06-16-03 08-15-03 Bank of America 0.900% Treasury Bills 1,575,633.00 Total 18,447,758.76 Food Service 07-30-03 TFN Bank of America 0.860% Repo 1,350,000.00 Total - - 1,~50,000.00 Activity Fund 04-03-03 08-14-03 Bank of America 1.020% Tre~S~f)' Bills 801,966.49 - - Total 801,966.49 - - - - -- - Bond Account 03-10-03 09-08-03 Regions 1.190% CD - _ 100,000.90 - - Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Metropolitan 1.930% CD 1,000.~31.31 - - Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 2.250% CD 5, 116,?98.09 - 10-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks - Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 1.440% CD 10,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-29-03 01-29-04 Bancorp South 2.000% CD 2,()58,896.90 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Superior 2.250% CD - _2 ,500,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 11-14-03 Superior 1.900% CD _11,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 08-16-04 USBANK 1.420% CD _11,()00,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 07-15-03 09-02-03 USBANK 1.130% CD 5,00(),000.00 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 ~.000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 04-15-03 08-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.370% CD 3,035,911.61 Capital Projects Fund 09-17-02 09-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 2.200% CD 10,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 07-28-03 TFN Bank of America 0.880% Repo 8,000,000.00 Total 83,411,987.34 Deseg Plan Scholarship 06-11-03 12-04-03 Bank of America 0.920% Treasury Bills 664,995.48 Total _664,995.48 Rockefeller Scholarship : 06-24-03 01-15-04 Bank of America 0.760% Treasury Bi~s 250,909.40 Total '. 250,909.40\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_1083","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":["2003-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["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/1083"],"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.\nREC::IVED JUL 2 3 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting July 2003 n~  ::O i= ~ ...\ni:: Oz o\u0026gt;\na::O c-\u0026lt; m-., ::a C: -z\nan o-\u0026lt; .- i5 r-z ncn ~ I. 11. 111. 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 July 24, 2003 5:30 p.m. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education Program - New Partnerships Woodruff Elementary School - Janice Wilson Perfecting Community Development Corporation - Marchell Seawood Perfecting New Life Church - Rev. Kevin Allen C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) Please note: Speakers will not be allowed to make any disparaging or critical remarks about individuals or employees of the District. Critical comments or complaints are processed through the District's complaint procedures, which afford the individuals to whom comments or complaints are directed, the opportunity for response and due process. D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Desegregation Update/ Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Update: Mitchell \u0026amp; Rightsell E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update G. Human Resources Report: Recruitment \u0026amp; Selection of New Teachers (\")~ :,,.\n:o ,r.-...~_ ... !I: Oz Q),,\n:o\n:o c-\u0026lt; m-n\n:o C: -z\n:on o,.... -c\u0026lt;5 ,....z (\") U\u0026gt; ~ Regular Board Meeting July 24, 2003 Page2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MA TIERS: A. Minutes Regular Meeting - June 26, 2003 Special Meeting - July 2, 2003 B. Personnel Changes VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Grant Proposal: Advanced Placement Incentive Program B. Revised Strategic Plan C. Resolution: MSAP Grant D. 2002-03 SAT-9 Results VII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Request for Dedication Deed: Southwest Middle School B. Financial Report VIII. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION A. Proposal for Naming the Choral Music Department at Central High School IX. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions X. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XI. ADJOURNMENT c-,-., \n:o ~ ~ ... i: Oz o\u0026gt;\n:o\n:o c-\u0026lt; m-..\n:o C: -z\non 0 ... ,-15 ,- z ncn ~ .., ~ m C C: ~ ~ m ill r\u0026gt; Cc-,\n.,=l ... p:\nj \u0026gt;_mz mu, ~8 !j!I c: m \u0026gt;Z.... en I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Ill. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. CITIZENS COMMENTS 0. CTA / E. JOSHUA To: From: Through: Subject: Board of Directors Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 July 24, 2003 Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education Don Stewart, 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 school and business 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 partnership: Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting Community Development Corporation Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting New Life Church XI \u0026gt; mc3 IX\u0026gt; XI o-. \u0026gt;~ XI c-, Oo EE mE Ee IXIZ mt\"i ill~ 0z u, Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting New Life/Westside Church have joined together in partnership to support the families and students of Woodruff Elementary School. Perfecting New Life/Westside Church commits to the following activities:  Recruit volunteers for tutoring both during school and after school  Recruit volunteers for mentoring  Participate in \"fix up\" days at Woodruff  Collect school supplies and uniforms for students at Woodruff Woodruff Elementary School commits to the following activities:  Making the school available for community events  Providing student performances and artwork  Collaborating on and promoting appropriate neighborhood projects  Referring families in need to the church for needed social services\n,:, \u0026gt; mc3 CD\n,:, o .... \u0026gt;$!!\n,:,C') Co :I:\nc m\nc\nc C: CD Z mc\"i ~~ 0z en C: -co.c ~C') .m. zo\nc en =l .... C')~ :CC') m--\u0026lt; !\n=iii ~ Rl ::c c3 gt~ I= Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting New Life Community Development Corporation have joined together in partnership to support the families and students of Woodruff Elementary School. Perfecting New Life Community Development Corporation commits to the following activities:  Recruit volunteers for tutoring both during school and after school  Recruit volunteers for mentoring  Participate in \"fix up\" days at Woodruff  Sponsor a Community Day in the Woodruff neighborhood  Help Woodruff families with needed referrals to social service organizations  Collect school supplies and uniforms for students at Woodruff Woodruff Elementary School commits to the following activities:  Making the school available for community events  Providing student performances and artwork  Collaborating on and promoting appropriate neighborhood projects  Referring families in need to the CDC for needed social services\n,:, \u0026gt; mc3 a,\n,:, 0-4 \u0026gt;S!!\n,:,(\") Co ii::!:: m:1:: ii:: C: a,z ml'\n~~ 0z Cl) C: -co.c ~(\") .m. zo :=1I ::..\"..' (\")~ ::CC\") m-1 F o ,z\n,:,\n,c c:\nm :::c c3 ~~ F LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DATE: July 24, 2003 TO: FROM: Board of Director~ Donald M. Stew~erim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman ~ SUBJECT: July 2003 Construction Report, Bond Projects I am pleased to report that bids will be taken July 23rd on the addition to Southwest Middle School. I will give you an update on the results of the bidding at the Board meeting. The interior renovation of Baseline Elementary project was bid July 10 1h  The contract has been awarded to the low bidder, and construction will start soon. The project will be completed in July 2004. The drawings for the replacement school at Wakefield Elementary have been completed, and the bids for the construction will be received on July 29 1h  The new building will be completed during the summer of 2004. In addition to the attached information, Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services, will give an oral update at the Board meeting on the plan to renovate Mitchell and Rightsell. Please call me if you have any questions. My telephone number is 447-1146. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 ~ ::0 m c3 ~ ::r:: C: ~z ::0 m ~ C: ~ emn !X' \"D m ::0 ~z z ,m... !'\" .z... m ::o~ mc3,\u0026gt;...\no\u0026gt; .... C: C =1 0 ::0 en CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Baseline Renovation $953,520 Carver Parking lot $111,742 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Central Parking Student parking $174,000 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Otter Creek Parking Improvements $142,541 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Southwest Drainage/ street widening $250,000 Southwest New roof $690,000 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SUMMER/ FALL 2003 Facilitv Name Project Description Cost Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 t::st. c.\nompIet1on Date Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-03 Dec-05 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Jul-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Feb-04 Aug-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-04 Aug-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Aug-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jul-03 Nov-03 t::st. c.\nompletton Date Dec-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. ~ompteuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Mitchell Renovation $750,000 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Rightsell Renovation $660,000 Unknown Wilson Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Woodruff Parking addition $193,777 Unknown ~\n,:, m \"D 0 ~ ::c C: I: z\n,:, m g ill m V, !11\nl:l\n,:, is z z m I'\"' !'\" .z.... m\n,:,!l!l ~m,....\n,:,\u0026gt; ..... C: 0 a\n,:, V, =....\". Pl ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation Alternative Learning Ctr. I Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting I $82,QQQ I Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system I Bale Partial roof replacement I $269,587 Bale HVAC $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Booker Asbestos abatement I $10,900 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HV AC $215,570 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall Intercom Hall Security cameras $10,600 Est. Completion Date Mar-03 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Apr-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 p ~ m c3 ~ ::c C: ~ z ~ m ~ C: ~ m en ~ -\u0026lt; p:: ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Facility Name Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1 ,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units $300,000 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Asphalt walks The total $1 .8 million Walkway canopies is what has been Boiler replacement used so far on the Fencing projects listed Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Security cameras $36,300 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Stadium stands repair $235,000 Intercom $46,000 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Fire alarm $16,175 Asbestos abatement $253,412 Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Replace shop vent system $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 HVAC renovation $237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Parking lot $138,029 6 classroom addition $888,778 HVAC controls $210,000 Roof replacement $273,877 Exterior lights $10,784 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Move playground $17,000 Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Parking addition $111,742 t:st. t.\nompletIon 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 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 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 ~\nJl m ~ ~ ::c C: 'z=:\nJl m ~ C: ~ m \"' !'\" .z... m\nJl s! ~m,.\u0026gt;..\n,,\u0026gt; .... C: C =i i \"' :n .... m n ::c z: 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Facility Name Romine Romine SecurityfTransportation Southwest Southwest Student Assignment Tech Center Phase 1 Technology Upgrade Terry Terry Terry Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Washington Washington Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Williams Woodruff CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Descriotion Cost Asbestos abatement $10,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Bus cameras I $22,500 Asbestos abatement $28,138 1 Energy efficient lighting $168,719 l Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 1 Renovation $275,000 Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Energy efficient lighting I $73,850 , Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Media Center addition $704,932 I Security cameras $8,000 Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Demolition/Asbestos Abatement - $200,000 Security cameras I $7,900 Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Asbestos abatement I $182,241 Energy efficient lighting I $106,868 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Asbestos abatement $191,946 Intercom $7,100 Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Renovation $246,419 Est. Completion Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Auo-00 Jan-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Auo-02 ~ :,0 m i!! ~ ::c C: i z ~ ~ C: ~ m V, .!.II, m :,0 ~ z z ,m.. !\"' z m-:, o~ im!! ,\u0026gt;.. :,0,. -- 0C : a :,0 V, :,, P--l ::c z  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m MEMORANDUM I FACILITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJ: July 15, 2003 ool District Board of Directors Mitchell Elementary School and Rightsell Elementary School Projects We are just now beginning to plan our work on the Phase IV Bond Projects. By special request and circumstances we are beginning that process with Mitchell Elementary School and Rightsell Elementary School respectively. The bond projects at Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary Schools are relatively simple and entail classroom additions, restroom renovations, ADA adaptations, some landscape and sewer work, and some miscellaneous mechanical work, in addition to upgrading the buildings electrical capacity to sustain computer operations. In late 2002, we inspected both of these elementary schools. Environmental problems that we had been periodically correcting over a period of years, as they arose, seem to be getting more serious. As a result, we commissioned a study of both schools to determine what environmental projects might be necessary to make the schools a clean, habitable environment for their students, staff, and faculty. That study was completed at the end of calendar year 2002. In early 2003, we were able to detail the environmental scope and provide rough cost estimates for the price of these environmental upgrades. Most recently, we have hired an architectural firm, Morris and Associates, who are knowledgeable in both environmental and architectural work, to be our design firm on both of these schools. It is our intent to combine the bond projects that were approved under the millage bond vote, and the p ::c m ~ ::c C: ~z ::c m g i!=: rn !\"' .z.. m ::c~\nmg ,-\nc  ... C: C ~ 0 ::c u, :..n. Pl :z:c  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m environmental projects, which were a result of our study. Presently we are in the preliminary planning phases\nwe have met with the design architects and are beginning to detail the scientific scope of work. We will soon be meeting with the Campus Leadership Teams, principals, and staffs to receive their input regarding the bond projects. While a definitive schedule has not been established, it is our intent to do the design for these schools over the winter of 2003-2004, and hopefully have contracts advertised and ready for award in late spring 2004, so that we may begin work in the summer of that year for an estimated completion in the summer/fall of 2005. The environmental problems at both of these schools are primarily water and air quality related. We are capable of keeping up with any emergencies and can continue to provide a safe environment for the inhabitants of the school, however\nlong term solutions are deemed necessary at both of these fine old facilities. p\na m ~ :,: C: f\nz\na m l3 C: ~ m tJ\u0026gt; !\" ! m\na~\nmg ,. I'\"'\na\u0026gt; .... C: C =I 0\na tJ\u0026gt;\nn .... ~ :,: z  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Date: July 24, 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors From:@Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - July This is the forty-fifth 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 implementation of technology by participation in the technology committee(s). b) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. c) Participating with the Technology Committee. !II iii ~ zz ,m- =...\". ~ :i: z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Audit Report - July 2003 Page 2 of2 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. 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. 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 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. !..I.I, m ,a is z z p:! Current Projects:  New Network Little Rock School District Board of Directors Technology Update July 24, 2003 o All sites are now cut over to the new network. o Network training has begun. New training documents are now posted on the district web site.  Computers o Approximately 600 computers have been ordered for installation this summer. Computers have been installed at Hall, McClellan, Geyer Springs, and Franklin. Computers are scheduled to be installed this week at Central, Chicot, Parkview, and Rockefeller. Computers for Henderson will be installed August 4.  Training o Twenty-three LRSD teachers are enrolled in the UALR CyberTeacher program this summer. o Technology training will be provided during pre-school inservice week in using GradeQuick, Spectrum library system, and Safari media retrieval system. :\u0026lt; :a \u0026gt;0  C: !-IC z.... Zm ~ ~ Ch ::l m ~ .!X.,' m ~\"' zz m r- TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Education W Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools Screening interview procedures !.J,I, m ::0 z~ z p::! Human Resources Screening Interview Procedures July 2003 The Human Resources Department began the implementation of a revised teacher applicant screening process in the spring of 2003. The primary purpose for this process was to insure that Little Rock School District hires the best candidates for its teaching positions. Ways to accomplish this goal were to increase the applicant pool, to screen more candidates, and to involve more administrators in the process. The implementation of this process has several steps: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) Involvement of School Services last fall in a discussion about the process and their assistance this spring in identifying principals for the elementary screening interview teams. Involvement of Curriculum and Instruction last fall in helping to develop the Interview Handbook printed in March 2003. Involvement of Curriculum and Instruction as curriculum leaders from that division chaired the interview teams for subject area candidates at the secondary level. Each team developed its own questions whether it was elementary, math, science, social studies, English, business, or special education. In the screening interview process itself, candidates are required to do an impromptu writing sample from one of the various prompts developed. There is a rubric with which each candidate is scored. (This rubric is a modification of a previous rubric utilized in HR\nthe domains of PT AS have been included.) Information obtained from the interview, the writing sample, references on file, and other information from the application packet are utilized in arriving at a recommendation for each candidate. Mr. Robinson also conducts interviews, especially when an interview team is unavailable or if an out of town candidate is only in town for a few days. HR provides recommended candidates' names, phone numbers, certification/ licensure areas, degrees earned from colleges/universities, and samples of their responses regarding the teaching domains of PTAS from the interview in the information to the principals. Principals also have access to the applications room in our division where they may review applications for teachers, aides, and clerical applicants. A weekly computerized list of all certified applications is available for them to review in this room as well. Principals continue their interviews, selection, and recommendation for hiring through their appropriate supervisor in school services and then through the human resources department which forwards the names of those recommended for employment to the Board of Directors. !J:)\na ~ ~ 0 i !!l 0 s\nz Rationales for adding the screening step to the hiring process are: a) To offer a larger pool of candidates to our principals. b) To become more proactive in the interview process thus beginning the process earlier. c) To have a structured process that increases equity among our candidates by affording more interview opportunities. d) To provide principals with a viable list of candidates. e) To minimize any errors regarding certification/licensure or employability in hiring since all candidates must complete the initial paper screening through HR prior to being interviewed. f) HR views this as a service to the principals. As with any new process we have already discovered some procedures which through principals' input, we will be \"tweaking\" for next year. We believe that these ideas will make the process even smoother and enhance all components of the process. Some of those ideas are to: a) b) c) d) e) f) Have interview teams conduct screening interviews at the District's Job Fair. (We are also investigating the possibility of on-line research based screening interviews.) Include in the information provided to principals the number of years of teaching experience for each candidate. Include in the information provided to principals the grade levels the applicant has either been employed to teach or grades he/she student taught. Include both race and gender on the information provided to principals. Include all recommended candidates on one list. Communicate to candidates their need to submit their applications earlier and call for a screening interview. !.J,I, m :,0 !S zz I!! SUBJECT/ M/M *RECOM. LIST FOR HIRE Elementary A 1 1 B 2 1 Science/Math A 2 1 English A 1 1 B 0 0 Special Education A 0 0 B 0 0 Social Studies A 3 2 B 2 0 Business Education A 2 1 B 0 0 Total 13 7 INTERVIEW TEAM/ RECOMMEND HIRE DATA as of 7-18-03 M/F *RECOM. W/M *RECOM. W/F *RECOM. FOR HIRE FOR HIRE FOR HIRE 10 8 2 1 42 30 9 8 2 1 43 35 3 3 3 2 12 7 3 3 0 0 3 2 3 1 1 1 8 2 3 1 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 36 24 14 9 119 79 *Recommendation for hire total is based on vacancy documents or e-mailed recommendations for hire. 7/21/03 NVld :\u0026gt;1031VH1S 03SIA3\"tl a 1VSOdO\"tld1NVHOdV y \"S:JAS 1VNOl1:JO\"tl1SNI \"IA 13NNOS\"tl3d a S31nNIIII v S\"tl311Vlll 3NUOO\"tl \"/\\ TOTAL TOTAL# #APP. RECOM. HIRE 55 40 56 45 20 13 7 6 12 4 8 3 0 0 8 4 6 2 4 2 6 0 182 119 lNV\"tlO dVSIII :No11n10S3\"tl ::, TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Education ~Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with AC.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Personnel Changes Page 2 July 24, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Certified EmJ?IOl'.ees Barre, Frances 4 Yr. Old 8-19-91 5-19 Reason: Retired ClllCOT 7-1-03 4YROLD Batson, J eaneau Instr. Music 8-13-01 2-02 Reason: Accepted Another PARK.VIEW 6-24-03 TCH925 Position Blackwell, Willie AP Chemistry 8-13-97 6-11 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Bonds, Roselyn Elem II 8-1-02 1-02 Reason: Returning To School CLOV. ELEM. 8-2-03 TCH925 Brown, Yolonda Oral Comm. 1-21-03 1-01 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Butler-Green, Rachael Biology 8-24-93 2-02 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Chadwick, Ryan Art 8-21-00 6-04 Reason: Accepted Another MITCHELL 8-5-03 TCH925 Position Charles, Glenroy Math 1-21-03 6-12 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Davis, Mabel HomeEc. 8-24-87 2-17 Reason: Terminated CENTRAL 6-12-03 VOCl0 Dobbins, William English 12-17-02 4-12 Reason: Contract Ended PUL. HGTS. MID. 6-2-03 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 49288.00 28384.00 42524.00 27056.00 26546.00 28384.00 35377.00 43545.00 43667.00 40763.00 !=' 8.., .c.!., !\n:o men .,C....:.. en\n,,, OS m=- !\nI a, ~~ c-,:mZ j!:l men en~\n!I' en\n,,,\nS  z \"Cl~ C,\n:o z~ ~.... .... c5 \"CIZ ::O  or-\ng ~ enn \"f:!!I' !X'\n:o ~ Kl 0 e..n.. ~ m C, 0 ~ z Personnel Changes Page 3 July 24, 2003 NAME Finney, Jason Reason: Contract Ended Flynn, Laura Reason: Leaving City Gangluff, Tracey Reason: Leaving City Gay,Myla Reason: Accepted Another Position Glenn,Betty Reason: Retired Harris, Christopher Reason: Contract Ended Harrison, Lisa Reason: Personal Headley, Debbie Reason: Health Hopper, Beverly POSITION SCHOOL General Science MANN ElemV WILLIAMS Speech Pathology CLOY.MID. Science WASHINGTON ElemV CARVER English CLOY.MID. Elem III FULBRIGHT Voe. Music CLOY.MID. English Reason: Returning to School CENTRAL Jackson, Barbara Business Ed Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN START DATE END DATE 7-1-02 6-2-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 9-21-02 7-8-03 8-12-99 8-1-03 8-24-72 8-1-03 11-1-02 6-2-03 8-9-00 6-13-03 10-22-02 6-2-03 8-20-90 8-5-03 1-13-03 6-3-03 SALARY CLASS 4-04 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 62-11 SPE925 4-09 TCH925 5-20 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 1-06 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 4-19 TCH925 1-13 TCH950 ANNUAL SALARY 32595.00 35658.00 43680.00 37700.00 50788.00 30553.00 30630.00 31651.00 48389.00 37777.00 !=' 8 N .0.. !\n:o m \",.C.-.':. \"' ~ ~s m:- ~a:, \"'C: o!!! C_:, mz i gi m\"' \"-\u0026lt;'u~, I:. \"' \u0026lt; ~:- ,-z .., !!l C\u0026gt;\n:o ~~ z-\u0026lt; .... c5 \"DZ ~ f'! c3 ~ ~,-~. !II\n:o ~ Kl 0 \"...'. ~ m C\u0026gt; .0.,  z Personnel Changes Page 4 July 24, 2003 NAME Jackson, Christy Reason: Accepted Another Position Jackson, Susan Reason: Contract Ended Jarrett, Veronica Reason: Leaving City Johnson, Carolyn Reason: Contract Ended Larkin, Donna Reason: Contract Ended Lawson-Lee, Lynda Reason: Leaving City Lyon, Harley Reason: None Given Martin, Catherine Reason: Contract Ended Mays, Romonda Reason: Position Eliminated McCoy, Eddie Reason: Personal Moore, Garrick Reason: Contract Ended POSITION SCHOOL Mathematic PARK.VIEW Counselor FAIR Kindergarten CLOY.ELEM. Business Ed. START DATE END DATE 8-15-94 7-3-03 3-3-03 6-9-03 8-12-99 7-16-03 9-16-93 MABELV ALE MID. 6-3-03 Computer Literature 8-19-91 MABELV ALE MID. 6-2-03 Spanish I 8-7-02 DUNBAR 7-2-03 Counselor 7-29-02 PARK.VIEW 6-12-03 French I 1-21-03 CENTRAL 6-2-03 Voe. Home Ee. 8-2-00 CENTRAL 6-2-03 Elem IV 3-3-97 MITCHELL 7-24-03 Economics 11-25-02 CLOY.MID. 6-2-03 SALARY CLASS 5-10 TCH925 5-12 CNLlO 2-05 K925 4-04 TCH950 6-15 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 6-12 CNLlO 4-01 TCH925 1-03 TCH950 6-21 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 40099.00 42141.00 30936.00 32595.00 46608.00 27056.00 43545.00 30553.00 27567.00 53213.00 30553.00 !=' 8 6\" ' \"' ~ co :,0 m \"C': !:\n\"' ?\" m~,.s.. i:\n, a, ~~ c-,:mZ ::z:\"' ~\"' m\"' \"....' ~\"' :I: \"' ?\"\ns \u0026gt;z -.:i!!l C\u0026gt; :,0 ~~ Z-1 .... i5 -.:iz :,O  or-el~ cnn '/?~ !Jl :,0 ~ ~ C !!l ~ m C\u0026gt; n s\nz Personnel Changes Page 5 July 24, 2003 NAME Neikirk, Matthew Reason: None Given Niswonger, Etta Reason: Accepted Another Position Ross, Thomas Reason: Accepted Another Position Tate, Katrina Reason: Personal Shepherd, Laura Reason: Leaving City Voegele, Crystal Reason: Accepted Another Position Washington, Lapara Reason: Contract Ended Wooten, Russell Reason: Leaving City Autrey, Debora POSITION SCHOOL Elem II FULBRIGHT Earth Science DUNBAR English FAIR English SOUTHWEST 4 Yr. Old GEYER SPRINGS English DUNBAR English FAIR Special Ed. START DATE END DATE 8-12-98 6-19-03 8-13-01 7-1-03 8-13-97 6-2-03 8-13-01 7-18-03 8-13-98 7-15-03 1-1-99 6-25-03 12-18-02 6-2-03 8-13-01 PUL. HGTS. ELEM. 6-24-03 New Certified Eml!lo:rees ElemV 8-7-03 BRADY SALARY CLASS 1-04 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 3-07 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 1-07 4YROLD 2-05 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 2-03 SPE925 1-07 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 28588.00 28588.00 34305.00 27567.00 31651.00 30936.00 30553.00 28894.00 31651.00 !=' 8 N b \".~..'. \"' ::0 m u, C: !:\nu,\na,, ::ils m,.. ~a, ~~ ~~ ::cu, m== uu,, u,\n!i .... u, IC. u,\ni,,\ns  z -0~ C)\nc z~ ~.... .... ~ -0 z\nc  0 ,-\ng ~ u, 0 ~!I' !II\nc ~ kl 0 ~ ~ m C) 0 -0 z Personnel Changes Page 6 July 24, 2003 NAME Ball, Bethany Beals, Yolanda Burnworth, Brandi Carlisle, Holly Collins, Kimberly Doolittle, Heidi Harder, Mariah Headley, Debbie Higginbotham, David Hill, Stephanie Holl, Maria Humphries, Laura POSITION SCHOOL Elem II CARVER ElemV BRADY Elem II FRANKLIN Elem I WILLIAMS Music FRANKLIN Elem II FRANKLIN Elem/Drama BOOKER Music BASELINE Music STEPHENS 4 Yr. Old CHICOT ElemV WILLIAMS Kindergarten RIGHTSELL START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-08 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 4YROLD 1-06 TCH925 1-02 K925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 26546.00 27056.00 27056.00 35658.00 26546.00 27056.00 32672.00 26546.00 26546.00 30630.00 27056.00 !:I 8,., .0. , ! \"m' \".,C.-.': \"'\n,,, ~s m,.... !=? a, ~~ c_.:.mZ i g: m\"' .\"..' r.',i, :I:  \"'\n,,,~ \u0026gt;z \"'D!!l C\u0026gt;\"' ~~ .z..- \u0026lt; ~ \"'DZ ,O\u0026gt; or-c3 ~ U,C') '1!,!I\u0026gt; !D \"~' i:l 0 !!l ~ m C\u0026gt; n \"'D ~ z Personnel Changes Page 7 July 24, 2003 NAME Johnston, Margaret Khoury, Cynthia Loyd, April Moore, Allison Spencer, Joel Thomas, Sommer Barnes, Barbara Busbea, Patricia POSITION SCHOOL Kindergarten MEADOW CLIFF Elem ill BRADY Elem II STEPHENS Counselor BRADY Elem IV CHICOT Elem I BOOKER START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 1-02 K925 1-01 TCH925 4-06 TCH925 4-03 CNL925 1-02 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 Promotion Certified Employees Director 7-28-03 75-20 DIV. EXCEPT CHILD. ADC12 Coor. Reading 7-14-03 62-12 EARLY CHILD ADC12 ANNUAL SALARY 27056.00 26546.00 34637.00 31574.00 27056.00 26546.00 84240.00 1500.00 EDU 601.00 CAR 57144.00 annual 55315.00 prorated !==' 8.., .b., E co ::D m (/) C: !:j (/) ?- ~ ~ 9a, (/) C: o!!1 .c...: Zm :c (/) ~(/) m\"' .(../. )~ (/) I:. (/) .,.,.\u0026lt;... :,,.z .,,!!l C\u0026gt; ::D ~~ z--\u0026lt; .... \u0026lt;5\ng f\nor- ~~ (/)C') \",-\"\". ' !X' ::D ~ Kl C !!l ~ m C\u0026gt; .n,, \u0026gt; z Personnel Changes Page 8 July 24, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Eml!lorees Allen, Carol Child Nutrition 9-14-01 1-03 Reason: None Given HALL 6-30-03 FSH5 Brown, William Maintenance 2-24-75 50-20 Reason: Retired FACILITY SERV. 6-30-03 AN12 Bryant, Dale Custodian 9-16-02 1-02 Reason: Personal GIBBS 7-10-03 CUS928 Carr, Susie Child Nutrition 4-13-87 5-16 Reason: Retired MITCHELL 6-30-03 FSH6 Cooper, Diedre Instr. Aide 8-24-00 1-03 Reason: Position Elim. PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-2-03 INA925 Deal, Keith Instr. Aide 9-28-00 1-03 Reason: Position Elim. PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-2-03 INA925 Feurig, Janet Occupational Therapy 8-9-00 60-15 Reason: Leaving City SPECIAL ED. 7-15-03 AN925 Goad, Lena Parent Coor. 1-22-03 1-02 Reason: Position Elim. BASELINE 6-4-03 INSTR. Gordon, Eura Child Nutrition 3-7-88 4-15 Reason: Retired MCCLELLAN 6-16-03 FSH575 Grant, Curtis Child Nutrition 8-28-02 1-02 Reason: Health METRO. 6-30-03 FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 7368.00 39936.00 10737.00 9283.00 11635.00 11635.00 46368.00 11720.00 8854.00 7340.00 !=' 8.., .c.!.:,, E co\n%1 m u, C,..:. ..... u,\ni,, ~ :S m,... !=? a, ~~ c:Z -,m jg: mu, ~~ 1:!\" u,\ni,,\ns .,..._,~z C)\n%1 z~ ~..... ..... c5 -oz i3 ~ c3~ ,~...~. !D\n%1 ~ gi C .u...,. .~.... m C) .n.., \u0026gt; z Personnel Changes Page 9 July 24, 2003 NAME Johnson, Claude Reason: Health Merritt, Augusta Reason: None Given Merritt, Reginald Reason: Position Elim. Osborne, Linda Reason: Reduction In Force Smith. Jeny Reason: Position Elim. Renaud, Nan Reason: Retired Roberts, Kathleen Reason: Position Elim. Strong, Yolanda Reason: Position Elim. Tanner, Gail Reason: Position Elim. Vester, Courtney Reason: Personal Withers, Myrtle Reason: Position Elim. POSITION SCHOOL Clerical PUL .. HGTS. MID. Bookkeeper FACILITY SERV. Vio Specialist START DATE END DATE 9-27-95 6-2-03 8-20-02 7-15-03 10-8-98 PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-6-03 Nurse 1-24-03 HALL 6-2-03 Security Officer 8-21-00 SAFETY \u0026amp; SEC. 6-4-03 Data Processor 8-21-78 Comp. Info. Serv. 6-30-03 Instr. Aide 8-15-90 PUPILSERV. 6-2-03 Instr. Aide 8-11-93 PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-2-03 Clerical 8-9-82 VJPS 6-2-03 Clerical 1-9-90 VIPS 6-10-03 Clerical 10-30-00 VIPS 6-10-03 SALARY CLASS 39-14 CLKl0 49-08 AN12 41-20 ANl0 1-07 NURSES 37-20 ANlO 60-20 AN12 1-10 INA925 1-01 INA925 35-12 CLK925 40-08 CLKll 38-20 CLK105 ANNUAL SALARY 24048.00 27096.00 30528.00 31651.00 27096.00 53832.00 14067.00 10577.00 20100.00 20712.00 27912.00 !=' 8 c\"' \"\" ~... co\nl0 m C/l .,C.-.: C/l\n,,, ~~ !=?a, C/lc: o!!! ~~ jg: mU\u0026gt; C/l ~ ... C/l I:  C/l\n,,,\ns\n\u0026gt;z -0 ~ C)\nl0 ~:=s z--\u0026lt; ... c5 \"OZ ~~ ~~ C/lC') ~!\" !D\nl0 ~ kl C .C./.l ~ m C) n ~ z Personnel Changes Page 10 July 24, 2003 NAME Young, Nicole Reason: Leaving City Miles, Michael Stewart, Marlon POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition BASELINE START DATE END DATE 10-11-99 5-30-03 SALARY CLASS 1-05 FSH5 New Non-Certified Employees Team Leader FACILITY SERV. Custodian HALL 6-23-03 6-9-03 44-06 MAINT. 1-01 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 7424.00 21984.00 13399.00 DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: RE: Background LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 24, 2003 Board of Education - / Dr. Don Stewart, Interim Superintenden~ Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development ~~ Grant Proposal - Advanced Placement Incentive Program The U. S. Department of Education released a request for proposals for the Advanced Placement Incentive (API) Grant program. The purpose of the program is designed to increase the successful participation of low-income students in pre-advanced placement and advanced placement courses and tests. By supporting increased access to and participation in pre-advanced and advanced placement courses and tests, the program provides greater opportunities for low-income students to achieve to high standards in English, mathematics, science, and other core subjects. Two LRSD high schools, Hall and McClellan, were selected to participate in the API grant program based on their students' eligibility for free-or-reduced lunch (42% and 50% of their enrollments, respectively) and low rate of participation in Pre-AP and AP courses compared to other District high schools. The four highest-poverty (and low performing) LRSD middle schools (Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale and Southwest) were also chosen to participate in the program. In 2002- 2003, 84% of Southwest students, 78% of Cloverdale, 68% of Mabelvale and 71% Henderson students were eligible for free or reduced lunch. The API proposal includes five broad goals that articulate the major \"systems improvements\" that will be brought about as a result of this initiative. The major goals include: Goal 1 - Leadership Development: To strengthen the abilities of school-based instructional leaders to provide support to classroom teachers in designing and delivering rigorous, high quality pre-AP and AP English, math and science classes. Goal 2 - Professional Development: To further develop the pedagogical skills and content knowledge of middle and high school teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses in English, math, and science achievement and performance. Goal 3 - Curriculum Development: To support the development and implementation of a Pre-AP and English language arts curriculum that prepares middle and high school students for success in English AP courses. Goal 4 - Student Support: To provide students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, with a full range of support services to increase their enrollment and success in PreAP and AP courses. 8 i \"\" E co\na m ~ !:\nu, .!.I,I z \u0026gt;z C, \u0026gt;.... u, Goal 5 - Parent Involvement: To enhance the awareness of middle and high school students' parents of the requirements of postsecondary education and the resources available to effectively plan for this goal. The professional development initiative will be supported by three lead teachers, (English, math, and science) who will work intensely with Pre-AP and AP teachers in the six target schools over the three-year period. Grant funds will be used to support teacher participation in both on-site and off-site training activities sponsored by The College Board, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock: Advanced Placement Teacher Development Center and AVID (Advanced Via Individual Determination). The LRSD will collaborate with Metis Associates, Inc. on the implementation of a rigorous research and evaluation plan to assess the effectiveness of project activities and their impact on the target population of participating middle and high school students, teachers and parents. The grant was submitted on July 3, 2003 in order to meet the July 3, 2003 submission deadline. Fiscal Impact The total three-year award request is $1,989,216. The requested funds are primarily targeted for the implementation of the intensive ongoing professional development plan and to establish partnerships with outside organizations with the expertise needed to support program implementation. Local match is not required. Recommendation The staff requests approval for the submission of this grant. .!.I,' z z\u0026gt; 0 \u0026gt;,... \"' DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: RE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 24, 2003 Board of Education Dr. Don Stewart, Interim Superintenden~ Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development~ Revised Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District Strategic Plan was originally adopted in 1996 and updated in 1998. On January 27-29, 2003, a 30 member Strategic Planning Team composed of parents, community members, teachers, students, Board members, and school administrators came together to review and update the plan. The team arrived at consensus in identifying common beliefs, creating a mission for the school system, setting parameters and developing objectives and far-reaching strategies for accomplishing the mission. For each of the strategies identified by the Planning Team, an Action Team was formed to develop plans for implementation. On June 19-20, 2003, the Strategic Planning Team reconvened to receive the Action Team's recommended implementation plans and prepare the 2003-2008 draft strategic plan for submission to the Board of Education. The draft Little Rock School District Strategic Plan is submitted under separate cover. It is recommended that the Board approve the 2003-2008 Little Rock Strategic Plan. .!.l,' z \u0026gt; l\"5 ~ \"'\n,,, nS :z\n= \"'en \u0026lt;\"\u0026gt;n :Z::z: og ,~... \"...'. 1c::: :m\n,a lH~ om m\"' ~ Date: To: From: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Education Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent Re: Resolution The attached resolution is presented for the Board's review and adoption, to assure compliance with the federally funded MSAP grant as it relates to the District's receiving release from federal court supervision. The resolution pledges our commitment to improving educational opportunities for students attending Cloverdale and Mabelvale Middle Schools, and Fair and McClellan High Schools, and provides assurance that the achievement of Unitary Status will in no way jeopardize the original intent of the Grant. ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 Cl) z C) Rl f\n~ Cl) 8 .~.. ! U)\n,o m Cl) C: !:\nCl) .!D., z z\u0026gt; (\") \u0026gt; rC/) :,,,, nS :z:\n= \"\"'n\"' :Z::z: og s'\nr-r- Cl) 1:m C:\n,o ~~ om m\"'\n!l RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District has applied for continued funding of a grant for the Southwest Little Rock Magnet Schools (Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Fair and McClellan) for the 2003-04 school year\nand WHEREAS, the purpose of the grant is to improve educational opportunities and reduce racial isolation in those schools. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Little Rock School District Board of Education that any grant funds received for the Southwest Little Rock Magnet Schools will be used exclusively for the benefit of those schools and not for other purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands on behalf of the Little Rock School District Board of Education on this 24th day of July, 2003. Larry Berkley, Secretary Judy Magness, President .!,I,' ,z.. z 0 \u0026gt;..... \"'\n\u0026gt; o:S ::c\n= \"O'\"o' ::C::c 08 .~.... ...,..,. 11::m C\n,o ~~ om m\"'\n!I Date: To: From: Through: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Directors Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintenden~ 2002-2003 SAT-9 Results We have received the results of the 2002-03 Stanford Achievement Tests, ninth edition, for grades 5, 7, and 10. District wide results show that students in grades five and seven improved on all subtests, while students in grade ten stayed at approximately the same level. Fifth grade students showed the most improvement by scoring nine percentile points higher than last year's fifth graders on the complete battery. Seventh grade students scored eight percentile points higher than last year's seventh graders, while tenth grade students scored two percentile points higher than last year's tenth graders. A review and report of these results will be provided at the July 24 board meeting. ?\u0026lt; m .3.1,:. 5\nm ::c ~ z~ C) en 1D' nS ::,:\n= en en On ::C::,: 08 ~ ..... ,.... en 31:.m c::\nJD ~~ cm men\n!l '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" July 24, 2003 TO: ~ittleR ock School District Board of Directors FROM: H.Eat~ Director of Facility Services THROUG nald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Request for Dedication Deed: Southwest Middle School The City of Little Rock has requested that the Little Rock School District grant a 20-footradius dedication deed for the installation and maintenance of public utilities on the southeast comer of 32nd and South Bryant Streets. See Exhibit A, attached. Assessment of this dedication indicates that it would have no negative impact on the operation of Southwest Middle School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be permitted to enter into this agreement. DEC:cg Attachment 810 W. Markham  Little Rocle, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 ,. ?\u0026lt; m I: ~  m m :::c ~\n,o z C') en ~::::c\nS= en en nn :::C:::c 08 ~ ... r- en 1:m C::\n,o ~~ om m Ul ~ CORPORATION DEDICATION DEED Know All Men By These Presents: That, Little Rock Public School District, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas and doing business under the laws of the State of Arkansas, for and in consideration of the benefits accruing to it and to the public generally, does hereby, dedicate, give and convey unto the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the purpose of a public street and the installation and maintenance of public utilities, and other public purposes, a strip of land owned by it, situated in Little Rock, Pulaski County, in the State of Arkansas, to-wit: EXHIBIT A To HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said City of Little Rock, Arkansas and unto its successors and assigns forever, for the purpose of the public uses and benefit herein described, together with all and singular the tenements, appurtenances and hereditaments thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Little Rock Public School District, a corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its Ex-officio, attested by its signature and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, all in accordance with and pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the said Little Rock Public School District on this ___ day of ______ , 20 __ . Corporate Seal ?\u0026lt; m .!.I,:  ~ ::c ! cz! ! Cl en\n,\u0026gt; nS ::c\n= en en nn ::C::c 08 ~ .... r- en !l:m C:\no ~~ c,m men\n!I STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) COUNTY OF PULASKI) ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this __ day of ____ , 20 __ , before me, a Notary Public duly commissioned, qualified and acting for said County and State, appeared in person the within named ----------and ---------- being the Ex-officio Financial Secretary and ___________ respectively of Little Rock School District, and who had been designated by Little Rock School District to execute the above instrument, to me personally well-known, who stated that they were the Ex-officio Financial Secretary and for the said Little Rock School District, and were duly authorized in their respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they had so signed, executed and delivered said foregoing instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes herein mentioned and set forth. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal as such Notary Public on this __ day _____ , 20 _. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ?\u0026lt; m .3.1,:  m m ::c ~ ~ C) en .,.. nS ::c\n= en en no ::C::,: 08 ~ .... ,... en 31:m c::\n,\n, ~~ cmmen ~ EXHIBIT A 20' RADIAL R/ W DEDICATION PART OF THE SW1 / 4 NE1/4 OF SECTION 13, T-1-N, R-13-W, LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUND', ARKANSAS MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SW1/4 NE1 / 4, SECTION 13\nTHENCE S88\"23'E, 35.00 FT. TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SOUTH BRYANT STREET\nTHENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 1268.40 FT. TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF W. 32ND STREET AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING\nTHENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 20.00 FT.\nTHENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 20.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT TO A POINT ON THE SAID EAST LINE OF SOUTH BRYANT STREET\nTHENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE 20.00 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 86 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS. / -------......_ ' \\ -+-\u0026gt; ~ ~ !.- -+-\u0026gt; V) -+-\u0026gt; ~ 1j ~ !.- ~ ..c: -+-\u0026gt; ~ 0 V) i\n' ~ c:, (0 '- W. 32nd Street (60' R/ W) ~,..2..0.... _00_' _________________________ ~ ~O, 'f\u0026gt;o ~ ?\u0026lt; m I: ~ m :c ! i!! z C) Cl\u0026gt;\n,\u0026gt; nS :c\n= n\"'\"o' :c :c 08 ~ .... ,-Cl\u0026gt; Em c\na ~~ om m\"'\n!l DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 July 24, 2003 Board of Directors PREPARED BY: Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools ~Mark D. Milhollen, Manager Financial Services SUBJECT: Financial Reports The final stages of the financial report are still in process, and therefore, will not appear on the printed agenda for the month of July. However, should the reports be completed, they will be available at the meeting. ?\u0026lt; m I:: \"D 5 -m\u0026lt; m :c !\no z C') u, .,,. nS :c\n= u, u, nn :oc g:c ~ ... ,.. u, !::m C:\no ~~ cm mu, ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: July 24, 2003 To: Boao~f dir ectors From: Mar acey, Assistant Superintendent Sec Sc.s Sadie Mitchell, J\\ssociate Superintendent _ s.o1 Services Through: ~nald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent Re: Proposal for Naming the Choral Music Department at Central High School I am attaching a proposal for naming the choral music department at Central High School as the Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department. Nancy Rousseau, principal of Central High School, completed the nomination process as requested by students and members of the Central High School community. This action would serve as a monument to the superior reputation of Mr. Brack and for his twenty-seven years of service to the Central High School Music Department. As required by District policy FF:Naming of Facilities, you will also find attached a copy of a letter of acceptance for this honor from Mr. Brack. The administration recommends approval of this proposal. ?\u0026lt; m I: ~  m m ::r:: !\n!! z Cl \"' NAMING AND RENAMING FACILITIES I propose that the Choral Music Department (Designation of building and/or location) 1500 South Park Little Rock, AR 72202 (Address) be named for Robert L. Brack I. Biographical Data: Mr. Brack was born on June 8, 1944. II. The Nominee's significant contribution is: Uhile at Central, Mr. Brack was none less than superior in all performances \u0026amp; in all aspects of his teaching career. He has left a lasting impression on hun reds of students and the faculty \u0026amp; staff at Central High School. Ill. I believe the facility should be named for this person because: We feel that the naming of the ehoral Department in Mr. Brack's honor would be both a monument to him and a motivation to all future singers to live up to the standards that Mr. Brack set for them. The current choral music students would like the department to be names, \"The Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department\". 5-28-03 (Signature) (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. ?'\u0026lt; m .i,i,: 5 m-\u0026lt; m ::,: ~\no z C\u0026gt; Cl) PROPOSAL TO HONOR MR. ROBERT L. BRACK Little Rock Central High School Concert Choir and Madrigal Singers May 1, 2003 4ss,\ns \u0026amp;l,i,l' S.11/\\ ~ --~,t:- Fc,'7', .S- 'I,.(/r O , .,.~ltf'~ ~le,, ,\u0026gt;:, V~,_ ~~ \u0026lt;Oo\n, , To whom it may concern: ~r ot/Jl ' In view of the fact that Mr. Robert L. Brack, Choral Music Director at Cen~h High, will be completing his final year in the Little Rock School District this May, the choral music students under his direction would like to propose to have the choral music department at LR Central named in his honor. While at Central, Mr. Brack has never received anything less than superior in all performances and in all aspects of his teaching career. He has left a lasting impression on hundreds of students, all of the faculty he has worked with, and the excellent tradition that Central High has and will always live up to. The current choral music students feel that having this department named, \"The Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department\" would be both a monument to him and a motivation to all future singers to live up to the reputation that Mr. Brack left behind in his twenty-seven years of service to the school. We, the 2002-2003 choral music students thank you for this consideration. This proposal is very important to us and to Central High. Respectfully yours, ~~~~ ~ ~~ Kate Goodson and Tempest Williams LRCH Concert Choir and Madrigal Singers Members RECIUVD MAY I 02118 ?\u0026lt; m .i.i,:  m m ::,: ~ \"z' C') en Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent Little Rock School District Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Dr. Lacey and Board of Directors: 14217 Longtree Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 June 6, 2003 I have experienced so many great opportunities and successes at Central High School during my tenure as Choral Music Director. Being named \"Teacher of the Year\" by the Central High School faculty this year was a tremendous honor. It is the greatest honor when students recognize a teacher for providing quality instruction that makes a difference in their lives. I am overwhelmed by a sense of pride and with much gratitude that my students and principal, Nancy Rousseau desire to have the Choral Music Department officially named in my honor. Of all honors, this one has to be the greatest. It is with much gratitude, humility, pride, and dignity that I give my approval for the Choral Music Department at Central High School to be named in my honor: \"The Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department\". Thanks to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors for giving me the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of many students for the past thirty-four years. Sincerely, ~~h ?'\u0026lt; m .i.i,,:  mm ::c !j'\n! i Cl Cl)\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_1058","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":["2003-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","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/1058"],"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 JI ft~ 2 ,1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGRE3ATiON MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting June 2003 C')\"tl ,.,\u0026gt; .... ,\nm_.o. _.31: Oz o\u0026gt;\no\no c-\u0026lt; m..,\no C: -z\no C') ,o..- i\u0026lt;5 r-z C')(JJ ~ \"ti g m C C: ,~..\nm ~ \"ti\no c:m a, c3 ri ~ C')~ o\no\ni:::m 3m1:g0 :!'iz (JJ =I 0z :2\no m c3 ~ (JJ C') 0 !I: !I: C: z c': )\u0026gt; ~ z u.\no m !I:~ m\no 31:::\u0026gt;\u0026lt; a, (JJ m..,\no\no \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;O !I: ~ ~ 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 June 26, 2003 5:30 p.m. 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: IV. A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education Program - New Partnerships Mitchell Academy - Darian Smith \u0026amp; Wanda Varady Rivercity Gymnastics - Ola Russenburger C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) Please note: Speakers will not be allowed to make any disparaging or critical remarks about individuals or employees of the District. Critical comments or complaints are processed through the District's complaint procedures, which afford the individuals to whom comments or complaints are directed, the opportunity for response and due process) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Desegregation Update / Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update (\")\"0 \u0026gt;. \"m' ~c -1!1: Oz o\u0026gt; ~~ m.., -\"'Cz: ,:,n ,o--i\u0026lt;5 r-z ncn F \"0 g m 0 C: ~\nm ~ \"c0:m\"' t11 c3 ~~ n~ o,:,\ni:m\ni:\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; ~8 -\u0026lt;Z cn::::i 0z :c: \"m' c3 ~ \"' n 0 !I: !I: C z c,.'i (! z u. Regular Board Meeting June 26, 2003 Page2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Special Meeting- 05-21-03 Regular Meeting - 05-22-03 Special Meeting - 05-30-03 Special Meeting - 06-09-03 Special Meeting - 06-12-03 B. Personnel Changes C. Board Meeting Dates, 2003-04 School Year VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION A. Second Reading: Anti-Bullying Policy VII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Refinancing of May 2000 Bond Issue B. Proposed Budget for Annual School Election C. Request for Easement - Henderson Middle School D. Donations of Property E. Financial Report VIII. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions IX. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS X. ADJOURNMENT :- n~ ,..\u0026gt;. ...\n...\u0026lt;m._.I. --1!1: Oz o\u0026gt; el :31 m..,\n\u0026lt;IC: -z\n11n o,...- -c\u0026lt;5 r-z n v, \u0026gt; F :c ~ ~ ::!l ~ n 0 !I: !I: C: z ('\n)\u0026gt; ~ z er. I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL 111. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITION PUBLIC COMMENTS IV. REPORTS/ COMMUNICA I ION~ A. REMARKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 June 26, 2003 Board of Directors Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education ~y-l T. Kenneth James, 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 school and business 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 partnership: Mitchell Academy and Rivercity Gymnastics ~ a, c cc mm zrn --tm r\u0026gt;nC. ) me c:\n-.i zC !C~ mm =S- 0 a, C g .m.. .C., ~ m :c:\n,:, m c3 ::!l rn (\") 0 !C !C C: z c'i )\u0026gt; ~ z V. ' PARTNER-IN-EDUCATION CONTRACT  Rlverc:lty Gymnatlcs and Mitchell Academy for the Creative Arts Mltchell AGademy, along with It staff and students, are pleased to ent..- Into a partnership with Rlv-,clty Oymnatics. As part of our wllll119n to IMlcome Involved, all partl commit to tlM following actlvltl= RIVERCITY OYMNASTI~  Agree to hotat th.a Juat Say No Gymnastics Team one  month for an hour-long lesson at their faclttty at 5310 South Shackleford Road.  WIii provide a achohl,.hlp for one outstanding student to take gymnastics cl-- WIMtkly.  WIit provide volunteers to speak to studnts during ca,..r w .. k at Mltchell Academy.  WIii provide consultation .. rv1c to the spDnllOf' of the school gym111aStlca tm and eheerteadlna aponaor. MITCHELL ACADEMY  Student groups wtH perform ts request9d for Rlveraide Oymnastles whenever poMlble.  Students wlll make birthday cards for staff membors of 11.IYerskle Gymnastics.  Staff wll Include Rlverclty staff in 11ctlvttles and \"nts takl\"f ~ at Mitchell AcINftly. fl . . [ LA ::tA Darian Smith, ........ clpal,___.,/LJ........o,'\"\"/4\"'.\"4'\"/\"'\u0026gt;\"t+O-+-V--~)l..-/_,_ _____ ____ Waneta Varady, Counsetor__\u0026amp;'b. ~4 ~ - - R-nbu-r, R ... ,clty otCl Vi~ .. d4te0 - Janll --- ,,,.._..,,-4-~ 0i.J~ : 71-::JL.r'\\ I - 1,,J '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: June 26, 2003 TO: ~~Directors FROM: ~mald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman-!3b SUBJECT: June 2003 Construction Report, Bond Projects The summer always presents challenges to the District's construction program. There are construction events that must take place while most of our schools are without students, i.e. power and air-conditioning being off for extended periods of time, asbestos abatement, etc. But to my knowledge, we have never had to tear down and rebuild a new building and have it ready for students in August, which is the case at Mabelvale Middle School. The part of the building that houses the administration, media center and cafeteria has been taken down and is being rebuilt. The cafeteria, the largest of the three, is scheduled to be ready for occupancy in August. The other two areas are to be completed later this fall. Construction for the renovation of Dunbar Middle School has begun. The same is true for the following additions: Williams Elementary School, J. A. Fair High School, McClellan High School, and the addition and renovation of Pulaski Heights Middle and Elementary Schools. Construction has started for Phase II of the Technology Center and the renovation of Metropolitan. An architect has been hired for the renovation of Rightsell Elementary and Mitchell Elementary. These will be bid in 2004. Please call me at 44 7-1146 if you need additional information. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 .!.I,' m ::0 8 zz rm- :n -\u0026lt; ~ ::,: z 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 26, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Carver Parking lot $111,742 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Central Parking Student parking $174,000 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391 ,871 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Forest Park Diagonal parking $111 ,742 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 McClellan . Irrigation System $14,750 McClellan Classroom Addition I $2,155,622 I Otter Creek 1 Parking Improvements I $142,541 Procurement Fire alarm I $25,000 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. MS 'Renovation $3,755,041 Southwest Drainage / street widening $250,000 Southwest New roof $690,000 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Ctr / Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 , Williams I Renovation I $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 I Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 ' Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SUMMER/ FALL 2003 Facility Name Project Description Cost Baseline Renovation $953,520 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 I Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Est. Completion Date Jun-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Dec-05 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Jul-03 Aug-03 Jun-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Feb-04 Aug-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-04 Aug-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Aug-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jul-03 Nov-03 t:.st. c..\nomp1et1on Date Dec-03 Dec-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. c..\nomp1et1on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Mitchell Renovation Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Rightsell Renovation Unknown Wilson Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Woodruff ParkinQ addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 26, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Bale HVAC $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 I Facilities Service Interior renovation I $84,672 Fair Park I HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 I Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 I Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 I J. A. Fair 1 Energy efficient lighting $277,594 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair ISecurity cameras $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright reelace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,QQQ I Franklin Renovation I $2,511,736 -Gibbs 1E nergy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs , Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall 1 Energy efficient lighting $42,931 I Hall 1 Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall Intercom Hall Security cameras $10,600 Est. completion Date Mar-03 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Apr-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 2 .!J.:,I m \"' ~ z z .m... ~ 8 .~....~... m !I: en m m..... z G\"l =\" ..... p:J ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Facility Name Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 26, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units $300,000 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Asphalt walks The total $1.8 million Walkway canopies is what has been Boiler replacement used so far on the Fencing projects listed Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Security cameras $36,300 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Stadium stands repair $235,000 ,Intercom $46,000 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Fire alarm $16,175 I Asbestos abatement $253,412 I Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Replace shop vent system $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 'Asbestos abatement $13,000 HVAC renovation I $237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Asbestos abatement $10,000 , Parking lot $138,029 16 classroom addition $888,778 HVAC controls $210,000 1 Roof replacement $273,877 Exterior lights $10,784 I HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 I Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Move playground $17,000 I Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Parking addition $111,742 t:.st. L\nompIet1on 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 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 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 AuQ-02 3 Facility Name Romine Romine Security/Transportation Southwest Southwest Student Assignment Tech Center Phase 1 Technology Upgrade Terry Terry Terry Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Washington Washington Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Williams Woodruff CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD JUNE 26, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Description Cost Asbestos abatement $10,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Bus cameras $22,500 Asbestos abatement $28,138 Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Renovation $275,000 Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Media Center addition $704,932 Security cameras $8,000 Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Security cameras $7,900 Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Asbestos abatement $182,241 Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Asbestos abatement $191,946 Intercom $7,100 Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Energy efficient lighting I $122,719 Renovation I $246,419 Est. Completion Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Aug-00 Jan-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Auq-02 4 .!J.,I m ~ z z ,m-rn z.... m\na i!jli\n~\n:\nac -\u0026lt;O ~\na en =...\". ~ ::,: z 0 8 -\u0026lt; .C. , 0 ~ m Date: June 26, 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors From: sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - June This is the forty-fourth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one 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 implementation of technology by participation in the technology committee(s). b) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. c) Participating with the Technology Committee. !J) .., m ~ :z: :z: .m.... '_.\", ~ ::c :z: 0  -\u0026lt; .C., 0 ~ m Audit Report - June 2003 Page 2 of 2 Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Book.keeper \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 book.keepers on book.keeping 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 information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. 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) 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 internal controls. 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. Current Projects:  New Network Little Rock School District Board of Directors Technology Update June 26, 2003 o All sites are now cut over to the new network. o Network training has begun. New training documents are now posted on the district web site.  Computers o Approximately 600 computers have been ordered for installation this summer. Schools receiving computers are Central, Hall, McClellan, Henderson, Chicot, Rockefeller, Geyer Springs, and Franklin.  Training o Twenty-three LRSD teachers are enrolled in the UALR CyberTeacher program this summer. o Computer workshops are being offered for LRSD teachers at the IRC and McDermott Elementary. ,\u0026gt;., .\u0026lt;.. z,. ~i C:. ,- Cl) ,- m -\u0026lt;\n:c z~ c,m c3 Cl) r- n -\u0026lt; \u0026gt;~ ~a, me: .. .,!z!? 8~ c,CI\u0026gt; a,C os ZCI\u0026gt; ~o Cl\u0026gt;Z Cl) C: m TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 26, 2003 Board of Education ().$verly Williams, Director, Human Resources / T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with AC.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. !D ~ :c 8 r, m- ~.... 0z a, C: g !!l f\u0026gt; ~ u, m :I:: zm -\n\u0026lt; :c m z C m ~ 0 z \u0026gt; s \u0026gt;  Z\u0026gt; -\u0026lt;c il:i:t:: C: . ,- u, ,-m -\u0026lt;\n:a ~~ ~ rn r-e'\u0026gt; -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; s,- ::0 a, m c: ..,!!?  Z ~ a,C cz su, ~o u, z u, C: m Personnel Changes Page 2 June 26, 2003 NAME Beggs, Melinda Reason: Retired Bell, Colette Reason: Leaving City Bell, Linda Reason: Retired Blackwell, Candace Reason: Personal Boggs, Natalie Reason: Leaving City Brown, Edrnonda Reason: None Given Brown, Robert Reason: Accepted Another Position Burnworth, Brandi Reason: Contract Ended POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE New Certified Employees SALARY CLASS Resignationff ermination Certified Employees English 1-21-80 4-19 CENTRAL 6-2-03 TCH925 Elem V 8-13-98 2-05 BRADY 6-2-03 TCH925 American History 8-20-90 6-20 HALL 6-2-03 TCH925 Elem I 8-14-95 4-08 ROCKEFELLER 6-2-03 TCH925 Special Ed 8-13-01 62-08 WESTERN HILLS 6-2-03 SPE925 Pupil Personnel 8-16-00 1-03 BRADY 6-2-03 TCH925 Instr. Music 8-9-00 4-11 PARKVIEW 6-2-03 TCH925 Elem II 9-9-02 1-01 FRANKLIN 6-2-02 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 48339.00 30936.00 51713.00 36679.00 39936.00 27567.00 39742.00 26546.00 Personnel Changes !D V) Page 3 n June 26, 2003 ::c 0 0,.. . m,... mn... . 0z POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL a, C: NAME SCHOOL SALARY 0 END DATE CLASS C\u0026gt; .m... f\u0026gt; ~ Brack, Robert Music 8-25-69 6-21 53213.00 V) m !I:: Reason: Retired CENTRAL 6-2-03 TCH925 mz -:\u0026lt; ::c m z Butts, Mary Kindergarten 10-31-83 6-21 53213.00 0 m Reason: Retired MEADOWCLIFF 6-2-03 K.925 :,0 V) 0 z Carlisle, Holly ElemV 1-6-03 1-01 26546.00 Reason: Contract Ended PUL. HGTS. ELEM. 6-2-03 TCH925 Carver, Tiffany Day Treatment 8-21-02 4-05 33616.00 f\u0026gt; Reason: Contract Ended ROMINE 6-2-03 TCH925 ..., 8 ~.....~... mll: Chandler, April Special Ed. 11-27-02 4-05 33616.00 v, m .m... Reason: Contract Ended STEPHENS 6-30-03 SPE925 z C\u0026gt; Chapman, Susan Special Ed. 5-6-87 68-20 68352.00 Reason: Retired SPECIAL ED 6-17-03 ADCll Clegg, Pamela Elem II 9-3-02 4-01 30553.00 Reason: Contract Ended ROMINE 6-2-03 TCH925   \u0026lt;  :- Z  Dennis, Beverly American History 8-24-92 1-12 36756.00 --\u0026lt;o ~!I:: C:  Reason: Personal MANN 5-27-03 TCH925 ,... V) ,-m -\u0026lt; :,0 zS C\u0026gt; n Ernst, Melody Elem ill 2-17-03 2-07 32978.00\n,.g.. ~ Reason: Contract Ended OTTERCREEK 6-2-03 TCH925 n -\u0026lt; Estill, Dana Counselor 7-30-03 6-10 41503.00 Reason: None Given PARKVIEW 6-12-03 CNLl0 s Field, Marie Elem IV 1-6-03 1-12 36756.00 .,.. :- :,0 a, Reason: Contract Ended WILSON 6-2-03 TCH925 m c: .. .,!z! ! ~ a, 0 os Zv, ~o VIZ V) C: m Personnel Changes Page 4 June 26, 2003 NAME Glenn, Randall Reason: Accepted Another Position Golston, Mary Reason: Retired Goss, Cynthia Reason: Leaving City Grissom, Yolanda Reason: Accepted Another Position Gwatney, Brandy Reason: Accepted Another Position Harder, Mariah Reason: Contract Ended Hicks, Hazel Reason: Retired Higginbotham, David Reason: Contract Ended Hill, Stephanie Reason: Contract Ended Hoffman, Georgia Reason: Retired POSITION SCHOOL Pupil Personnel SPECIAL ED. ElemV ROMlNE 4 Yr Old MCDERMOTT Data Processing HENDERSON Kindergarten TERRY Learning Skills BOOKER ElemV WAKEFIELD Music CHICOT 4Yr Old CHICOT Elem I TERRY START DATE END DATE 3-22-82 6-10-03 6-17-87 6-2-03 8-12-99 6-2-03 8-5-99 6-30-03 8-13-97 6-2-03 1-13-03 6-2-03 8-27-58 6-30-03 3-10-03 6-2-03 2-24-03 6-2-03 1-23-67 6-2-03 SALARY CLASS 68-18 ADCllX 6-21 TCH925 1-12 4YROLD 1-05 TCH950 3-07 K925 1-01 TCH925 4-19 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 4YROLD 4-19 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 64392.00 53213.00 36756.00 29609.00 34305.00 26546.00 48389.00 26546.00 26546.00 48389.00 Personnel Changes !l' Page 5 U\u0026gt; (\") :c June 26, 2003 0 0 r-mr- m (\") -\u0026lt; 0z POSITION a, START DATE SALARY ANNUAL C: 0 NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY C\u0026gt; m -\u0026lt; f) ~ U\u0026gt; Holeman, Eleanor Voe. Business 1-22-85 6-21 53213.00 m\ni::: m Reason: Retired CENTRAL 6-12-03 VOC105 z -\n\u0026lt; :c m z Humphries, Laura Kindergarten 1-6-03 1-01 26546.00 0 m :a Reason: Contract Ended RIGHTSELL 6-2-03 K925 U\u0026gt; 0 z Hurd, Ann Reading 9-1-66 6-21 53213.00 Reason: Reitred GIBBS 6-2-03 CED925 Hutson, Angie Coor. Career Ed. 7-29-02 4-11 39742.00 f) ..., Reason: Accepted Another MCCLELLAN 6-12-03 VOCl0 8 ~6 Position -\u0026lt;,.. m\nI: u, m m -\u0026lt; James, Emogene Reading 8-30-65 6-21 53213.00 z C\u0026gt; Reason: Retired MCDERMOTT 6-2-03 CED925 Johnson, Geraldine Counselor 8-25-69 6-21 53213.00 Reason: Retired KING 6-2-03 CNL925 Johnston, Margaret Kindergarten 8-29-02 1-01 26546.00  \u0026lt; Reason: Contract Ended MEADOW CLIFF 6-2-03 K925  :- Z  -\u0026lt; 0 ~11= C: U) Joiwall, Patricia Pupil Personnel 8-12-99 4-04 32595.00 Fm ~~ Reason: None Given GIBBS 6-2-03 TCH925 C\u0026gt; (\") c3 rn r- n Kaffka, Carol Earth Science 8-22-77 5-20 50788.00 -\u0026lt; Reason: Retired PUL. HGTS. MID. 6-2-03 TCH925 Killingsworth, Patricia Math Coor. 8-18-80 6-21 53213.00 Reason: Retired MATH 6-12-03 TCH105 s  :- ~ a, m c: Lehnoff, Denna ElemV 8-25-69 4-19 48389.00 .. .,!:z! ! srn Reason: Retired BOOKER 6-2-03 TCH925 oU\u0026gt; a,O os Zu, ~o U) z U\u0026gt; C: m Personnel Changes Page 6 June 26, 2003 NAME Lester, Rebecca Reason: None Given Manning, Tina Reason: None Given Matheny, June Reason: Retired Matlock, Nancy Reason: Retired Mays, Hazel Reason: Accepted Another Position Mathis, Melvia Reason: Retired Mitchell, Nancy Reason: Retired Moore, Allison Reason: Contract Ended Moore, Tikisha Reason: None Given Morgan, Keisha Reason: Contract Ended Morgan, Treva Reason: Contract Ended POSITION SCHOOL Elem ill BASELINE Biology PARK.VIEW Elem II PUL. HGTS. EL.. G\u0026amp;T CIDCOT English HENDERSON Science ROCKEFELLER Special Ed. GIBBS Counselor BRADY Elem II CARVER Special Ed DODD Elem II START DATE END DATE 8-9-00 6-2-03 8-13-01 6-2-03 8-27-74 6-2-03 8-24-87 6-2-03 8-13-97 4-17-03 8-20-90 6-2-03 8-21-73 6-2-03 8-26-02 6-2-03 8-13-97 8-5-03 2-3-03 6-2-03 9-11-02 MABELV ALE EL. 6-2-03 SALARY CLASS 1-03 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 6-21 TCH925 3-18 G\u0026amp;T925 6-08 TCH925 1-14 TCH925 6-21 SPE925 4-02 CNL925 3-09 TCH925 2-05 SPE925 6-05 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 27567.00 27567.00 53213.00 46015.00 39461.00 38798.00 53213.00 31064.00 36347.00 30936.00 36398.00 Personnel Changes !Jl Page 7 \"n' ::c June 26, 2003 0 ,0.. . m,... mn... . i5 z POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL CD C C NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY C, .m... 0 ~ Neal, Jamie Kindergarten 8-23-76 6-21 53213.00 \"m' :I: m Reason: Retired PUL. HGTS. EL. 6-2-03 K925 z 7' ::c m z Norman,Ann Music 8-25-75 3-18 46015.00 C m :,0 Reason: Retired FRANKLIN 6-2-03 TCH925 \"0 ' z Oxford, Robyn Spanish I 8-7-02 1-01 26546.00 Reason: None Given MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Pettis, Ashawn Elem IV 8-21-02 1-02 27056.00 fl Reason: Contract Ended ROMINE 6-2-03 TCH925 \"8' .~..:.r.\n.: m3: Price, Patricia Director-Early Child 9-10-73 75-20 84240.00 cnm .m... Reason: Retired EARLY CHILD 6-30-03 ADC12 z G) Ramsey, Kathleen Learning Skills 8-22-85 3-18 46015.00 Reason: Retired SCIENCE 6-12-03 TCHI05 Rollins, Helen Nurse 8-20-90 1-15 39818.00 Reason: Retired FRANKLIN 6-2-03 NURSES \u0026gt; s \u0026gt;  Z\u0026gt; --\u0026lt;c Ruska, Stacy Eleml 8-15-01 1-04 28588.00 ~~ ~~ Reason: Leaving City MITCHELL 8-1-03 TCH925 ~~ ~n Scott, Deborah ElemV 2-13-03 5-14 44183.00 ~,... rn 0 Reason: Contract Ended WASHINGTON 6-2-03 TCH925 -\u0026lt; Self, Elaine Elem I 8-22-88 4-18 46889.00 Reason: Retired BASELINE 6-2-03 TCH925 s \u0026gt;:- Self, Jennifer Physics 8-15-94 2-09 35020.00 ~CD me Reason: Leaving City CENTRAL 8-1-03 TCH925 .. .,!z! ! 8 rn o\"' CDC os Zu, c~ni5z \"C ' m Personnel Changes Page 8 June 26, 2003 NAME Selvidge, Connie Reason: Personal Shanks, Beth Reason: Reitred Sheppard, Karina Reason: Leaving City Shelly, Monica Reason: Contract Ended Spears, Marsha Reason: Contract Ended Spencer, Joel Reason: Contract Ended Suber, Kendra Reason: Accepted Another Position Standley, John Reason: Accepted Another Position Swanigan, Carrie Reason: Contract Ended Taylor, Laurie Reason: Accepted Another Position POSITION SCHOOL Spanish I MCCLELLAN Elem IV TERRY Kindergarten MEADOW CLIFF Special Ed STEPHENS Kindergarten CLOVERDALE EL. Elem IV CHICOT Elemill GIBBS Social Studies MCCLELLAN Elem I BASELINE ElemV BRADY START DATE END DATE 8-15-94 6-2-03 8-20-90 6-4-03 8-7-02 6-2-03 10-7-02 6-30-03 8-20-02 6-30-03 1-13-03 6-2-03 8-9-02 6-11-03 8-14-95 6-2-03 1-6-03 6-2-03 8-7-02 6-2-03 SALARY CLASS 4-12 TCH925 3-18 TCH925 1-06 K925 1-02 SPE925 1-01 K925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-15 TCHlO 1-01 TCH925 4-12 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 40763.00 46015.00 30630.00 27056.00 26546.00 26546.00 26546.00 39818.00 26546.00 40763.00 Personnel Changes ?I Page 9 \"C\"\u0026gt;' June 26, 2003 ::c 0 ,0.. . ,m... m .C.\".\u0026gt;. 0z POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL a, C: 0 NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY C) .m... fl ~ Terry, Lashay Elem II 10-17-02 1-01 26546.00 \"m' ll: Reason: Contract Ended DODD 6-2-03 TCH925 m z 7' ::c zm Thompson, Sandra Elem II 8-20-79 3-18 46015.00 0 m\nc Reason: Retired MCDERMOTT 6-2-03 TCH925 \"0 ' z Tuck, Patricia Learning Skills 7-23-02 4-12 40763.00 Reason: Leaving City FAIR 6-12-03 TCH107 Van Brunt, Debra Special Ed. 12-3-02 2-12 38083.00 fl N Reason: Contract Ended ROCKEFELLER 6-2-03 SPE925 8 .~...: ,.: mll: Walls, Colleen Pupil Personnel 8-21-73 6-21 53213.00 u,m .m... Reason: Retired STEPHENS 6-2-03 TCH925 z C, Walsmith, James Voe. Music 8-7-02 4-01 30553.00 Reason: None Given MANN 6-2-03 TCH925 Washington, Charrisa Counselor 8-13-01 6-11 42524.00 Reason: Leaving City GIBBS 6-11-03 CNL925 \"\u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026gt;,... Z\u0026gt; --\u0026lt;o West, Angela ElemN 8-13-98 5-10 40099.00 i ~ C:\"' Reason: Personal MABELV ALE EL. 6-30-03 TCH925 ~\na ~s C) C\"\u0026gt; Whitlow, Mary English 8-12-96 1-14 38798.00 2,.!..: rn 0 Reason: Retired HENDERSON 6-2-03 TCH925 -\u0026lt; Williamson, Mychelle Elem II 8-9-00 4-05 33616.00 Reason: Leaving City RIGHTSELL 7-31-03 TCH925 s \u0026gt;,... Willis, Vora Elem I 1-6-03 1-05 29609.00\n., a, m c: Reason: Contract Ended STEPHENS 6-30-03 TCH925 .. .,!z!? srn c,Ch a,O os Zu, o_o- U\u0026gt;Z \"C': m Personnel Changes Page 10 June 26, 2003 NAME Wilson-Gulley, Alicia Reason: Leaving City Wilson, Tracey Reason: Accepted Another Position Wilson, Vivian Reason: Contract Ended Wren,Beth Reason: Contract Ended Wroten, Murthene Reason: Retired Yeager, Judith Reason: Retired Brown, Lela Currin, Emmitt POSITION SCHOOL Elem I RIGHTSELL Elem IV ROMINE Music BRADY DeafEd. BALE Elem Tutor FAIR PARK Reading BOOKER START DATE END DATE 8-13-01 7-31-03 8-9-00 6-9-03 9-3-02 6-2-03 1-6-03 6-2-03 2-6-90 6-2-03 8-24-81 6-2-03 SALARY CLASS 4-05 TCH925 2-05 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-01 SPE925 4-19 TCH925 6-21 TCH925 Additional Years Probationary Status Teacher ALC New Non-Certified Employees Custodian 3-31-03 1-01 HALL CUS925 ANNUAL SALARY 33616.00 30936.00 27056.00 26546.00 48389.00 53213.00 4624.23 annual 1105.79 prorated Personnel Changes !XI Page 11 U) (\") June 26, 2003 :r 0 0 I'\"\" m I'\"\" m (\") ..... 5z POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL CD C C NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY C') m..... !\"' ~ Lynch, Christine Custodian 5-5-03 1-01 5164.50 U) m :I: BRADY CUS925 annual m z -:\u0026lt; 561.36 :r m z prorated 0 m\no U) 0z Perkins, J arnes Custodian 5-5-03 1-01 10329.00 WATSON CUS928 annual 1122.72 prorated !\"' Piggee, Johnnie Custodian 5-13-03 1-01 10329.00 ..., 8 FOREST HGTS. CUS928 annual .g....6... m!!:: 785.90 u,m m..... prorated z C') Resignationffermination Non-Certified Emplovees Ackers, Michale Custodian 8-22-02 1-01 10329.00 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Reason: Terminated CENTRAL 5-13-03 CUS928 \u0026gt;:- Z  - o ibjl:: Ashe, Palestine Child Nutrition 3-7-88 14-10 15586.00 ~m !:c~ Reason: Retired CLOVERDALE MID. 6-30-03 FSMGRS ~n\n:g rn I'\"\" Avery,Lakyesha Custodian 8-9-02 1-01 10329.00 n -\u0026lt; Reason: None Given HENDERSON 4-8-03 CUS928 Ball, Barbara Clerical 8-22-74 39-20 28764.00 Reason: Retired JEFFERSO 7-1-03 CLKlO s \u0026gt; :-\n., CD Bibbs, Cynthia 1-04 me Instr. Aide 9-13-82 12163.00 .. .,!!z. ! Reason: Personal ROMINE 6-5-03 1NA185 srn oUl CDC iS o_!!o.! UlZ U) C m Personnel Changes Page 12 June 26, 2003 NAME Bishop, Billy Reason: Abandonment Brumfield, Frank Reason: Retired Burch, Claire Reason: Retired Clark, Linda Reason: Personal Diemen, Sharon Reason: Abandonment Fells, Corinthis Reason: None Given Fentry, Kimberly Reason: Leaving City Gipson, Rickey Reason: None Given Givens, Gwendolyn Reason: Personal Halliburton, Willie Reason: Terminated Hines, Ann Reason: Abandonment POSITION SCHOOL Custodian FOREST PARK Security Officer IR.C Isntr. Aide CARVER Child Nutrition FORESTHGTS Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 8-9-02 4-25-03 9-16-91 6-30-03 8-22-94 6-2-03 9-10-01 5-21-03 2-3-00 CHILD NUTRITION 5-14-03 Security Officer 3-23-94 METROPOLITAN 5-28-03 Instr. Aide 8-30-94 FULBRIGHT 6-2-03 Custodian 12-9-02 TERRY 5-7-03 Instr. Aide 1-17-89 WILSON 6-2-03 Security Officer 11-16-87 FOREST HGTS. 5-24-03 Child Nutrition 10-14-02 MCCLELLAN 5-6-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS925 36-20 SOFR12 1-04 INA185 1-02 FSH5 1-04 FSH5 36-18 SOFR9 1-02 INA185 1-01 CUS12 1-04 INA185 36-17 SOFR9 1-01 FSHS ANNUAL SALARY 10329.00 23763.00 12163.00 7340.00 7396.00 17431.00 11106.00 13399.00 12163.00 16831.00 7312.00 Personnel Changes !:D Page 13 u, (\") June 26, 2003 ::c 0 ,0- - ,m-- m .(.\".). 6 z POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL a, C: C NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY C) .m... fl m \u0026gt; Hinnant, Gayla Child Nutrition 10-24-02 4-01 6042.00 u, m :I: Reason: Abandonment FAIR PARK 2-12-02 FSH425 m z 7' :m:c z Hope, Barbara Secretary 8-7-78 39-20 28764.00 C m\n,:, Reason: Retired HALL 6-10-03 CLKl0 u, 0 z Houston, Jacqueline Child Nutrition 8-30-02 3-01 5687.00 Reason: Abandonment MABELV ALE EL. 5-23-03 FSH4 Jackson, Bobby Custodian 9-9-02 1-01 10329.00 fl Reason: Health WATSON 1-21-03 CUS928 \"8' .~....~... m!I:: James, Geneva Child Nutrition 2-28-80 1-17 7760.00 u, m .m... Reason: Retired HALL 6-2-03 FSH5 z C) Johnson, Arthur ROTC 8-15-85 65-20 62496.00 Reason: Retired PARK.VIEW 6-30-03 AN12 Johnson, Gary Custodian 9-16-02 1-01 10329.00 Reason: Terminated CENTRAL 6-6-03 CUS928 \"\u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026gt; :- z:,. --\u0026lt;c Marshall, Elnora Custodian 1-11-01 1-02 10737.00 i1ii 3C C: . Reason: Retired CENTRAL 6-2-03 CUS928 ,-- u, ,--m \u0026lt;\n,:, zS C) (\") Maxwell, Azzie Child Nutrition 8-20-97 1-17 7760.00\ng rn ,-- Reason: Personal PARK.VIEW 6-2-03 FSH5 0 \u0026lt; McCLinton, Carlton Instr. Aide 10-14-02 1-10 14067.00 Reason: Personal KING 5-1-03 INA925 s :,.:- Moore, Emmogene HS Liaison 4-23-98 51-06 27096.00\n., a, me: Reason: Rif HIPPY 6-30-03 ADN12 ..,!!?  z gm c,U\u0026gt; a, C os Zu, ~o U\u0026gt; z u, C: m Personnel Changes Page 14 June 26, 2003 NAME Morgan, Verna Reason: Abandonment Nooner, Zora Reason: Retired Opitz, Sarah Reason: None Given Pickard, Jimmie Reason: Retired Piggee, Billy Reason: Health Porter, Ebony Reason: Abandonment Ragland, Calvin Reason: Termination POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition ALC Child Nutrition CENTRAL Secretary SECURITY Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK START DATE END DATE 1-24-03 5-8-03 9-12-90 6-2-03 7-14-00 6-4-03 1-29-96 5-30-03 Bus Driver 2-26-88 TRANSPORTATION 5-30-03 Child Nutrition ALC Custodian DODD 4-24-03 5-20-03 8-13-97 6-11-03 Redix, Stephen Reason: Terminated Clerical 11-6-00 39-12 Roper, Annette Reason: RIF Roy, Alan Reason: Terminated Shead, Marian Reason: Retired CLOVERDALE EL. 5-27-03 HS Liaison HIPPY Custodian WESTERN HILLS Hippy Supervision HIPPY 8-17-87 6-30-03 7-8-98 5-28-03 8-22-86 6-30-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 1-10 FSH5 38-20 CLKl0 2-05 FSMGRS 3-11 BUSDRV 3-01 FSH4 1-06 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 7312.00 7564.00 27912.00 12195.00 14553.00 5687.00 16204.00 22656.00 CLKl0 51-16 ADN12 1-06 CUS925 54-20 ADN12 36516.00 12481.00 45000.00 Personnel Changes Page 15 June 26, 2003 POSITION START DATE NAME SCHOOL END DATE Smith, Jennifer Instr. Aide 10-7-02 Reason: Personal MEADOWCLJFF 6-3-03 Stephens, Ivan Instr. Aide 2-11-03 Reason: Accepted Another WAKEFIELD 4-17-03 Position Sutton,Anna Clerical 11-5-84 Reason: Retired CHILD NUTRITION 6-6-03 Taylor, Lizzie Child Nutrition 2-18-97 Reason: Retired WESTERN HILLS 6-2-03 Thomas, Jimmie Child Nutrition 8-3-99 Reason: Personal DODD 6-2-03 Thompson, Darlene Child Nutrition 2-4-02 Reason: Abandonment FSH5 6-5-03 Wesson, Lynda Child Nutrition 1-13-03 Reason: Abandonment MCCLELLAN 4-28-03 Williams, Ardelia Instr. Aide 1-11-82 Reason: Retired ROMINE 6-2-03 Wofford, Patricia Bookkeeper 10-22-90 Reason: Retired CHILD NUTRITION 6-30-03 SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 1-05 12481.00 INA925 1-07 13115.00 INA925 37-18 25524.00 CLKl0 1-06 7452.00 FSH5 1-09 12139.00 FSMGRS 1-01 7312.00 FSH5 1-01 7312.00 FSH5 1-04 12163.00 INA185 45-18 32412.00 AN12 !J:l \"C\"') :c 0 0 r-m r- m C..\".) 5z CD C: 0 C) .m.. f) m \u0026gt; \"m' :I: m z 7' :c m z 0 m\n,:, \"0 ' z f) ..., 8 .g...6.. m:I: cnm .m.. z C) \u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026gt;,... Z\u0026gt; \"\"'o ~~ C: \"' i::~ ~s C) C\") ~ rn r- n \u0026lt; \u0026gt;,.s.. ~CD me: -.,!!?  z srn c:,V\u0026gt; CDO 0\u0026lt; ~_2o? V\u0026gt;Z \"C': m TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 26, 2003 B d of Education Williams, Director, Human Resources THROUGH: onald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following salaries for Interim Administration Positions. Donald M. Stewart Interim Superintendent Dennis Glasgow Interim Assoc. Superintendent $145,054.00 $ 86,796.00 Date: To: From: Re: June 26, 2003 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 447-1005 Donald M. Stewart, Ed.0---------lnterim Superintendent Board Meeting Dates, 2003-04 School Year The proposed schedule of meeting dates for the 2003-2004 school year is presented for your review and approval. By Board policy, the second and fourth Thursday of each month are designated as regular meeting dates. The exceptions occur in November and December to avoid conflict with the holidays. Agenda meetings are scheduled at 5:00 p.m. and regular monthly meetings are held at 5:30 p.m. MONTH AGENDA MEETING REGULAR MEETING July 07-10-03 07-24-03 August 08-14-03 08-28-03 September 09-11-03 09-25-03 October 10-09-03 10-23-03 November 11-06-03 11-20-03 December 12-11-03 12-18-03 January 01-08-04 01-22-04 February 02-12-04 02-26-04 March 03-11-04 03-25-04 April 04-08-04 04-22-04 May 05-13-04 05-27-04 June 06-10-04 06-24-04 !11 ~ :c 8 r, m- ~ 0z a, C: 8 .m.. !\") ~ Cl) m 31: m z 7' :c m z C m\n,:, is z\n,,, \u0026gt; :\u0026lt;- z,.. -\u0026lt;c iii~ ?~ ~~ i!5n c3 ~ ,- 0 -\u0026lt; s \u0026gt;=- ~a, me: ..,!!!  z 8~ o\"' a, C os Zu, ~o u,z Cl) C: m 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-3580 E-mail: linda. watson@lrsd.org DATE: TO: June 26, 2003 Board of Education LINDA WATSON, Ed. D. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT STUDENT DISCIPLINE Fax: (501) 447-3581 FROM: Linda Austin, Director, Planning and Development Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent, Student Discipline SUBJECT: Anti-Bullying Policy Pursuant to Act 681 of 2003, school districts are required to adopt an Anti-Bullying Policy. The policy must include a definition of bullying, the consequences for the behavior, and provide programs to promote conflict resolution skills, the development of acceptable social skills, and improved understanding of student diversity. In addition, each district's policy must be filed with ADE. The Board approved the policy on first reading at the agenda meeting on June 12. Second reading approval of the attached Anti-Bullying Policy is recommended at this time. !:D fll :c 8 rrmm ~ i5 z a:, C C C') .m.. ~ \u0026lt;J) m :I: mz 7' :c m z ffl ~ z ~ g z ~ iz5 \u0026lt;J) !..\", z z\u0026gt; n ~ \u0026lt;J) s \u0026gt;=-\n.,11:1 me .. .,!!z? srn c,Ul a:,C os Zu, ~i5 U\u0026gt;Z \u0026lt;J) C m LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JICD ANTI-BULL YING Bullying of any type has no place in a school setting. The Little Rock School District will endeavor to maintain a learning and working environment free of bullying. Definition Bullying is defined as a pattern of behavior of one or more individuals intimidating one or more persons through verbal, physical, or emotional abuse\nwritten or electronically transmitted abusive messages\nor attacks on the property of another. Examples of bullying include, but are not limited to, verbal taunts, name-calling and put downs, taking of money or possessions, and exclusion from peer groups within school. Bullying is prohibited while on school property, at school-sponsored activities, and on school buses. Procedures Any student who is a victim of bullying or who witnesses or has reliable information that a student has been a victim of bullying should report the incident to the building administrator. The student's identity will be kept anonymous if he/she feels in danger of retaliation. Any school employee who witnesses or has reliable information that a student has been a victim of bullying will report the incident to any administrator. Any school employee who reports violations of this policy will be immune from any tort liability that may arise from the failure to remedy the reported incident. The building administrator will act promptly to investigate all complaints of bullying. If it is determined that bullying has occurred, the administrator will discipline any student or group of students according to the consequences listed below. Consequences for Violation of This Policy By Students in Grades K-5 First Offense: The student or students who are the perpetrators of bullying must participate in Behavior Modification/Conflict Resolution Program or other programs as determined by District personnel. At lease one parent or guardian will be required to attend a conference with the principal or his/her designee concerning the student's bullying offense. The school will provide information on bullying to the parent or guardian. Second Offense: The building administrator will determine the appropriate disciplinary action as listed for category one offenses in the \"Student Handbook.\" The student or students who are the perpetrators of bullying will be required to again participate in LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JICD (continued) Behavior Modification/Conflict Resolution Program or other programs as determined by District personnel. The parents will be required to attend a conference with the principal or his/her designee concerning the student's bullying offense. Third Offense: If the third offense occurs within one school year, the student will receive a short-term out-of-school suspension. Additional behavior interventions will be required. Consequences for Violation of This Policy By Students in Grades 6-12 First Offense: The student or students who are the perpetrators of bullying must participate in Behavior Modification/Conflict Resolution Program or other programs, as determined by District personnel. At least one parent or guardian will be required to attend a conference with the principal or his/her designee concerning the student's bullying offense. Second Offense: The building administrator will determine the appropriate disciplinary action as listed for category one offenses in the \"Student Handbook.\" The student must complete a unit of study on bullying, empathy and anger management. The parents/guardians will be required to attend a conference with the principal or his/her designee concerning the student's bullying offense. Third Offense: If the third offense occurs within one school year, the student will receive a short-term out-of-school suspension. Additional behavior interventions will be required. Note: If a more serious offense occurs, it will be addressed at the most serious offense level, either category two or three, as prescribed in the Student Handbook. Adopted: Legal Reference: Cross Reference: Student Handbook 2 !J' ~ :c 8,.... m,.... ~ 0z 0:, C C C'l .m.. fl ~ V, m 3C m z 7' :c mz C m\n,:, ~z .!.\",' z \u0026gt;z n ~ V, ~n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: June 26, 2003 TO: FROM: Little Rock School District Board of Directors ~d M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Refinancing of May 2000 Bond Issue Background Information: The District's Financial Advisor, Stephens Inc, represented by Executive Vice President, Mark McBryde, has determined that a significant savings can be realized by refinancing the existing May 2000 bond issue. This issue has a remaining principal balance of$5,800,000 and is scheduled to mature in 2020. It is estimated that a savings of approximately $372,000 can be realized over the life of the bond issue by refinancing at this time. The refunded issue would save the District approximately $22,000 per year in debt payments and would also mature in 2020. Fiscal Impact: The District will realize a savings of approximately $372,000 ($22,000 per year, over the life of this bond issue). Recommendations: It is recommended that the Board approve a motion authorizing the District to move forward with this refinancing. 810 W Markham  Llttle Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.1rsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !\"' ~ :,: 8,.... m,.... ~ 0z r:r, C 8 _m, !..\", z  z n \u0026gt;,.... \"' ~ n 5 \"z' G')\na m !\n,,\n\"' APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO ISSUE BONDS TYPE OF BONDS Voted 2nd Lien X Refunding TO THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: A meeting of the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District No. LEA No. 60-01 of --Pu-lask-i - County, Arkansas, was held at Little Rock the 23rd day of June for the purpose of applying for approval to issue bonds in the amount of $6,440,000 for the purpose of: refunding the May 1, 2000 bond issue ($5,800,000) and funding costs of issuance and escrow contingencies ($640,000). The proposed bonds shall be amortized over a period not to exceed 17 years and callable on any ---- interest paying date after 5 years, with total annual principal and interest payments approximately of --- (see attached schedule) at an assumed interest rate of 3.85% (If total annual obligation not approximately even, explain). The District proposes to finance this bond issue as follows: Number of new debt service mills: Specify what will be done with existing millage (if applicable): Present Assessment: 2002 2,248,725,632 Present Millage: M\u0026amp;O 32.0 D.S. 12.4 DM\u0026amp;O 2.0 TOTAL 46.4 Name of Bond Counsel: Bob Beach, Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Page 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS FINANCIAL STATEMENT (Taken from the LEA Annual Financial Report) (For the School Year 2001-2002) REVENUE RECEIPTS: Beginning Balance All Accounts Total Local Revenues Total County and other LEA's Total State Revenues Unrestricted Federal Revenue Non-Revenue, Transfers \u0026amp; Adult Education Total Available Funds EXPENDITURES: Total Expenditures, Salary Fund Total Expenditures, Operating Fund Total Debt Service Expenditures Total Expenditures of Above CLOSING CASH BALANCES: Total Receipts Total Expenditures Ending Balances Page2 $8,489,087 $95,971,593 $21,619 $71,611,375 $865,718 $3.218.142 $180,177,534 $92,295,468 $68.783,731 $10,526,076 $171,605,275 $180,177,534 $171,605.275 $8,572,259 !D ~ :,: 8,... ,m... !:l 0z CD C C C') .m.. f\u0026gt; ~ m :I: zm -\n-\u0026lt; :,: m z C m ~ 0 z OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS AS OF June 1, 2003 COMMERCIAL BONDS Issue Dates Maturi!_y Date Princi2al O/S Mills Pledged 5/1/00 2/1/20 $ 5,800,000 surplus 9/1/00 \"A\" 2/1/33 45,295,000 12.4 10/15/00 \"B\" 2/1/33 39,580,000 Sarne as Series A 6/1/01 \"C\" 2/1/33 89,890,000 Sarne as A \u0026amp; B Interest Rates 5.00-5.75% 5.125-5.50% 5.10-5.50% 5.00-5.25% TOTAL PRINCIPAL OUTSTANDING: $ 180,565,000 TOT AL MILLS: 12.4 Issue Dates Maturity Date Princi2al O/S Warrant No. Interest Rate PDW 7/1/99 10/15/05 $191,110.35 5.00% PDW 8/15/00 1/15/07 161,401.85 6.4450% PDW 9/1/00 1/5/07 191,527.14 6.14% LP 4/16/01 1/15/08 287,603.62 5.23% LP 9/12/01 9/12/11 1,242,244.97 -3.314% LP 3/8/02 3/8/12 611,718.43 -2.798% PDW 5/15/02 1/15/09 338,191.90 4.50% LP 5/25/01 5/25/11 2,534,068.15 -4.214% TOTAL PRINCIPAL OUTSTANDING: $5,557,866.41 SUMMARY Commercial Bonds $180,565,000.00 2002 A.V. 2,248,725,632 Revolving Loans Warrants \u0026amp; Contracts $5,557,866.41 Net Borrowing Power@27% 421,033,054 Total Indebtedness $186,122,866.41 Total Refunds $5,800,000.00 Net Borrowing Power@ 35% 600,931,105 The debt ratio of the district including this issue will be 8.305%. Page 3 REFUNDING OUTSTANDING REVOLVING LOANS AND/OR COMMERCIAL BONDS Issue Dates 5/1/00 No. of Bonds or Cert. No. Interest Rate 5.00-5.75% TOT AL REVOLVING LOANS TO BE REFUNDED Maturity Dates 2/1/20 $ Principal Amount Outstanding $5,800,000 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE REFUNDED $ 5,800,000 ---------------- What is the purpose of this refunding? To produce interest savings. ---'=---------~--------------- We, the undersigned, ----Ju-dy- M-agn-es-s --- and ______L_arr y Berkley ...:__ __ ....:\n_ _____ _ President and Secretary, respectively, of the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District No. of Pulaski County, Arkansas, do each severally certify as follows: ---- --------- I. That it is our understanding that the within application will become a part of the transcript of proceeding upon which the State, the bond approving attomey(s), and the purchasers of the bonds will rely should the proposed bond issue be approved. 2. That all statements made herein by us are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. 3. That we will immediately notify the Department of Education should any change of plans, or other conditions, materially affect the amount of the funds required under this application for a permit to issue bonds. 4. That, should the proceeds of the loan exceed the actual requirements for the purpose for which the bonds are sold, the Board will apply such excess to the retirement of the first installment of the debt. 5. That we will furnish the State Board of Education with such further and additional information as may be required by it in relation to the proposed bond issue. DONE at --Li-ttle- R-oc-k - Arkansas, this day of June 2003. ---- BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF Little Rock School District No. of Pulaski County, Arkansas By: ______________ _ President of the Board By: ______________ _ Secretary of the Board Page4 !\" \"C'') ::c 0 0 rm ::\nC...'.) 0z a, C: C C'l !!l r\u0026gt; ~ \"m'\ni: mz -\n\u0026lt; ::c m z C m ~ z !=' C 0 z ~ 0 z \"' !\" \"T1 z  z C') \u0026gt; r- \"' ~ C') re \"z' C'l\n:o i\n:o\nII\n\"' Directors of Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Sirs: We are advised that your District proposes to issue up to $6,440,000 in refunding bonds to mature over a period not to exceed 17 years. We can be of service to your District as financial advisor in helping prepare the authorization and sale of your bonds, and therefore, we submit the following proposal: I. As your financial advisor, we agree to prepare and have checked by a reputable bond approving attorney the following: (a) Necessary maturity schedules (b) All papers to the State Department of Education. (c) Notice of Sale and publication of same (d) and all other forms and papers necessary for the issuance of these bonds. We will prepare a preliminary and final official statement containing financial data and other infonnation of the nature and to the extent ordinarily required by municipal security dealers in bidding on bonds of the type contemplated\nall of which is to be supplied in sufficient numbers for mailing to lists of perspective bidders. We will also be responsible for coordinating all work with the rating agency. 2. The buyer shall have the right to convert the bonds to bonds bearing a lower rate of interest, conversion to be figured according to the Universal Bonds Values Table and subject to the approval of the State Board of Education and Stephens Inc. 3. The bonds will be callable in approximately five years, subject to market conditions, in inverse numerical order at par and accrued interest on any interest paying date from funds from any source. 4. In connection with the sale of this proposed issue, the District authorizes Stephens Inc. to prepare a preliminary and final official statement in order to assist with the placement of the securities. 5. In consideration of our rendering the above services, and acting as your financial advisor, we are to receive for our services a fee of 0.385% for bonds issued to refund the May I, 2000 bond issue. Out of our fee, we are to pay for the required publications of the Notice of Sale in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazettet and the bond counsel fee of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. The District shall pay the rating agency fee, if any, from bond proceeds. The purchaser may name the trustee and will be responsible for his fee. The District agrees to pay prepaid trustee fees and accountant verification fees from either bond proceeds or existing funds. 6. This agreement is subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Education. 7. This agreement shall remain in effect for a period of twenty-four months from its acceptance and shall cover this proposed financing or other subsequent financings. 8. Proceeds from this issue will be used to: refund the May I, 2000 bond issue. 9. If for any reason the District decides not to issue these bonds, you will not be obligated to Stephens Inc. for expenses we may have incurred. Respectfully submitted, STEPHENS INC. ACCEPTED THIS ___ DAY OF JUNE, 2003 -----------'L:ci\"'tt'-'-le\"-'-'R\"'-o\"\"'ck\"------------- School District PRESIDENT SECRETARY Directors of Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Sirs: We are advised that your District proposes to issue up to $6,440,000 in refunding bonds to mature over a period not to exceed 17 years. We can be of service to your District as financial advisor in helping prepare the authorization and sale of your bonds, and therefore, we submit the following proposal: 1. As your financial advisor, we agree to prepare and have checked by a reputable bond approving attorney the following: (a) Necessary maturity schedules (b) All papers to the State Department of Education. (c) Notice of Sale and publication of same (d) and all other forms and papers necessary for the issuance of these bonds. We will prepare a preliminary and final official statement containing financial data and other information of the nature and to the extent ordinarily required by municipal security dealers in bidding on bonds of the type contemplated\nall of which is to be supplied in sufficient numbers for mailing to lists of perspective bidders. We will also be responsible for coordinating all work with the rating agency. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The buyer shall have the right to convert the bonds to bonds bearing a lower rate of interest, conversion to be figured according to the Universal Bonds Values Table and subject to the approval of the State Board of Education and Stephens Inc. The bonds will be callable in approximately five years, subject to market conditions, in inverse numerical order at par and accrued interest on any interest paying date from funds from any source. In connection with the sale of this proposed issue, the District authorizes Stephens Inc. to prepare a preliminary and final official statement in order to assist with the placement of the securities. In consideration of our rendering the above services, and acting as your financial advisor, we are to receive for our services a fee of 0.385% for bonds issued to refund the May I, 2000 bond issue. Out of our fee, we are to pay for the required publications of the Notice of Sale in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazettet and the bond counsel fee of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. The District shall pay the rating agency fee, if any, from bond proceeds. The purchaser may name the trustee and will be responsible for his fee. The District agrees to pay prepaid trustee fees and accountant verification fees from either bond proceeds or existing funds. This agreement is subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Education. 7. This agreement shall remain in effect for a period of twenty-four months from its acceptance and shall cover this proposed financing or other subsequent financings. 8. Proceeds from this issue will be used to: refund the May I, 2000 bond issue. 9. If for any reason the District decides not to issue these bonds, you will not be obligated to Stephens Inc. for expenses we may have incurred. Respectfully submitted, STEPHENS INC. ACCEPTED THIS ___ DAY OF JUNE, 2003 --------=L~itt=l~e~R~o~c~k ____________ School District PRESIDENT SECRETARY !J:l ~ :J: 0 ,0.. . m In C\") -\u0026lt; 5z a, C: g !!l ~ ~ u, m\ni::: mz 7' :J: m z 0 m ~ z !..\"., z \u0026gt;z C\") ~ u, CERTIFICATE AS TO USE OF DEBT SERVICE SA VIN GS Pursuant to the laws of the State of Arkansas, a school district shall not lose additional state funding as a result of debt service savings produced by refunding outstanding bonds provided that (1) the yearly savings produced by the refunding is deposited into a Refunding Savings Building Fund and is used by the district for the building and equipping of school buildings, major adaptations to a school facility or purchasing sites therefore\nand (2) prior to the date the refunding bonds are sold at public sale, the district submits a certificate to the Director of the Department of Education, General Education Division, certifying that the yearly debt service savings will be used for the purposes described above. We, the undersigned, Judy Magness, President of the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District of Pulaski County Arkansas (the \"District\"), and Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent of the District, do each severally certify as follows: I. The yearly debt service savings (the \"Savings\") produced by the refunding of the District's Construction Bonds, dated May 1, 2000, with proceeds from the District's Refunding Bonds, dated (to be determined) (the \"Refunding Bonds\") will be deposited into the Refunding Savings Building Fund created by the District\n2. The yearly Savings will be used by the District for the building and equipping of school buildings, major adaptations to school facilities or purchasing sites therefore\nand 3. The Refunding Bonds will not be offered for public sale prior to July 1, 2003. DATED: -------------- PRESIDENT SUPERINTENDENT (SEAL) I, ----------~ Director of the Department of Education, General Education Division, acknowledge receipt of this Certificate prior to the date the Refunding Bonds were offered for public sale. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION '.\n4.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: June 26, 2003 TO: ol District Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Annual School Election In order to satisfy various legal requirements concerning school elections, budget publication, and school tax rates, the Board of Directors must approve a proposed budget for the 2004-2005 school year together with a rate of tax levy sufficient to provide such funds. The requirement for publication of the budget shall be discharged by the board of directors of each school district by publication of its budget one (1) time ... not less than sixty (60) days before the annual school election. (Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-622) It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the proposed budget of expenditures and tax levy for 2004-2005 as attached for publication in accordance with State law. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 ~ U) m :I:: m z 7' ::,: zm C m\no lS z !..\", z z\u0026gt; C') ~ ~ C') 5 U) z C) I ~ PROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES TOGETHER WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2005 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County, Arkansas in compliance with the requirements of Amendments No. 40 and No. 74 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas and of Arkansas Code Ann.  6- 13-622 (1993 Repl.) has prepared, approved, and hereby makes public the proposed budget of expenditures together with a supporting tax rate as follows: 1. Salary Fund Expenditures 2. Instructional Expense 3. Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation Expense 4. Pupil Transportation Expense 5. Other Operating Expense 6. Non-bonded Debt Payment 7. Bonded Debt Payment 8. Building Fund Expense 9. Dedicated Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation $ 87,515,167.00 $ 24,397,727.00 $ 14,044,500.00 $ 13,571,158.00 $ 34,866,334.00 $ 688,590.00 $ 12,063,141.00 $ 30,000,000.00 $ 4,300,000 .00 The total tax levy proposed includes 32.0 mills for the maintenance and operation of schools, 12.4 mills for debt service previously voted as a continuing levy pledged for the retirement of existing bonded indebtedness, and 2.0 mills for current expenditures/dedicated maintenance and operation expenditures. Surplus revenues produced each year by debt service millage may be used by the District for other purposes. The total proposed rate includes the uniform rate of tax to be collected on all taxable property in the State and remitted to the State Treasurer pursuant to Amendment No. 74 to the Arkansas Constitution to be used solely for maintenance and operation of schools in this District. The proposed rate includes no increases. Given this 26th day of June, 2003. Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County Judy Magness, President Larry Berkley, Secretary H:\\Faculty\\Carol.Am1strong\\CFHUGHE\\Election\\E/ectionBudget2003.doc ~n Individual Approach to a World efKnowledge\" June 26, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Request for Easement: Henderson Middle School CenterPoint Energy Arkla has requested that the Little Rock School District grant an easement to allow them to relocate gas lines alone Barrow Road immediately adjacent to Henderson Middle School. This easement is to meet the needs of the City to widen Barrow Road to facilitate new stoplights that are going to be placed in that location. Assessment of this easement indicates that it would have no negative impact on the operation of Henderson Middle School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be permitted to enter into this agreement. DEC:cg 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !=' C 0 ~ 0z u, r..n, z \u0026gt; i!i 7E u, ~ (\") 5 \u0026lt;J) z G') I\nc\n._ u, ....... ...  Pr1:1pared By: Oan,1y Adams n, CenterPoint Energy Arkla - P.O. Box 751  Lillie Rock, Arkansas 72203 CenterPoint Energy Arkla a division of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp . FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SUM OF One Dollar and Other Good and Valuable Considerations TO US IN HAND PAID, RECEIPT OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR (WHETHER ONE OR MORE) WHOSE ADDRESS IS 810 West Markham Street, LltUe Rock, Arkansas 72201 DOES HEREBY GRANT TO CENTERPOINT ENERGY ARKLA, A DIVISION OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP .. A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS, THE RIGHT OF WAY TO LAY, MAINTAIN, ALTER, REPAIR, OPERATE, REPLACE, CHANGE THE SIZE OF AND REMOVE PIPELINES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL OR GAS, OR PRODUCTS OF OIL OR GAS AND TO CONSTRUCT METER HOUSES AND OTHER APPURTENANCES, INCLUDING CATHODIC PROTECTION FACILITIES WITHIN SAID RIGHT OF WAY, IF THE SAME SHALL BE FOUND NECESSARY ON, OVER AND THROUGH CERTAIN LANDS SITUATED IN COUNTY OF lHATE OF ARKANSAS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AN EASEMENT FIFTEEN FEET (15') WIDE ALONG AND ADJACENT TO THE EAST LINE OF JOHN BARROW ALL ON A PART OF THE NE1/4 SW1/4 AND SE1/4 NW1/4, SECTION 2, T-1-N, R-13-W IN CONJUNCTION WITH HIGHWAY RELOCATION FOR THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK. SEE EXHIBIT \"A\"  WITH INGRESS AND EGRESS TO AND FROM THE SAME. THE SAID GRANTOR _ HEIRS OR ASSIGNS, TO FULLY USE AND ENJOY THE SAID PREMISES EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSES HEREINBEFORE GRANTED TO THE SAID GRANTEE, WHO HEREBY AGREES TO PAY ANY DAMAGES WHICH MAY ARISE TO TIMBER, CROPS AND FENCES FROM LAYING, MAINTAINING AND OPERATING SAID LINES. SHOULD MORE THAN ONE PIPELINE BE LAID UNDER THIS GRANT AT ANYTIME THE SAME CONSIDERATION SHALL BE PAID FOR EACH LINE SO LAID AS WAS PAID FOR THE FIRST LINE LAID. GRANTOR REPRESENTS THAT SAID LANDS ARE RENTED OR LEASED TO _________________ WHOSE ADDRESS IS AND WE, AND HUSBAND AND WIFE, FOR THE CONSIDERATION AFORESAID, DO HEREBY RELEASE, RELINQUISH AND QUITCLAIM UNTO CENTERPOINT ENERGY ARKLA, A DIVISION OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP. ALL OUR RIGHTS OR POSSIBILITIES OF OF DOWER, CURTESY AND HOMESTEAD IN AND TO SAID RIGHT OF WAY. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARl IES HERETO HAVE SET THEIR HANDS ANL\u0026gt; SEALS, THIS DAY OF _______ , A.O. 2003. SEAL LITTLE ROCK MAP #11560 SEAL Cl I Y Pl.AN I OR LINE NO. SEAL JOBACCOON1 NO. YES SEAL PLAI OR DRAWING A I I ACHED ACKNOWLEDGMENT THE STATE OF _______ _ COUNTY OF ________ _ BE IT REMEMBERED, THAT ON THIS DAY CAME BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED, A NOTARY PUBLIC WITHIN AND FOR THE COUNTY AND STATE AFORESAID, DULY COMMISSIONED AND ACTING TO ME WELL KNOW AS GRANTOR IN THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT AN=D-A--C'K'\"'N\"\"O_W_L_ E__ D_G_ E__ D_T_H_A_T-===-=--=--=--=---HA-D~ EXECUTED THE SAME FOR THE CONSIDERATION AND PURPOSES THEREIN MENTIONED AND SET FORTH. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL AS SUCH NOTARY PUBLIC ON THIS ______ DAY OF ______ . 2002. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID _______ _ COUNTY, _________ _ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: EXHIBIT \"A\"  u CJ 0 D I D u ----~ .!'.\",' z ~ C\") ~ en ~ C\") ,- 0 en z C)\n,o m ~\n,,: en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: June 26, 2003 Board of Education FROM: ~rral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: Schoo I/Department Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Dodd Elementary School Fair Park Elementary School Fulbright Elementary School Item An art kit, valued at approximately $50.00, for the Law Day Program held on 5/1/03 $50.00 cash for the Law Day Program held on 5/1 /03 Two (2) new projection screens valued at $75.00 each or a total value of $150.00 $1,000.00 cash to be used for achievement awards and technology enhancement Cash donations, totaling $8,565.00, to be used for down payment on the new Compass Learning software Donor Mrs. Bernice Whitfield Bank of Little Rock Mr. Charles Tanner The Wal-Mart Foundation Various donors as per the attached list !\" .., z \u0026gt;z (\") 7E u, Board of Directors June 26, 2003 Page 2 Schoo I/Department Geyer Springs Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Wilson Elementary School $1,000.00 cash in honor of Baseline Wal-Mart Store Ms. Theresa Lane, \"Teacher of the Year\". The funds will be used to purchase materials, books and student incentives. $200.00 cash to the SECME KATY - Channel 7 club to help with their trip to Space Camp $400.00 cash to the SECME Mr. Dick Bona ofKraftco club to help with their trip to Hardware Space Camp $200.00 cash to the SECME Janet Jones Company club to help with their trip to Space Camp Top soil and materials, Jefferson PTA valued at approximately $500.00, for landscaping improvements to the front of the building Plants, valued at Mrs. Matt Barker approximately $150.00, for landscaping improvements to the front of the building Landscaping services and Mr. Danny Deislinger plants, valued at approximately $500.00, for landscaping improvements to the front of the building Packard-Bell Pentium PC Lance and Carolyn Livingston 180 rnhz, 73 meg ram, 2 hard drives, ethernet card and monitor. PC was purchased by donor in 1995 for $1,500.00 - estimated depreciated value is $300.00. Board of Directors June 26, 2003 Page 3 Schoo I/Department Woodruff Elementary School Woodruff Elementary School Woodruff Elementary School Woodruff Elementary School Little Rock School District $600.00 cash to assist in purchasing tee-shirts for students to commemorate celebration of exceeding the record of \"445 Days Without A Fight\" $1,000.00 cash in recognition of Mr. Michael Norberg, \"Teacher of the Year\" Over 1,000 books, valued at $3,000.00, for classroom libraries Bedding plants, valued at approximately $35.00, for use by students enrolled in the spring intersession \"Gardening by the Yard\" class Six (6) single-wide classroom portable buildings, valued at approximately $500.00 each, or a total value of $3,000.00 Lander's Auto Group of Benton and Little Rock Sam's Club of Little Rock Ms. Sara Clements with the Girl Scouts of Ouachita Council Home Depot of Little Rock Missouri Equipment Leasing, Inc. It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. !..\", z \u0026gt;z 0 ,\u0026gt;- \"' ~ ,0- 0 \"z' C)\nc m f:\nc ~ 05/19/2003 10:54 5015704011 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE PAGE 01 CLOVERDALE MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Angelaaftns. Principal SUBJECT: Donations Please accept these donation.s given to Cloverda1e Magnet Middle School. The donations were used for the Law Day Program held on May 1, 2003. Mrs. Bernice Wbitfield, 7313 Redwood Drive, Little Rock, AR 72209 donated an art kit with an estimated cost of $50.00. A $50.00 cash donation was given from the Bank of Little Rock. The address is 8500 Geyer Springs Road, Little Rock, AR 72209. We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Cc: Dr. Marion Lacey, Associate Superintendent M~Y 2 o 2003 PIIOCURllllENT 6300 Hinkson Road  Phone (501) 447-2500  Fax {501) 447-2501  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 6423 Stagecoach Road  Phone 455-7430  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Date: May 6, 2003 To: From: Subject: Mr. Darral Paradis, Procurement Manager Faith McLaughlin, principal ~ Donation of projection screens f'' '-\" Mr. Charles Tanner wishes to donate two new projection screens to David 0 . Dodd Elementary (1) Da-lite Flyer Screen size - 60\" x 60\" value $75.00 (2) K-Mart Focal Custom Screen - size 60\" x 60\" value - $ 75.00 I am recommending that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock District AY ~ 7 20u3 \"Together - building a better tomorrow, one child at a time\" !..\", z \u0026gt;z n ~ en ~ n,- 0 en z C)\nc m I en FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: From: Date: Re: Darral Paradis Director of Procur\n~ent Samuel Branch /}6 Principal May 28, 2003 Wal-Mart Donation The Wal-Mart Foundation, 702 S.W. E. Street, Bentonville, Arkansas 72716, donated $1 ,000.00 to Fair Park. The money will be used for achievement awards and technology enhancement. I recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. RECEIVE 616 N. Harrison Street  Phone (501) 671-6260  Fax (501) 671-6205  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL \" STRIVING FOR EXCELLENCE\" To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Deborah Mitchell, Principal Date: May 8, 2003 RE: Donations Attached to this document are copies of the donation cards for funds given to Fulbright Elementary for our new computer lab software. These funds, which have been approved for use by our Associate Superintendent, have been used as a down payment on the Compass Learning Software we have purchased. It is recommended that these donations be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District board of Directors. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jf~~ Deborah Mitchell Principal DM:lam Ra:CEIVED MAY 15 2003 PROCUREMENT 300 Pleasant Valley Drive  Phone (501) 228-3080 or (501) 447-4700  Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 !..\", z \u0026gt;z n j!! \"' ~ n 5 \"z' C) ill ~\n,,: \"' SpottSofSluf\u0026gt; Levels -Plo.Utuun $500.00 G1\u0026gt;ui $250.00 Sillier $100.00 Bt'011Ze. $50.00 Fl'iends of Fl.llbtight Be.low $50.00 Donation Amount ----'=!\n'---_o_,D -\"--'n ~'------ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. _ ___________ In Memory or In Honor ( circle one)  1f.1fr.1t'.lt'OOOOOOON\u0026gt;OOOOOO~OOOOO\u0026lt;\u0026gt;OOtlOOOOOO.OO=OOOOOOOOOO !!0~0000000000000000000000000000000000-00000000000000000 ij fwhttgh-t eletne.tito.t!1 C0\u0026gt;tnf\u0026gt;1.tUt Loh Softwo.te Do-tltltto-n. Cotd. ff Name~. e'1 + kuq Qvr0c:., 11,Cv.-f 1? Address _______ City/State/Zip ____ _ .,\n~~ - ---------------------- { f -Plolliw.rn. $500.00 SpottSMShif\u0026gt; Le.ve~1\u0026gt;'1! $250.00 i~ ') ~i Sillle.i $1 00.00 Bt01tZe. $50.00 F,i.e.ru.ls of Fl.llbti.ght 'Be.low $50.00 ',}, ,. /'_'\u0026gt; , ') 0 ,J!~? Donation Amount O U  C -=\"--=-------- 5i If you would like your donation lo be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of\nt SOIJ:leone, please list nam~ . I ~\n~ .)I((), 1 t\\ N]l-\\ ~ \\ Pt ()q.) /\\1 In Memory or In Honor H (circle one) :,(,{l{)Ot\u0026gt;ooooooooooooooo.'X)()()OOOO()oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, Fi.Jhttght E-1.e.m.wto.t~ Co,IY\\f't.tUt Loh Snftwo.te. 1)~ Cott.l Name ful) m ~..S Address _______ City/State/Zip ____ _ Spo-ttsotShif\u0026gt; Levels -Plo.tinwn. $500.00 G1\u0026gt;ui $250.00 \u0026gt; Sillier $1 00.00 'BN\u0026gt;Ne. $50.00 Fri.eluls of Fl.llbtight 'Be.low $50.00 Donation Amount .S O  0 Q If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. ____________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) Name ()\\~- ~~ ~\\~ Address(\n\\:.~\nf-~\\J ='kCity/State/ZiP~\u0026amp; p\ng PtP::: ,~\\'.)  S~ot\\SotShlf\u0026gt; Lewis  \"Pf.otinwn. $500.00 Si.hiet $ l 00.00 F~ of F..U.riglit Go(d. $!250.00 'BtONe $50.00 'Below $50.00 Donation Amount __(l \"-11'._.\\..,.~..___ __%_ __ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. ____________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) IX. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS X. ADJOURNMENT Sp,o--nsotship Lewls Plflimuirt. $500.00 GoY. $250.00 ~,l,~t $100.00 BtoNe. $50.00 Fti.en.ds of Fulbttght Be.fMv $50.00 I 1nnation Amount ,..-# k \u0026gt;O, 0_0 11 vru ,,vould like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of \"\"lnenne, please list name. ___________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) ' '\\'' r~000000000000000000000000\u0026lt;:\u0026gt;0000\u0026lt;)()(1~00\u0026lt;)()(1!000\u0026lt;)(\u0026gt;0000\u0026lt;:\u0026gt;0\u0026lt;~ , ,  .: m: 'KlOO\u0026lt;XX\u0026gt;OOOOOOOO.-')t){\u0026gt;O()(WO-OOOOvOCWV~vvVvvvVvvVlAAN\\.\"-'] :'~\ngl,t ei... ... ,\u0026lt;trug c,,,\"~td\nr Loh S.ft,,,im D....iu, Crud I llarrie :)\\\\did\\( _l\\t ,,\\l ff,_\n. . I !lfldress \\~l '-.- c.- ~ ! l t'Lt'.\n.v  rt fo1 ,:\n~~1ty/State/Z1p -..'.L d. .) I L- :t 1) r ) gpo t1Sotshif1 l~ve.ls I Plo:limun. $500.00 GoU $!250.00 Stb:el' $100.00 Rrot12e $50.00 \u0026gt; Ftimul.\n~r Fultght Rel.ow $50.00 , I~ Donation Amount --!)' l- '-'- - ------- 1f you would like your donation to be \"In Memoiy\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. ~ ____________ In Memory or In Honor ~ (circle one) \u0026lt;\u0026gt; \\,.,10:1()(}t\u0026gt;0000000000(J.000(}(}000j0(\u0026gt;000~00000000000{){){}~{\n00{.l('j E. FINANCIALS VIII. CLOSING REMARKS Name ( =... to,- f  kt,, vv , , (Kc.. n o Address \u0026gt;i.i 1$ l\\Ao,,+r,,,,. be,/\nI City/State/Zip ____ _ I \\-M\\r? llccd:, (\\r2 7 2 2 11 Sp\u0026gt;MlS()t$hip l.eM\u0026gt;Js 1'ioti.nwn. $500.00 SLb'et $ I 00.00 Fri.end\u0026amp; of Fi.J.btight GoY. $250.00 'Bronze. $50.00 Be.fMv $50.00 Donation Amount _l...,('\"'-i,n._\"',(. )..=. 0'------- lf you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. - Ib ,, 1:-... \\ lo , ~ j\"'\"l \\,:ec,c h.fr.5 In Memory or  H~~~ (circle one) - ... .... .  .:. . ,......-          ... ,   ~  Fwhti.ght e~ Cotnf\u0026gt;utet Loh Softwcue. DOtlOtiotl Crud. Name Nofa,~ g Rob,n BrouJn Address ?.k~'f de Ca UA.r City/State/Zip LI Hie:. l?ock,_ Ag '7, /\n)_ {fhe1t\u0026amp;z2.1-1193) ./ Sf'ottsot$h.q\u0026gt; UM.ls 'Pfo.tuuun. $500,00 csilw.r $100.0(U Fti.entk of Fi.J.bright Go{d. $250.00 Bronze. $50.00 Relow$50.00 Donation Amoun#_ I._ Q.~{,J,_ _S_ .S.-______ ... . . ... SpMlSMS~ Leve.ls St1011Sorsh-tp Levels -pfotinwn, $500.00 Si.Wer $ I 00.00 Gold, $250.00 Bt'MlZe $50.00 \"Plt.ttl.tULm. $500.00 giflle!\" $} 00.00 Fti.ends of F1tlliti.ght Donation Amount\nSO~ G~M $250.00 Brottze $50.00 Bid.ow $50.00 ) Fri.ends of Fulbright Bel.ow $50.00 Donation Amount _.i.()J:..UD!..:.~0-V-=------ ---------- If you would like your donation to be \"I n Me mo ry\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of In Memory or In Honor someone, please list name. ____________ In Memory or In Honor ------------ (circle one) (circle one) Ful.bttght l.e,mefd:o.t~ C\u0026lt;\u0026gt;tnJ\u0026gt;UW Loh Softwo.te. l)OflOtio,tt. Co.ti! Name c\nl ~bs ::\\ Ro~~ rt Covc_k_ Address loo 7 1-el k,,-.J LA City/State/Zip 3lo83 o Av\\pv-1'--l I AL SpMtSMSfup Levels -Plot.uwm. $500.00 Si.Wer $ I 00.00 Fri.end.s of Ft.tlbti.ght Gold, $250.00 Bronze $50.00 Bel.ow $50.00 Donation Amount__,_/ D--'-0_, -'--0...,.O'------- lf you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. I ____________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) _ 00(~)00000,00000000000000000~00000000000\u0026lt;\u0026gt;8 ' . Fld.brigM ~ CoJ,,\u0026amp;teiLoh Softwote DOtlOtiotL Cotd-i +c_, -e_.,. ,. e.Gity/State/Zip-==~~-,\\+-- Sf\u0026gt;MlSotS~ Lew.ls l'fotwun_ $500.00 Gofa. $250.00 Si.hie, fl 00.00 'B,ona $50.00 ftieNk ol FulLrigJi\nt Reio.., $50.00 Donation Amoul c\n/5D t O 0 If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of s  In Memory or S ( circle one) !..\", z z\u0026gt; C') ~ (/) ~ C') 5 (/) z Cl ~ ~ ~ (/) Name SALly \"'Ruh~ /Jy1l-/l Address 5 !1 tJb \u0026amp;um trfit.. City/State/Zip ___ _ .l, rrLe \u0026amp;t!c,k ArR /2J\n2.3 - J Sr,ottSotS\"-q, Lewis \"Plo.tinwn. $500.00 Si.lw.t $ I 00.00 Friends: of FllDirigM ~ $!250.00 BN\u0026gt;Ne $50.00 Below $50.00 Donation Amount --5= /J-, D--0~ ----- If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. _ ___________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) ''l!l{lfl (.l(}OOOOOOOOOf1CCOOOOtx\u0026gt;OOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOCOOO!\u0026gt;OOC\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;OOOOO'\u0026gt; } Fulhiigh.t el.e.tvie,t1.tot~f Cow1tJ1Aie.l Ln.h Softwote- \"DMloti.\u0026amp;t'\\. Cru\"tl ! lJame S+e p he1J ~ob c ~ Y\\J ~ J !\\ddress ::L,vJe ko..e. ( .. pC1ty/State/Z1p 7,\n,..a..{.J-St, 011sotSh.i.f\u0026gt; Levels -Plr1:liJ,1,01t $500.00 GoM. $250.00 g iJ11e1 $ I 00.00 Br\u0026amp;1t2e $50.00 Fri.ends of F1tlhrtght Below $50.00 Donation Amount~) .,_Q'------ lf you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. ____________ in Memory or In Honor (circle one) \u0026gt; rwbng~ e~ ~utu \\.ob SM\\won. U~ Cwc). Name 13r e., vt\nl ~ 'Sa. VV\\. \u0026lt;:\u0026gt; Coo/Lie... S . Address 30 Col liflS 1hd. pl. City/State/Zip iJ. Wf100d:1 M 1JII 3 Sr,ottSOfS\"-q, Lewis ~ $500.00 Sihiet $100.00 . Frwuk of FllDirigM Donation Amount J--51 0 . 00 ~ $!250.00 BtoNe $50.00 Below $50.00 If you would llke your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. ____________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) OOCOOOOOOOOoooooeooooooooo000000000000oooooo.ooooooooooooooo F1.tlht19ht .~t!f Cnntii.tte.t Lo.b Softwote- D011Mi.\u0026amp;tt Crut.l. \u0026gt; Name tR\\..S~ Pa.410-sro Address (6 S W/c1~J,--1..~\u0026lt;:e ~\u0026lt;~~..\n:C~ity~/S~t:-a-:-te-\n:/Z:::i-p-1,-=...)-::--::,-,-\u0026lt;:}--} o-t.J2,J..,'I SpMtSo,s\nh.q, Levels 1'1o.t.i1Uurt. $500.00 Si.b.,e, $ I 00.00 Fti.ends of Ful.bti.ght GoM $250.00 Rto1tZe. $50.00 Be.low $50.00 Donation Amount ct,0 . O\"O -=-\"--.:...... ___ _ _ If you would lil\u0026lt;e y~ur donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please hst name. ____________ In Memory or In Honor 16t1~lMf.i-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-OO.~OO:OOOO{) ~ ( circle one) _ ~ooo.~0000:\u0026gt;oooo~ IX. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS X. ADJOURNMENT r ,-llrti9ht 1.em.etd:.ru~ Cotnpt.det Loh Softw0te- OOf\\Otio.tl Cord. rc__ e,to~ SfJ01lSOtSh.q\u0026gt; Levels I , .. , ,~1.in. $500.00 Go{d. $250.00 ...:\nl,-21 $ l 00.00 Bronze $50.00 Fri!Mult. of full,right Bel\u0026amp;w $50.00 ') ,.- (-, C'U 1 tr\u0026gt;11alion Amount - ''-'-'-\"~)\"'\"')~ ------ If vou would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of r-1~eone, please list nam(\\. s \\ {, ~ \\f 1\\--..l \\ J. ',\\'\\ \\ -\\-(.:::.._ In Memory or In Honor (circle one rr,-t-e,CQOOOOOOOOOCOC1~l)O(!~OOC\u0026gt;O\u0026lt;\u0026gt;OOC\u0026gt;OOOO\u0026lt;\u0026gt;OOOOC:\u0026gt;OCOOC:\u0026gt;OCIO\u0026lt;\u0026gt;l\u0026gt;OC~ r 1,lhti ht 1.em.etdty Computet Loh SoftwOJ\"e Do~ Cott! Spo.tlSOtshlf\u0026gt; ~ ! 1~um~m. $500.00 ) Iver $100.00:) GoY. $250.00 Bronze $50.00 _- - _~ _'-F_,ier_uk o_f F_i.dl_ui.g ht Bel\u0026amp;w $50.00 _\n:: ___________ 1 1rn1::ition Amount ___ J}.--'-/..::::l...!:: 1{.::J_ _tl::.....=O_ ___ 11 yo11 would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of omeone, please list name. In Memory or In Honor ---------- ( circle one) E. FINANCIALS VIII. CLOSING REMARKS Name 11 ltd c- --\\ h , , ~ 1-I-L\\..-~~c H ,c -- i L Address -1 ,1 / 11Li...!L,c( C't City/State/Zip 'l2,c_~ S~MLSMShlp Levels l'lo.tuuun $500.00 Sillier $ I 00.00 Gahl $250.00 'Bro1ue. $50.00 Friends of Fuiliti.ght Rel.o-w $50.00 t.' .' Donation Amount :) ( - C ' l  If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. In Memory or In Honor I \u0026gt; (circle one) \u0026amp;oc,\u0026gt;0ooowooooooooocoooooooooo~ooooo~ooooo ~ Fulbright e.lem.wto,y Cotnf,uw Loh S\u0026gt;ftwc.ue. D01\\0tlotl Cord. Name te. ~\u0026gt; \u0026amp;U1t /\\.lic. u lCt:S Address-'\\ C:Si' \\).)(ll(1 ~11 '::) (Ci{City/State/Zip._..:\n.\nL\n:..:rtt..:..:~:.:at..=~.,.!:...\\! 7z:z:23 Sf\u0026gt;01\\So-tSNf\u0026gt; u,.,e1s - l'fotiNun. $soo.oo c\u0026lt;M! $2so.oo ... ..\u0026gt; Si.lJ..er $ I 00.00 Bfflf\\Ze $50.00 F~ of Fi.Jbright Rel\u0026amp;w $50,00 Donation Amountj\\, 250. 00 If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. (' h rt '.)tcphl r 1\u0026gt; EV\\ c.a N1col~S In Memory or~ (circle one) r ,,  --  ----- -.,.-.,~ .... ~ , Spo,r1s01-sh.if\u0026gt; Leve.ls Y l~d~~~-.!,.09,00 : ~~ifoei- $ I 00.00 Frieruk of Fulbttght Gohl $250.00 Bmttze. $50.00 Relow $50.00 -~:\n:\n:~~-n_A_m_rn_m_t~~:-~-~ i.:-1.::-_.-f--~_(:- ==========-------- , II you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of ~ __ In Memory or tn Honor ~ (Circle one) 8 someone, please list name.\n, : \u0026gt;ti(itJ {}{X)-OOOOOO'JOOO'.\u0026gt;OOtl {i:\".l-001J01.)0.{KJ{}0G0000ct00:XXOOOO-\"\u0026gt;OO{lOOC:8 . ,. H}f}{,~OOOOOOOOO\u0026lt;XX:IOOOOC:XX)OOOOOOC:,OCOOOOOO\u0026lt;\u0026gt;OOIQOO :: r,~Un1-9ht lw1.e,titot~ Cotflf\u0026gt;td:et Loh Softwo,e. Dof\\O.ti.o,n. Crut! ,,\nN~me_ limit/if::  -,\n_ J'- \u0026gt;1/ cc ,,b At J\n!ressJZjfu\njZl.r.--- ity/State/Zip--'--,-,,...~ ........ ~- \" Sf\u0026gt;o-Motsh.ip l . .e,vek \"Fl.,.~1.tnM.m. $500.00 Go,ld, $250.00 ~\nb~r $ I 00.00 Bt\u0026amp;nte $50.00 Frie1uk of Ftdlnight Below $50.00 ii ji') r,\\ L' 0 ''Pnation Amount -~11_-'----'-~'- ------ If vou would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of semeone, please list name. ~ .u:.s :t.t\\..1'_1....,~ 1,-,.,_,1,_J_5_, _____ In Memory or ~ (circle one) ''',iW!{tO'fJ000000000000000\u0026lt;}00~00:x)(K\u0026gt;0~00(\u0026gt;0C00004:x\u0026gt;C)OOl()(\u0026gt;OO\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;Cli.)()~  UAJ\u0026lt;,H~~'- C-U,,lU\u0026lt;-\\'-\\.lil~ '-.,\\)'\\'\"-\\\u0026gt;~ \\.-U,I.) :::,\\)'\\\\,\\NU.\\\\\u0026lt;, \\,l\\)\\,O,:l,U,\\L I,_':.\\).)\\),, ) ' . ' , ) Name 'c \u0026lt;\\ L : '\" , I\u0026lt; -, ,1f k , t.'L:-, -=1,\n. 1 . .Address l \u0026gt;, 1..:t'- r 1 \u0026gt; 11:C I Lr c \"'\"' City/State/Zip '7 ._).. ) I ::).._ s,,cmscshif\u0026gt; Levels Platinu.m $500.00 Gohl $~250.00 Silver $1 00.00 Bronze. $50.00 Ftiettd.s of Fulbri.glLt Relo11v $50.00 ----------- 0 on a ti on Amount -. -~- S- , -l. -L ------ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name \u0026gt;:\n. ~ 8 In Memory or In Honor  ,\n, (circle one) iooooooooooooo0-0000~000000000-000000000000000()0000.{}{}()o-.~ Name /7 l'f.. .I-M1e .s _ J (J'/i tJ 6 a cJ.l) w\nAJ Address J 7007 f/1Af.S()Al City/State/Zip l/ rrt.. ~ MG/(\n( A\nfi'. ZZ2d 2- ' \"Pfo:tuUAJn. $500.00 Si.hiet $1 00.00 Friends cl Ftdl,right Goo! $250.oq 'Btome $50.00 'Belo-.v $50.00 Donation Amount LS,, o O ---_.c_-..:...~=--- 1f you would like your donation to be \"In Memoiy\" or \"In Ho r'' f someone, please list name. no 0 _____________ In Memory or In Honor ( circle one) l i IX. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS X. ADJOURNMENT gp01isMsh.\n:p Levels l 'lntiNmt(!~~ ~ ..\nJiie: $1 00.00 f1tettd.\u0026amp; of Ful.btrgld I.lunation Amount .5 {) 0  {Y l) Guhl $250.00 BN\u0026gt;flZe $50.00 Refo.w $50.00 II vou would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of \"mmmne, please list name. i)bllZ f-:. i ( re F\u0026amp;,~, -___ In Memory or In Honor r  .. ,\n.,li+t.}(~1X\u0026gt;IOOOOOOCOOO~~OOOO\u0026lt;:~OO\u0026lt;XXl0000\u0026lt;)()()~:\u0026gt;0C~OOC\u0026gt;O\u0026lt;:IO E. FINANCIALS VIII. CLOSING REMARKS Fl.tlbti.ght f.~t~ Cotrlf'IAtet Lob Sottwote. UoMtiot\\. UotdName 'rJ,,J7 ff / }:'-ncu Ch~/ cJ.'f S ~ AddressJCz tj -,,xL, ,!\u0026gt;tr1-r ~ City/State/ZipU: 7L:t-L-.3c-- 1 'Pl.otinwn. $500.00 Si.Mt $ I 00.00 Frielltk of Fulbright RN\u0026gt;t1Ze $50.00 Re!ow $50.00 If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In.Honor\" of--.... someone, please list n~me. ( ) {=0/1 8 lr~\\1-r ( l/Ji )c/re.S:\u0026gt; In Memory or le:_~./ (circle one) Spo-nsMShlf\u0026gt; LevBls l'l.o.ti1uun. $500.00 GoM $250.00 Si.Iver $ I 00.00 Rtf\u0026gt;flZe $50.00 Fri.en.els o-f Fulbrrght Bel.ow $50.00 Donation Amount \u0026lt;/_\nI ( LL' . rr: If you would like your donatiM to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of 1. someone, please list name. _____________ In Memory . or In Honor ( circle one) 000000000000000000-0-0~00000-0000..\"}(}0000000000000000000000000\u0026amp; (l::'ln\\8 ,_J //VI \u0026amp;11J\u0026amp;Ol. ~ VA v l5 {\n, Or.JU/ 1\\dd1ess L!Ltf 2-- ve:-ez.. fMllL City/State/Zip U!. M2. 12-223 Spo,oso-tsh.if, uwe.fs E'.'l .. 1:~u.t1!\\. $500.00 Goftl $250.00 \u0026lt;t\nt,1\n,,- $ I 00.00 BN\u0026gt;nZe $50.00 Ft'iP.,mk of Fu!Ltight 'Belo-w $50.00 ---- 1 ' mation Amount If 11nu would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor'' of -:nnieone, please list name. __________ In Memory or In Honor ( circle one) . . . s,,onsotskq, uwe.fs tt,.,.,Hm,m. $500.00-  Gob! $250.00 t.~it,,.\n~ $ I 00.00 BN\u0026gt;Ne $50.00 F,-ieruk of Fulb,ight Refuw $50.00 Narne-=~.i..\n....\n.J.:........_-,-,-\"' ....... \u0026amp;:J-ll'-'-\"~-===..:..::=....\n._ _ __,...---..__,--,.. _ Address_4,\u0026lt;...L...._~-==LLL.....,.....=..- Srons01Skq, Lewis 'Plo.ti.ruwt $500.00 Sih-et $ l 00.00 Fri.e.ruk of FtJb,ight Qo{,J, $250.00 'Btonze  $50.00 R~$50.00 Donation Amount _'$~5D~~D~()()------ lf you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor'' of someone, please list name. ____________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) Fulbtight el.eM.e.ritoty C\u0026amp;tnpl.de.t Loh Softwote- 'D -Plo.tuUUtt $500.00 Si.Lier $ I 00.00 Fri.eMs of FtJbright Brottze $50.00 R~$50.00 Donation Amount __ 1_6_o_o_. o_o ___ _ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. r:~-~ --'-H-'().._/b _r_i0 -k\n_f-__T_ ! _C_A.__~_ _ In Memory or~~ .,.... Sh ff' (circle one) IX. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS X. ADJOURNMENT Spo-ru\notshlp Leve.ls p~t:U11.u.m $500.00 S i.foe\" $1 00.00 F1ienc.ls of Fu.l.bti.ght Go,{d, $250.00 Btot\\Ze $50.00 Below $50.00 Donation Amount -\"c\"--::J--,\")--\"-~--- _Q ._ _______ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor'' of someone, please list name. )\u0026gt; '' , . ... ~ .. ., ....... .,,. ...... T .. _ .... .,. ......... -v~v- ...... ..,.~ ...~ ..., ..,....,'9\" .... ,..V..,UVY'lti-VV~~,-\nrv~v..,,~ra.. . ~v .\u0026gt; j~ Ftdbright 1.e,tnl!-t'ltw!f Co,tnpu:tet Lo.b So.ftwote '00fl0i:U\u0026gt;11- Cord. ~   :~ - ------- -r--------- f~ NameJ_t,\\O f\\ (k (\\) ,J /s~+f 12f Fu-\u0026lt;!6(..:t-lt Address_J_ _ _____ City/State/Zip g ------ g :} '\u0026gt; ii :\u0026gt; :l:\nl .) } .), ) t'. r Spo,ru\notsh,q-, Levels 1'1otinu.m. $500.00 S Uve-r $1 00.00 Ftiellck of Ful.bri.gh.t GrM $250.00 Btot1Ze $50.00 Below $50.00 Donation Amount :.26 . 0 0 ---'-''--\n:c_ _ ___ _ _ i If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor'' of i sorn~one, pleas(\n} __ list name.\n!=\u0026gt;1.:..\\ '. e 1\u0026lt; N f:. S + 1 t I n\u0026lt;?ft- In Memory or In Honor ~ , (circle one) ~ \\(l~/()()()O()OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~oooooooooooo\u0026amp; E. FINANCIALS VIII. CLOSING REMARKS Fulbright ~!f-Co,tnpu:tet Lo.b So.ftwote Do-notto,n Cotd. Name \"\"l\" \" i.,\\ r~ ~A-u LS Address I 1c1 sh.\ncc.=1?:,::-City/State/Zip Lg_ 7.l.d- / \")_ SpMtSMShlp Levels l'lo:tinwn $500.00 Goul $250.00 Sillier $1 00.00 BtotlZe $50.00 Fri.ends of Fu.l.bri.gh.t Below $50.00 Donation Amount __._/...,.0~.~ L\"T--\"O\"....._ ____ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor'' of someone, please list name. ______ _ _____ In Memory or In Honor Fldhtighf e~ ~!AW Loh softwote-1)~ ConJ, '' Name R ie-h t ~ni{u--1\u0026lt;Dbt-n.S  Address '-1300 Va.lie)' Vlp,{ l)y. City/State/Zip ~ IZ.2-11--  ' '' ' ---------------------, ' ' 'Ploti,uun. $500.00 Slh.er $ I 00.00 f ri.eNk of F.J.brlght 'BN!ftZe $50.00 Below $50.00 Donation Amount _:f.::...=5~0...:Q::\n___ ___ _ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory'' or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. In Memory or In Honor ------------ (circle one) ,. ALL TEL Corporate Services One Allied Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 Jessica Brogdon Supervisor - Corporate Communications 501-905-5898 phone 501-905-6018 tax jessica.gbrogdon@alltel.com April 23, 2003 Kelly Shuffield Fulbright Elementary 300 Pleasant Valley Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Kelly: .AlltEL Enclosed is a $1,000 check for ALL TEL's donation to Fulbright Elementary's new computer lab. On behalf of ALL TEL, we are pleased to support your organization. As you know, corporations are required to maintain detailed records regarding charitable contributions. Please complete the enclosed fonn and return it to the address indicated. Sincerely, ~=~ Enclosures JB/rb GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Fro~onna Hall, Principal Date: May 61\\ 2003 Re: Donation Our school received $1,000 from the Wal-Mart store on Baseline Road in honor of our ''Teacher of the Year\" Theresa Lane. The funds will be used to purchase materials and class sets of books and incentives for the students at Geyer Springs Elementary. We are grateful to Wal-Mart for such a generous donation for our school. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Wal- Mart- Store 8801 Baseline Road Little Rock, Ar. 72209 stE\\1JEn ~'( 'Z 2003 ,soc:ii9\"'J1~lT 5240 Mabelvale Pike Phone (501) 447-4800 Little Rock , Arkansas 72209 .r.n, z \u0026gt;z C') ~ en ~ C') 5 en z Cl\nc m ~\nc\nII\nen JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL May 15, 2003 To: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management From: Roberta Mannon, Principal t-111- J efferson Elementary School Subject: Donations The following donations have been made to the SECME club at Jefferson to help with their trip to Space Camp: KATV - Channel 7 - 401 Main St., Little Rock, AR 72201 - $200.00. Mr. Dick Bona, Kraftco Hardware, 6711 Cantrell Rd., Little Rock, AR 72207 - $400.00. Janet Jones Company, 7915 Cantrell Rd., 72227 - $200.00. It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. 2600 N . McKinley Street Phone 671-6281 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL May 13, 2003 To: From: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management Roberta Mannon, Principal /lJt Jefferson Elementary School Subject: Donations The following donations have been made to Jefferson School for landscaping improvements to the front of the building: Jefferson PTA- approximately $500.00 for top soil and materials. Mrs. Matt Barker, 7215 Kingwood Rd., Little Rock, AR 72207 - Plants valued at approximately $150.00. Mr. Danny Deislinger, 8 Sunset Cr., Little Rock, AR 72207 - Landscaping services and plants valued at approximately $500.00. It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. 2600 N. McKinley Street Phone 671-6281 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 !.,\", z \u0026gt;z C') ~ \"' WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: From: Date : Re: 1\"Ex:,ceffence and 'Equity in 'Education\" Darrai Paradis, Director of Procurement Beveriy Jones, Principal, Wilson Elementary~ May 15, 2003 u Donation Our school, Wilson Elementary, received a Pentium Packard Bell PC with monitor plus 73 Meg Ram and two hard drives, 800 Meg and 1.2 Gig and Ethernet card, for educational purposes by Lance and Carolyn Livingston. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Lance and Carolyn Livingston 5 Northwest Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 RECEiiJBl -~y 1 6 2003 PROCUmffi'JT 4015 Stannus Road  Phone (501) 447-7200  Fax (501) 447-7201  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1Yl.n T?(_tenaea :fear Taucation Scfwo[11 To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: May 23, 2003 Re: Donations Lander's Auto Group of Benton and Little Rock has donated $600.00 to Woodruff Elementary. We sincerely appreciate this donation, which was rewarded to us to assist in purchasing tee- shirts to commemorate Woodruff's celebration of going beyond the record of 445 Days Without A Fight! Thanks to Lander's donation, every student was able to have a tee shirt and participate in a whole school group photo. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Mr. Steve Landers Landers Auto Group 7800 Alcoa Road Benton, AR 72015 MAY 2 7 2003 PROCUEtB/IENT 301 0 West 7th Street  Phone 671-6270  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 !.,\"., z  z C') ~ U\u0026gt; ~ C') 5 U\u0026gt; z C'l ,0 m ~ :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;: U\u0026gt; WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL rytn rr_-ztenaea r_\n~r taucation ScfwoF' To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: May 23, 2003 Re: Donations Sam's Club of Little Rock has donated $1,000.00 to Woodruff Elementary. We sincerely appreciate this donation, which was rewarded to us in recognition of Mr. Michael Norberg, Woodruff's Teacher of the Year. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Sam's Club Ms. Lyncola Moore 900 South Bowman Little Rock, AR 72211 AY Z 7 2003 PROCUrB~IB\\!T 301 o West 7th Street  Phone 671-6270  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (Yl.n 'E?(tenaea :Year 'Eaucation Scfwoe' To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: May 23, 2003 Re: Donations Ms. Sara Clements with the Girl Scouts of Oucahita Council has donated over 1,000 books, with a value of $3,000.00, to Woodruff Elementary. We sincerely appreciate this donation of books. Teachers grades PK - 5 selected books to add to their classroom libraries, each student was able to select a book to take home, and the remaining books were displayed for parent selection. We asked parents to read to their child at home, and add their selected books to their home library. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Ms. Sara Clements Girls Scouts of Ouachita Council 615 West 29th Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 3010 West 7th Street  Phone 671 -6270  Li ttle Rock, Arkansas 72205 !..\", z \u0026gt;z (\") ~ u, ~ ,(.\"..). 0 u, z C) I u\"', WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL rr.5ln 'Eztenaea ')ear 'Eau.cation Schoo[\" To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: May 23, 2003 Re: Donations Home Depot of Little Rock has donated bedding plants estimated at $35.00 to Woodruff Elementary. We sincerely appreciate this donation of plants, which were used by the students enrolled in the \"Gardening by the Yard\" class during our spring intersession. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Ms. Tracy Davidson HOME DEPOT 12610 Chenal Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 ..., . ....... 301 0 West 7th Street  Phone 671-6270  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FACILITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE, 3601 S. B RYANT ST., LITTLE R OCK, AR 72204 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Doug Eaton, Director SUBJECT: Donation: Portables DATE: 19 May 2003 Little Rock School District has recently had donated to it 6 single wide classroom portable buildings from .Missouri Equipment Leasing, INC., Springfield, MO. These portable classrooms have been leased to LRSD for over 10 years from Missouri Leasing. Their value is estimated at $500 each or a total of $3,000. It is recommended that these be accepted. r. REC6\"Jfii \"~y Z O 2003 PROCUF:EME'JT !..\",' z \u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt; I\"'\" Cl) ~ n 5 Cl) z C)\nJO m ~\nJO :\u0026gt;: Cl) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: June 26, 2003 TO: Board of Directors FROM: ~d M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: ~ Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services SUBJECT: Financial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. ~ n re V, z G') i!ll ~\n,:: V, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2001/02 05/31/02 COLLECTED 2002/03 05/31/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,850,000 57,086,336 98.68% 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% DELINQUENT TAXES 6,950,000 8,261 ,086 118.86% 8,000,000 9,875,297 123.44% 40% PULLBACK 28,450,000 15,331,854 53.89% 29,400,000 17,610,502 59.90% EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 190,000 186,429 98.12% 187,000 209,598 112.08% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 575,000 353,143 61.42% 385,000 174,515 45.33% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 125,000 126,034 100.83% 135,000 337,232 249.80% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 600,000 159,792 26.63% 340,000 313,397 92.18% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 600,000 186,072 31 .01% 275,000 190,439 69.25% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 155,000 155,055 100.04% 160,000 193,394 120.87% TOTAL 95,495,000 81,845,800 85.71% 97,432,000 86,052,153 88.32% REVENUE-COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 25,000 21,619 86.48% 24,000 20,836 86.82% TOTAL 25,000 21,619 86.48% 24,000 20,836 86.82% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,568,331 47,752,601 87.51% 54,867,630 48,781 ,766 88.91% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,455,741 6,724,661 90.19% 7,590,000 7,265,757 95.73% VOCATIONAL 1,325,000 1,285,354 97.01% 1,340,000 1,272,587 94.97% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,900,000 811,969 42.74% 1,700,000 1,250,666 73.57% EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 233,992 100.00% 273,358 273,358 100.00% TRANSPORTATION 3,468,291 2,317,542 66.82% 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,865,000 2,286,063 59.15% 3,265,000 3,436,977 105.27% ADULT EDUCATION 987,869 746,710 75.59% 1,006,014 620,758 61 .70% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 1,195,000 1,097,074 91.81% 658,607 658,607 100.00% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 25,000 124,150 496.60% 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 605,000 497,645 82.26% 650,000 283,224 43.57% WORKER'S COMPENSATION 600,000 TOTAL 76,229,224 63,877,761 83.80% 75,441,106 66,582,056 88.26% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 600,000 620,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 700,000 44,032 6.29% 1,126,233 226,443 20.11% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,639,927 546,642 33.33% 1,664,438 1,109,625 66.67% TOTAL 2,939,927 590,675 20.09% 3,410,671 1,336,068 39.17% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 174,689,151 146,335,855 83.77% 176,307,777 153,991,115 87.34% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 15,868,127 12,621 ,474 79.54% 22,230,023 17,121 ,861 77.02% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 3,049,505 77.76% 3,980,000 3,183,037 79.98% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 16,397,320 66.11% 25,065,942 19,472,465 77.68% TOTAL 44,592,636 32,068,299 71 .91% 51,275,965 39,777,363 77.58% TOTAL REVENUE 219,281,787 178,404,155 81.36% 227,583,742 193,768,477 85.14% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2001/02 05/31/02 EXPENDED 2002/03 05/31/03 EXPENSES SALARIES 98,743,100 91,290,576 92.45% 100,865,586 87,129,343 BENEFITS 25,603,621 22,970,584 89.72% 24,838,361 22,050,704 PURCHASED SERVICES 20,235,454 16,548,016 81.78% 19,795,774 17,012,549 MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 9,252,512 7,019,398 75.86% 8,347,098 6,545,663 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,792,554 1,046,033 58.35% 1,616,991 1,037,938 OTHER OBJECTS 8,402,940 5,490,169 65.34% 8,508,680 5,662,958 DEBT SERVICE 10,526,942 10,653,854 101.21% 12,217,048 12,213,572 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 174,557,123 155,018,629 88.81% 176,189,538 151,652,727 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 16,519,453 12,068,175 73.05% 22,995,210 15,093,286 DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921,766 2,935,572 74.85% 3,980,000 3,284,313 MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 19,985,227 80.58% 25,065,942 20,018,609 TOTAL 45,243,962 34,988,973 77.33% 52,041,152 38,396,208 TOTAL EXPENSES 219,801,085 190,007,603 86.45% 228,230,690 190,048,935 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (519,298) (11,603,448) (646,948) 3,719,541 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 1,937,298 1,937,298 1,645,440 1,645,440 OPERATING 8,489,087 8,489,087 8,557,652 8,557,652 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 1,285,972 (983,376) 880,253 3,026,595 OPERATING 8,621,115 (193,687) 8,675,891 10,896,039 TOTAL 9,907,087 (1,177,063) 9,556,144 13,922,634 % EXPENDED 86.38% 88.78% 85.94% 78.42% 64.19% 66.56% 99.97% 86.07% 65.64% 82.52% 79.86% 73.78% 83.27% ~ (,.\".). 0 \u0026lt;J) z Q i::l i \u0026lt;J) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-02 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 05-31-03 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 78,319.02 800.00 77,519.02 CONTINGENCY 1,052,354.15 1,052,354.15 SUBTOTAL 1,163,956.07 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 1,163,156.07 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 0.00 182,400.00 136,112.30 5,955.01 40,332.69 NEW WORK PROJECTS 22,028,270.87 8,295,936.00 10,542,767.38 6,949,827.49 12,831,612.00 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 348,708.80 30,625.90 379,334.70 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 5,749,803.26 650,222.23 3,046,257.17 218,038.17 3,135,730.15 RENOVATION PROJECTS 47,947,115.45 887,767.00 15,079,383.39 11,488,096.91 22,267,402.15 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 4,744,881 .05 2,090,512.80 4,398,417.84 12,273.85 2,424,702.16 SUBTOTAL 80,861,053.40 0.00 12,137,463.93 33,582,272.78 18,674,191 .43 40,742,053.12 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 139,801 .90 45,713.11 5,896.70 179,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 FULBRIGHT PROJECT 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 31 ,569,505.02 (12,137,463.93) 19,432,041 .09 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST STATE OF ARK 469,063.03 469,063.03 INTEREST 5,022,644.80 2,245,555.00 7,268,199.80 SUBTOTAL 38,500,102.43 2,341,268.11 (12,137,463.93) 5,896.70 0.00 28,698,009.91 GRAND TOTAL l ill :ii:i lll llll im ilill ll J2.lll! ~~ :illll lllill~ll lllliZ~ Jal ~\ni Zll lill\nl illl lll PROJECT ALLOCATIONS PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 05-31-03 ADMINISTRATION 586,846.55 NEW WORK PROJECTS 35,357,280.16 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,853,208.89 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 11,409,705.52 RENOVATION PROJECTS 53,351,543.00 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 11,735,611 .78 UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 20,725,862.06 TOTAL 138,285,872.13 S)fil\\fW3H DNISOl:l 'IIIA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2003 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE 2000-01 2001-02 THRU 05-31-03 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 136,112.30 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 10,542,767.38 113,930.47 109,609.73 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,334.70 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 3,046,257.17 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,079,383.39 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 4,398,417.84 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 33,582,272.78 ENCUMBERED THRU 05-31-03 ---- SUBTOTAL 5,955.01 546,513.86 6,949,827.49 22,525,668.16 223,540.20 4,853,208.89 218,038.17 8,273,975.37 11,488,096.91 31,084,140.85 12,273.85 9,310,909.62 --- 18,674,191.43 76,817,956.95 ENDING ALLOCATION 05-31-03 40,332.69 12,831,612.00 42,273.97 -- 0.00 3,135,730.15 22,267,402.15 2,424,702.16 20,725,862.06 61,467,915.18 lN3WNHnorav x SDNIH\\f3H 33AOldW3 'XI Fund Operating Operating 'operating Operating Operating Operating (Payroll) Operating (Payroll) Total Food Service Total Activity Fu~ Total Bond Account Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund CapJtal Prolects Fund Capital Pro~cts Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Profects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital ProTects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Total _Qeseg Plan Scholarship Deseg Plan Scholarship - Total Rockefeller Scholarship - Total - Purchase Date 12-09-02 01-19-03 04-08-03 05-30-03 05-15-03 05-01-03 05-19-03 - - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND ---------------\u0026lt; _ FOR THE PEf3.LOD END_!=.D MAY_3_1, 2-0-0_3- _____- _ -~-_-_- _- _- _- --------~:~~~~~~~~~--- Maturity_ Date 06-09-03 - 07-19-03 12-05-03 TFN 06-15-03 07-01-03 07-15-03 Institution Interest Rate Type Principal - ------t---~ ---t----~-----l !3_egions B_egions Pulaski Bank of America - -+------t-------1 1.190% Money Market 20,000.00 - - ----+--~~---+---~--, Money Market 20,000.00 ---- -t--~-----,-- 1.290% Money Market --,~-10~,0~00.00 1.200% Repo 17,340,000.00 1.190% +---c-=~c- - --~- - Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD 7,007,826.83 - ---+------ -+--~~--- Bank of America 1.040% Tresury Bills 2,260,010.33 Bank of America 1.030% Treasury Bills 2,260,307.79 28,918,144.95 05-16-03 _ TFN Bank_ot Am_ er_ic_a_-+-_1.070% __+ -__R_ e_p_o_ _+ -__78 0_,oo_o_.oo_, 04-03-03 03-10-03 01-17-03 01-17-03 02-14-03 01-29-03 01-17-03 02-14-03 05-15-03 02-14-03 01-22-03 03-14-03 05-15-03 04-15-03 09-17-02 05-27-03 01-10-03 09-27-02 01-30-03 f---- 780,000.00 --+--------- -------+--------+---------i 08-14-03 Bank of America +-_1_.0_2_0_%_-+-_T_re_asury Bills 801,966.49 801,966.49 09-08-03 01-16-04 01-16-04 Regions - -~ 1.190% - - CD 400,000.00 - - - Metropolitan 7 .-9-30_/co-+---C-D---+--1,-0-00~.~9-34_ __3 ,1 -Bank oflhe Ozarks 2.250% CD 5,116,598.09 1----- - 70-15-03 01-29=54 Bank of the Ozarks 1.440% CD 10,000,000.00 --Bancorp South 2.000% - CD 2,058,896.90 01-16-04 ~ - _yperiQ!_- _ 1.250~---i-----=--=c_D __ -t-_2_,50_0_,o_o_o_.o_o 11-14-03 _ _ Superior_ _ _1_.~00%_\u0026gt;- ~C~D__ 11,000,000.00 00 8 7 :1 1 ~ 5 :Q. 0 4 3 __ _ usBANK __ 1.420% -+-__c_ D_ _- +-_11~.oo_o-'.-o_o_o_.o_o_, USBANK 1.360% CD 10,000,000.00 - 01-16-04 Bai!!\u0026lt; of Am_e_ric\u0026lt;l_- f--- _1.=24=0=-/~c -+-T- r-e-asu_ry B-ill-s--+--5-.~2-99~.-6-46- .-4-,3 06-16-03 Bank of the Ozarks - 0-5-1-4-0-4 ~-Ba-nk -of the Ozarks 08-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks -- - 09-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks TFN Bank of America 06-11-03 06-10-03 06-24-03 Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America 1.250% CD 5,000,000.00 1.360_1/o_-+-__ C_D __ -+-_9~,0_0_0~,0_00._0_,0 1.370% CD 3,035,911.61 2.200% CD 10,000,000.00 -----+-------+--~~---\u0026lt; Repo 3,500,000.00 -----+---~---+--~---, 1.100% f--- _1__.050% Treasury Bills _ 1.430% _ Treasury Bills 88,911,9~.34 124,445.83 534,508.80 658,954.63 - -- - - --+------+------ ___ 1. --0_900-1/o'_-+-_T-re--a'--s'-u'--r-y'--'B-_il -ls--+_ ___2c ...4.:.9,.:\n,8..c.9.:.8.-'0--4__. 249,898.04\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_1037","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":["2003-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["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/1037"],"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 MAY 2 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting ao1t1rat148atio1es 2003 (iradl4at as! May2003 n -o \u0026gt;::1m0 ~ C: .... 1:: Oz o\u0026gt;\na::10 om--\u0026lt;., ,CC:: -z ,on o--\u0026lt; F\nnm \u0026gt; F\n:: :,0 -om 55\ng r-:,o c\"i--\u0026lt; nl!! 0::10\ni::m l::n m8 Zz cil :3 0 0 z \"' ~ f. 0 C\" ~- c::)) \u0026gt; I. 11. 111. IV. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING May 22, 2003 PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests 5:30 p.m. B. Presentation - Mabe/vale Middle School EAST Lab Students Kathy Farley, Instructor REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) Please note: Speakers will not be allowed to make any disparaging or critical remarks about individuals or employees of the District. Critical comments or complaints are processed through the District's complaint procedures, which afford the individuals to whom comments or complaints are directed, the opportunity for response and due process) C. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association D. Joshua lntervenors REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Desegregation Update C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Status Report: Construction Projects E. Internal Auditors Report (\")~ \u0026gt; r= :\":0' C: cil o\u0026gt; :c:o:~:o \"'.., ::0 C: -z ::o\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; ,o--~\u0026lt; ,- z \u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; en \u0026gt; F C ~ r: Occn - ::C:i, !i\nRegular Board Meeting May 22, 2003 Page 2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A Minutes Regular Meeting - 04-24-03 Special Meeting - 04-28-03 B. Personnel Changes VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Extension of EDS Contract B. Update on Progress to Complete Remaining Program Evaluations C. Grant Proposal - Enhancing Education Through Technology D. Art, Music and Drama Textbooks Adoption, Grades 6-12 VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: A. Recommendations for Revision of the 2003-04 Student Handbook VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Audit Report for June 30, 2002 and Extension of Audit Services B. Resolution: Fulbright Elementary School Property Approval of Offer and Acceptance C. Donations of Property D. Financial Report IX. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION: 1. Professional Teacher Appraisal System (PT AS) 2. Evaluation of Athletic Coaches X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Ill. PROCEDURAL MATTERS STUDENT PRESENTATION 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. 1.IIAIIUN~ \\\n. I.IA B. CITIZENS COMMENTS D. JOSHUA ~a\n::.,7, i\\\\ 1 ~n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: May 22, 2003 Board of Directors Dr. T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Bill Goodma~ May 2003 Construction Report, Bond Projects Total cost of projects that are under construction and financed through bonds is approximately $50,000,000. By comparison, last year at this time bond projects under construction totaled approximately $25,000,000. The present construction activity has reached a peak in terms of cost. In the future, this activity will slowly diminish as the construction projects in the District's schools are completed, particularly the larger schools. The trend is indicated by the number of completed projects that are shown in the May report. Bids on the addition and renovation of Dunbar Middle School were taken on May 9. The bids are being analyzed and the results will be known soon. The plan is to start construction in June and complete the project during the summer of 2004. Bids were taken on May 15 for the addition to McClellan High School. I am pleased to report that the low bid met our budget, and the letter of Notification of Award has been sent to the contractor. Construction will start within thirty (30) days. The following projects have been bid, contracts awarded, and construction has started: 1. New roof and an addition to J.A. Fair High School 2. Addition to Williams Elementary School and parking lot improvements 3. Computer Technology Center Phase II and miscellaneous upgrades to Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Center The classroom addition and new gymnasium for Hall High School is nearly complete. I hope you have an opportunity to tour these facilities. I think you will be pleased. Please call me at 447-1146 if you need additional information. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us C'. ()1 \".2'\u0026gt;A '){)()()  C., . . C:()1 \".2') ,1 ')()'.\\') rn z -m\u0026lt;\nc z )\u0026gt; r)\u0026gt; C: 52 C\n:c Facility Name Administration Administration Carver Central Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Facility Services Forest Park Hall J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair Mabelvale MS Mann McClellan McClellan Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Pulaski Hgts. MS Southwest Southwest Student Assignment Williams Williams Wilson Wilson CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY 22, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Project Description Cost Fresh air system $55,000 Fire alarm $32,350 Parking lot $111 ,742 Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $100,000 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 ' Irrigation System $14,500 Fire alarm $12,000 Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Roof repairs $391,871 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Irrigation System $14,000 Renovation $6,851,621 Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Irrigation System $14,750 Fire alarm $25,000 Renovation $1 ,193,259 1 Renovation $3,755,041 Drainage/ street widening $250,000 New roof $690,000 'Fire alarm $9,000 Renovation $2,106,492 Parking expansions $183,717 Parking Expansion $110,000 I Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 Est. completion Date Jun-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Dec-05 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 May-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Aug-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jul-03 Nov-03 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SPRING/ SUMMER 2003 t:.st. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Baseline Renovation $953,520 Dec-03 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Dec-04 Central Parking Student parking $50,000 Aug-03 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 Aug-04 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Feb-04 Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Aug-03 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Jul-04 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Jun-04 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Jun-04 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Jun-04 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Jun-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:.st. vomp1et1on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Mitchell Renovation Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Rightsell Renovation Unknown Wilson Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Woodruff ParkinQ addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY 22, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Bale HVAC I $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS . Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $1,393,822 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall Intercom Hall I Security cameras $10,600 est. compIetIon Date Mar-03 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Apr-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 2 !%\u0026gt; \"D m\n:c ~ zz m r- !\"' z m-\u0026lt;\n:c z 'f!. ]\u0026gt; C g 0 X Facility Name Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY 22, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $193,679 'Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units $300,000 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Energy efficient lighting I $106,598 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Asphalt walks The total $1 .8 million Walkway canopies is what has been Boiler replacement used so far on the Fencing projects listed Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Security cameras $36,300 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Stadium stands repair $235,000 Intercom $46,000 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Fire alarm $16,175 Asbestos abatement $253,412 1 Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Replace shop vent system $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 HVAC renovation $237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Parking lot $138,029 6 classroom addition $888,778 HV AC controls $210,000 Roof replacement $273,877 Exterior lights $10,784 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Move playground $17,000 Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Parking addition $111,742 t:.st. 1.,\nompletlon 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 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 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY 22, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 . Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Wakefield Demolition/ Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Washington Security cameras $7,900 Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Watson  Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191,946 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Woodruff I Renovation $246,419 t:.st. c.\nompletIon Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Aug-00 Jan-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Aug-02 4 !TI .z... m :,c z ~ )\u0026gt; C: !2 C\n:c MEMORANDUM I FACILITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE DATE: May 22, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Dr. Don Stewart and Dr. Kenneth James FROM: ,~aton, Director of Facility Services SUBJ: Special Board Report: LRSD Construction Projects In response to questions raised by Board members during the April, 2003, Board meeting of the Little Rock School District Directors, the following report is submitted. This report is intended to bring you up-to-date on the overall status of the bond and major maintenance programs within the District. The general plan that the Administration is following is outlined in two documents. The first, dated June 22, 2000, is a Board-submitted and approved document that covers the phase-in of capital projects. The project list indicates two general categories: additions and renovations, which are then divided into general construction phases. The intent of this phased delineation was to provide general parameters as to how schools could expect their projects to be addressed during the administration of the bond program. Project phases were determined by a committee consisting of administrative and support members as outlined in the June 22 document. Capital consideration was given to present and future academic needs, the need for addressing overcrowding at schools, and the need for beginning major capital projects because of the length of time required and their complexity. In addition to these parameters, the committee also discussed ways to administer the bond program in order for all schools to immediately see the results of the support of their school and parents for the millage program. An update based solely on these phases is included in the report. The second document is a \"talking-paper\" that was presented to the committee in July of the same year outlining the general parameters of how the bond program should be administered. It goes on to explain, in addition to addressing the projects and the phases as outlined in the June 2000 letter, that we would attempt to phase the common-in-nature projects into multiple schools. These, although addressed separately by specific design and engineering firms, would be ongoing in conjunction with the general, major renovations listed in our phased report to the Board. To date we have adhered to the general parameters of the June 22 letter and the \"talking-paper\" of July 14. This has allowed us, as of the writing of this report, to have completed, have under construction, or have in design 313 of the 551 projects that were identified on the capital-bond list presented to the public in 2000. The most significant of the projects that have been completed or are planned for the immediate future can be found in the monthly bond report under Bond Construction Reports. The execution of the dedicated millage-program is slightly more complicated as the project-list is ever changing. As the Little Rock School District's projected projects surface based on their urgency, we are constantly adjusting the list and programming each year for what we feel can be accomplished. Our in-house workforce, while continuing to maintain the daily maintenance requirements as reported by our schools, is completing most of the minor dedicated-millage projects. The larger dedicated-millage projects, those requinng extensive design and accomplishment by contractors, are programmed under urgency-basis. We are continuing to expend some monies accomplishing minor landscaping projects and miscellaneous emergency asbestos abatements as necessary. We are also extending our dedicated millage-program-list into roofing, asbestos removal, and environmental design projects. Lastly, we are attempting to do dedicated millage projects in conjunction with bond projects at schools that will be under construction during the 2003 and 2004 school year. Included in this report is the planned program of major contracts in 2003 and 2004 that will be funded by dedicated millage. Our total expenditures for dedicated millage are expected to reach approximately $2,000,000 each year. The projects planned or scheduled for 2003 and 2004 that do not begin on time or extend beyond this timeframe will be rolled into the following year. It is possible for higher priority projects to supplant those on this list should emergencies develop with regard to heating and mechanical failures, roofing or structural failures, or as the opportunity to perform dedicated millage work presents itself as the bond program continues. DE:cg specialreport !XI \"D m\n,:, ~z z mr !\"' z -m\u0026lt; ~ \u0026gt;r \u0026gt; C: 2 C\n:,: t Little Rock School Distr1ct Associate Superintendent - Operations 810 West Markham Sueet Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501 )324-2009 Fax: (501)324-2023 June 22, 2000 To: Board of Directors FROM: ~~ictor Anderson, Associate Superintendent, Operations THROUGH: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT:- Phasing of Capital Projects A committee consisting of Victor Anderson, Wayne Adams, Junious Babbs, Doug Eaton, Brady Gadberry, Mark Milhollen, Sadie Mitchell, Lucy Neal, John Ruffins, and Don Stewart met to develop the phasing of the capital projects. A second committee consisting of Victor Anderson, Doug Eaton, Wayne Adams, Darral Paradis, and Don Stewart met to make the initial assignments of architects and engineering firms to projects. The phasing of the projects was done by category of projects. It was determined that_ design work would be grouped into several categories to include: building additions, asbestos removal, renovation projects with additions, renovation projects without additions, f,DA contracts, mechanical contracts, electrical contracts, security/ alarm upgrades, roofing contracts, paving contracts, athletic field renovations, and new school consrruction. Architectural firms will be selected to complete design work on the individual projects within the categories. The phasing of the projects follows: Maior Additions -Phase one Hall McClellan Mann MS Cloverdale MS Terry Otter Creek So:n:I -phasing of C\u0026lt;\npitd j:r:)JC:U I Board of Direct01_ June 22, 2000 Page2 Major Renovations - Phase One Central Mabelvale MS Bale Franklin Garland Jefferson Watson Major Additions -Phase Two Parkview J. A. Fair Dunbar MS Pulaski Heights MS Southwest MS Major Renovations - Phase Two Pulaski Heights Elementary Williams Woodruff New Construction - Phase Two West Elementary School Major Additions - Phase Three Metropolitan Romine Mai or Renovations -Phase Three Forest Heights Henderson Baseline Booker Brady Fair Park Fulbright Wakefield Western Hills Wilson BcMd -1=:\"1aSin, 0f capiu! prvjccu 2 !l' ~ m XI is zz ,m... !\" .z.... m XI z \u0026gt;,... \u0026gt; C: 52 C ::c Board of Directo1~ June 22, 2000 Page 3 Additions - Renovations -Phase Four Badgett Carver Chicot Cloverdale Elementary Dodd Forest Park Geyer Springs Gibbs King Mabelvale Elementary McDermott Meadow cliff Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Washington The following architectural / engineering firms that have been selected for the contracts are listed below. This list is not final, as all of the assignments to specific sites have not yet been made.  Central High School - Witsell/Evans/Rasco  Hall High School - Wittenburg/Delany/Davidson  McClellan High School - Stuck Associates  Mann Middle School - Simms/Grisham/Blair  Asbestos Removal - Morris and Jones Associates Approval is recommended. C: Don Stewart Mark Milhollen Sadie Mitchell Doug Eaton Darral Paradis 3 CAPTIAL PROJECTS TALKING PAPER July 14 2000 This report will comprise of general notes regarding Facility Services ideas on the implementation of the capital projects program. We propose to begin by awarding approximately 30-35 architectural/engineer contracts, both by subject matter and by individual projects so as to ensure a steady flow of contracts for construction. Architectural/engineer subject matters will be: ADA, asbestos, fire alarms, additions, civil, mechanical, recreational, structural, pavement, interior, and landscaping projects. All of the architectural/engineer contracts would cross the line between capital projects and dedicated millage. Funding for these architectural/engineer projects would primarily be capital monies\nyet, some would be funded with dedicated millage funds. The purpose of this report is to get a head start on the scope of work and designs, which is our major initiative during the first year of the bond issue. During this period of time, we will clarify the scope of work and begin preliminary designs once Architect/Engineer firms have been selected. As the projects progress and we are able to more clearly define the construction estimates, we will have a better idea of the remaining funds needed to carry out the projects and the time frame necessary. Architect/Engineer's will be detailed to look at projects covering a two to three year time span. FUNDING This will necessitate that funding be compiled for a three to four year period with the majority of the funds spent during the late half of the second, third and fourth years. This will be necessary because of the long lead-time that is needed to develop scopes of work and planning. It is perceived that 4.5 to 4.8 percent of the entire project list will be dedicated to Architectural/Engineer spending. If we identify forty million dollars in projects, we can expect to spend about 4.5 to 4.8 percent of that amount during the first year with the remaining expenditures arising from short term projects, which can be developed at a quicker pace. Many of the projects in the lower spectrum of the list above will be projects that can be more readily adapted because they can go to specialized Architect/Engineer firms. These projects have shorter design and construction times and would show a positive image to the public that we are implementing projects as quickly as possible. Initially, funding for these projects may have to be funded from the sale of bonds and later reimbursed through dedicated millage retrievals. ?' \"C m Al ~ z z m r- !T' .z.... m Al z \u0026gt; r- \u0026gt; C: 0 ::\nC\n\u0026lt;: Page Two, Continued Capital Projects GENERAL COMMENTS The basis for lumping contracts together is to offset the need to hire more people than necessary. It is anticipated that approximately 34 employees must be hired for the projects to support spending of the money derived from the dedicated millage\nthese employees will be at Facility Services, Procurement and Athletics. By lumping projects together, and writing contracts in such a manner that Architect/Engineer firms will provide some limited construction management experience, we can possibly derive complete control of the project for the anticipated six percent (6%) (plus reimbursable expense) of the overall project. This will give greater latitude in the authority of the Architect/Engineer's management of the projects in that one decision could be used across the board at numerous locations. Once the Little Rock School District derives a general scope that will apply to all schools, only minor decisions will need to be made to \"tweek\" the system. Contracts could be let crossing the number of schools and work could begin as soon as the first schools are under design. This will also allow us to spread the workload over small, medium and larger contractors. The same is true for such projects as fire alarms and other minor additions as they come aboard. Administrative Requirements Attached is an updated list of personnel that we feel is necessary to implement this program. There is a small deviation from the original list compiled. We are beginning to look at administrative requirements and we are in the process of reviewing computerized construction management software. The purpose of these programs will be to have multiple input in contract folders and more quickly document projects so as to allow the most current information available for reports and other information required. CONSTRUCTION VARIABLES The greatest construction variable will be the availability of contractors as the projects are developed. Certain projects are obviously going to attract large contractors where other projects may attract smaller firms. If we are smart in our packaging of these contracts, by pulling them together with similar items across individual school boundaries, we will have the flexibility of tailoring the projects Page Three, Continued Capital Projects based on the availability of contractors in the market. At the present time, the general outlook for large construction firms reveal that we are going into a moderate to heavy construction period. We are coming out of a rather heavy construction period and, hopefully, will catch these firms at a low point in their scheduling. Small construction companies will continue to be a problem, but it is hopeful that through specific solicitations, with an emphasis on minority and small business owners, we can attract new contractors to assist us in constructing our projects. SUMMARY The intent of this document is to present general possible areas for discussion. Definitive plans with regard to priorities, influx of funds and time schedule, and exact responsibilities have not been delineated. However, great thought has gone behind the general schemes listed here as to possible project implementation. DCE/apl/capproj !'\" z -m-\u0026lt;\no z \u0026gt;r \u0026gt; C: 0 =i 0\n:t: Construction Status: Special Board Report 5 May 2003 Major Additions -Phase one 1 Hall 2 McClellan 3 MannMS 4 Cloverdale MS 5 Terry 6 Otter Creek Major Renovations - Phase One 7 Central 8 Mabelvale MS 9 Bale 10 Franklin 11 Garland 12 Jefferson 13 Watson Major Additions -Phase Two 14 Parkview 15 J. A. Fair 16 Dunbar MS 17 Pulaski Heights MS 18 Southwest MS Major Renovations - Phase Two 19 Pulaski Heights Elementary 20 Williams 21 Woodruff New Construction - Phase Two 22 West Elementary School Major Additions - Phase Three Under Construction through 2003 Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 Under construction through 2004 Complete Complete Complete Under Construction through 2005 Under Construction through 2003 Completed Completed Deferred Completed Completed Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 Construction to begin 2003 through 2005 Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 Construction to begin 2003 through 2005 Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 Completed Not Scheduled 23 Metropolitan Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 !l1 24 Romine Complete .., m\n:c !S z Major Renovations -Phase Three z m r- 25 Forest Heights Not Scheduled 26 Henderson Not Scheduled 27 Baseline Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 28 Booker Not Scheduled 29 Brady Construction to begin 2003 through 2004\ns \u0026gt;. z- 30 Fair Park Not Scheduled m\"' o\"\"' \"'~ 31 Fulbright Complete no 0--\u0026lt; 32 Wakefield Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 z i5 --\u0026lt;z ~\u0026gt; 33 Wes tern Hills Not Scheduled n r- .... ~ n 34 Wilson Under construction through 2004 !I' Additions - Renovations -Phase Four 35 Badgett Deferred !l1 36 Carver Not scheduled C: m\ng 37 Chicot Not scheduled ~\u0026gt; ~~ 38 Cloverdale Elementary Not scheduled \u0026gt;-., --\u0026lt;\n:c 39 Dodd Not scheduled ~8 \"'~ 40 Forest Park Not scheduled i: 41 Geyer Springs Not scheduled 42 Gibbs Not scheduled 43 King Not scheduled 44 Mabelvale Elementary Not scheduled 45 McDermott Not scheduled !T1 .z... 46 Meadowcliff Not scheduled m\n:c z 47 Mitchell In design \u0026gt;r- \u0026gt; 48 Rightsell In design c:: E 49 Rockefeller Not scheduled C ::t: 50 Washington Not scheduled 2003/2004 Dedicated Millage Proposed Projects Projects Facility 1 Landscape To Be Determined 2 Misc Floors To Be determined 3 Envir. Design Mitchell 4 Envir. Design Rightsell 5 Asbestos Removal Meadowcliff 6 Asbestos Removal Franklin 7 Asbestos Removal Watson 8 Asbestos Removal Forest Park 9 Rest room Plumbing Repairs McClellan HS 10 Painting/Flooring J A Fair HS 11 Flooring Wilson 12 RoofRepl Fair Park 13 Park Lot Otter Creek 14 Gym Refinish Central HS 15 HVAC Cafe Wilson 16 HVAC Print Shop Metro HS 17 Bleacher Repl Booker 18 Park Lot Resurface Parkview 19 Park Lot Resurface Hall HS 20 Roof Repl. Design Booker 21 Roof Repl. Design Williams 22 Roof Repl. Design Forest hts 23 Roof Repl. Design Hall HS 24 Roof Repl. Design McClellan HS 25 Park Lot Resurface Admin 26 Park Lot Resurface Baseline 27 Park Lot Resurface Cloverdale el Date: May 22, 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors From: sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - May This is the forty-third communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, one 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 implementation of technology by participation in the technology committee( s). b) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. c) Participating with the Technology Committee. !\" \"C m\no ~ z z m,... Audit Report - May 2003 Page 2 of2 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. 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. 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) 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 internal controls. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Serving 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. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 22, 2003 TO: Board of Education FROM: r Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes 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 19, 2002 are considered intern teachers. Personnel Changes Page 2 May 22, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsff erminations Certified Employees Kellye, Darlene Reason: Terminated Kathy Burris Elem II ROCKEFELLER 8-9-00 4-24-03 New Certified Employees NONE 1-11 TCH925 Additional Years of Probationary Status Teacher FAIR Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Chacon, Nancy Reason: Accepted Another Position Eason, Mary Reason: None Given Henson, James Reason: None Given Occupational Ther. SPECIAL ED. 8-12-99 5-16-03 Pupil Personnel 11-15-02 CLOVERDALE MID. 4-25-03 Security Officer FAIR 8-29-88 5-4-03 60-17 AN925 1-01 FSH5 36-20 SOFR9 ANNUAL SALARY 35735.00 49224.00 7312.00 18404.00 Personnel Changes Page 3 May 22, 2003 NAME Hoover, Sin-Chun Reason: Personal Johnson, Lisa Reason: None Given Lancaster, Jason Reason: None Given Lee, Michael Reason: Abandonment Lloyd, Terri Reason: Accepted Another Position Sterley, Pamela Reason: Personal Enlow, Robert Kemp, Anita POSITION SCHOOL Interprete SPECIAL ED. Care Worker CARE Care Worker CARE Child Nutrition ROCKEFELLER Care Worker CARE Child Nutrition FORESTHGTS START DATE END DATE 1-22-01 3-14-03 10-14-02 3-31-03 10-1-02 4-11-03 9-9-02 4-24-03 9-23-02 4-17-03 4-4-03 4-17-03 SALARY CLASS 40-19 AN925 1-03 CARE 3-17 CARE 1-01 FSH5 4-01 CARE 1-01 FSH5 New Non-Certified Employees Child Nutrition 4-11-03 1-01 CENTRAL FSH5 Child Nutrition 4-14-03 1-01 ROCKEFELLER FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 28764.00 6.431hr 9.151hr 7312.00 6.251hr 7312.00 7312.00 annual 1242.27 prorated 7312.00 annual 1333.13 prorated ~ \u0026gt;-  Z m\"' o--\u0026lt; \"'~ (\")(\") 0--\u0026lt; ~o ~s!'\n(\") r- --\u0026lt;~ (\") ~ ii:, C: m \"D \u0026lt;o \u0026gt;\u0026gt; ~~ \u0026gt;-,, --\u0026lt;\n:o ~8 \"'~\ni: r, C) ~ z --\u0026lt; \"D\n:o 0 c3 ,~.. !\" --\u0026lt;:,, m:,: ~- a, - 8E ::,,:~ \u0026gt;~ c- oc 5::!l\ns z:i Personnel Changes Page 4 May 22, 2003 NAME Porter, Ebony Rucker, Elnora Seawood, Ruthie Shelton, Annie Smith, John Walls, Angela Young, Vickie POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition ALC Custodian FRANKLIN Child Nutrition WESTERN HILLS Care Workers CARE Custodian FULBRIGHT Child Nutrition MCCLELLAN Custodian WASHINGTON START DATE END DATE 4-24-03 4-21-03 4-7-03 4-7-03 4-21-03 4-15-03 4-21-03 SALARY CLASS 3-01 FSH4 1-02 CUS928 3-01 FSH4 1-04 CARE 1-01 CUS925 1-01 FSH5 1-01 CUS925 ANNUAL SALARY 5687.00 annual 807.81 prorated 10737.00 annual 1750.00 prorated 5687.00 annual 1195.56 prorated 6.55/hr 5164.50 annual 842.04 prorated 7312.00 annual 1292.73 prorated 5164.50 annual 842.04 prorated TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent PREPARED BY: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services DATE: May 22, 2003 RE: Extension of EDS Contract Background Information: After the successful millage campaign in May 2000, LRSD entered into a contract with EDS for consulting services related to the development of a new technology plan and with A TS\u0026amp;R for services related to improving the technology infrastructure. The development and approval of the LRSD Technology Plan 2001-2004 was a direct result of those consultant services. In the spring of 2001 the District again entered into a contract with EDS for a wide range of services that included project management (WAN, phone system, cabling, magnet media retrieval systems, E-rate assistance) and engineering services (e-mail conversion, network systems integration, help desk configuration and network training). That contract expires June 30, 2003. Projects completed under the EDS contract are WAN, phone system, cabling, magnet media retrieval systems, annual E-rate applications, e-mail conversion and help desk configuration. Network training materials will be on the web by May 15 and all sites will be cut over to the new network by June 15. At this time it is clear that District staff will continue to need a reduced level of support from EDS. The new network is complex and requires a high degree of technical skill to maintain and support. Because of the speed and intensity of technology projects over the last two years, District staff is not yet prepared to step in and assume total responsibility for the network. A gradual weaning from the expertise of the EDS engineers will take place over the next year as the LRSD technical staff grows in skill level. Other projects that continue to require assistance are E-rate applications, media retrieval system installations, and the technical specifications for the new technology center. EDS has been instrumental in our getting E-rate funding of $2.2 million in 2001-2002 with applications pending for 2002-2003 ($2.4 million) and 2003-2004 ($3.1 million). We are now in Program Review with our E-rate applications, requiring extensive documentation efforts. Having the expertise of . EDS as we go through the next year will be critical for successful implementation of these projects. Fiscal Impact: The amount of the EDS contract for a one year extension will be $252,000. Dedicated millage technology funds of approximately $2,000,000 are available each year for continuing technology support. The expense of the EDS contract extension would come from that fund. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve an extension of the technology support contract with EDS until June 30, 2004. Scope of Work-Project Management and Server Infrastructure Management July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004 EDS will work with LRSD personnel to support the LRSD network systems and to assist in the implementation of the Little Rock School District Technology Plan, 2003-2006 and integrate this plan into the District's Strategic Plan. Implementation of the District's Technology Plan will include the following tasks.  Project management for all components of the District's Technology Plan Implementation  Network systems maintenance support  Help Desk hardware and software maintenance support  Help Desk policies and procedures development  Remote management support In addition, EDS team members will continue to:  Participate in Technology Committee meetings  Assist in developing an evaluation process that will enable the District to monitor progress toward technology goals  Research specific District recommended software applications suitable for instructional applications delivered in a variety of ways  Conduct research in order to identify alternative funding resources  Assist LRSD in developing other corporate partnerships  Prepare public relations materials in order to communicate status to stakeholders EDS will establish objectives, standards, and procedures for the project team to help the District meet their goals. An integrated plan will define the activities to be performed, resources required for accomplishing the tasks, and assignment of responsibility and accountability. Scope of work provided by EDS for Little Rock School District will include the following components. Little Rock School District Server Infrastructure Management Software  Research specific District recommended software applications suitable for instructional applications delivered in a variety of ways EDS Tasks/Deliverables   Review software applications currently in use  Research software applications/alternatives (cost, functionality, etc.)  EDS will provide a summary analysis of instructional applications researched for installation on the District's Enterprise Network Server Infrastructure Management EDS Tasks/Deliverables  Provide Active Directory (AD) Maintenance and Support  Provide 2\"d level desktop support to the District's support personnel  Perform on-site routine maintenance of servers at the Technology Center  Monitor Technology Center network servers' performance  Update as needed the Site Administration Manual (SAM) for the Technology Center servers  Document network performance and develop a benchmark  Instruct District technology support staff on the LRSD network and maintenance procedures  EDS will continue to assemble and load the operating system for new servers.  EDS will install virus detection software on all new servers.  EDS will update and maintain DHCP servers.  EDS will maintain the network based home directories.  EDS will maintain Windows 2000 Terminal Services in remote administration mode on all Windows 2000 or above servers at the Technology Center.  EDS will maintain the backup solution for the Technology Center servers.  EDS will install and configure server-based instructional applications at the Technology Center as provided by the District.  EDS will perform periodic on-site testing to determine overall functionality and performance of the network.  EDS will develop SAM for new local servers up to the release of those servers.  EDS will assist LRSD in the development of network policies, processes and procedures. 2 Little Rock School District Server Infrastructure Management Server Infrastructure Instruction EDS Tasks/Deliverables  EDS will develop a structured training plan for LRSD personnel on the server infrastructure at the Technology Center.  EDS will provide instructional sessions on the following topics as they relate to the Technology Center server infrastructure. --Server Infrastructure Layout --Active Directory Design --Organizational Unit Design --User Import/Creation Process --Exchange Design --Trust Configuration --DNS Configuration --DHCP Scope Configuration --HEAT System Configuration --Backup Schedule --Anti-Virus Configuration Project Management EDS Tasks/Deliverables  Plan and facilitate regular meetings with project personnel including both LRSD staff and vendor team  Work with LRSD personnel to ensure execution of District's Technology Plan by coordinating all efforts of Project Team  Responsible for managing the following project components --Scope --Quality --Resources --Schedule --Communication --Contracts --Budget Other EDS Tasks/Deliverables  Participate in District Technology Committee meetings  Conduct research in order to identify alternative funding resources  Assist LRSD in developing other corporate partnerships  Prepare public relations materials in order to communicate status to stakeholders  Conduct research on appropriate evaluation process  Assist the District in future E-rate filings and applications 3 r, Cl ~ z -\u0026lt; \"t\u0026gt; ::c 0 6 ~ r- Little Rock School District Server Infrastructure Management  Coordinate the solicitation and aid the District in the evaluation of proposals received for additional RFPs  Consult in the technical specifications of the Technology Center  Coordinate ongoing construction activities as they relate to technology initiatives  Coordinate the integration of all site technologies into the District's technology initiatives Business Assumptions  EDS assumes LRSD will identify appropriate staff for the team with one individual appointed decision-maker. Contact information will be made available to the EDS team.  EDS assumes LRSD will provide temporary space for two offices (cubes) with networked PCs and phones.  EDS assumes LRSD will make facilities available when on-site visits are requested.  EDS assumes project team personnel will be available as needed.  EDS assumes all existing technology related information and data will be made available upon request.  EDS assumes LRSD will provide EDS personnel a safe and secure work environment free of harassment or hostilities. Technical Assumptions  LRSD will provide their technical staff appropriate training to ensure a fundamental understanding of Windows 2000 and Active Directory. EDS will not provide Microsoft Certified Training on any Microsoft product.  LRSD will provide technical staff to work along side EDS personnel on a daily basis so EDS can mentor staff on daily network operations and maintenance. issues.  LRSD technical staff will be required to attend the Instructional Sessions presented by EDS. EDS assumes LRSD technical staff will have the background and training to understand materials presented in these sessions and will be able to put it to use on the network infrastructure. 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: May 22, 2003 TO: Board of Education From: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Re: Update on Progress to Complete the Remaining Program Evaluations Background Information: As you know, we have contracted with Dr. Steve Ross to complete the Literacy Program Evaluations. Dr. Ross and members of his University of Memphis team met with members of our elementary and secondary Literacy Team, Math and Science Team members, Dr. Ed Williams of PRE, and Dr. James on Wednesday, April 30th to discuss the scope of the project. The purpose of the study will be to evaluate the Literacy programs across the District. The research questions that will guide the study are: 1. What are the long-term impacts of the Literacy programs on student achievement in the Little Rock School District? a. Are there different impacts between alternative literacy approaches, such as ELLA with enhancements and SFA? b. What are the impacts of the overall program and the alternative specialized program on raising the achievement of African American students? c. What are the relationships between student and school variables as they affect alternative programs? d. What are the characteristics of effective schools or programs? 2. What are the reactions of teachers and District Literacy leaders toward the Literacy Programs with regard to implementation, professional development, resources, and effectiveness on teaching and learning improvement? The research study will have both quantitative and qualitative components. The focus group interviews started on May 1st . Recommendation: ~ It is recommended that the Board of Directors receive the report as presented. DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: RE: Background LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 May 22, 2003 Board of Education Dr. T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development Lucy Neal, Director of Instructional Technology/Library Media Grant Proposal - Enhancing Education Through Technology Grant The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) released the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant competition for proposals. The EETT competitive grants are made available through the U.S. Department of Education's No Child Left Behind legislation for the purpose of improving student academic achievement through the effective integration of technology. The goals of EETT are to: 1) improve student achievement through the use of technology\n2) assist every student to become technologically literate by the end of the eighth grade\nand 3) encourage the effective integration of technology. The District partnered with the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District to prepare and submit the Tri-District Technology Training for Teachers (T4) proposal. The three districts will collaborate on an innovative professional development project that will assist teachers in developing skills of integrating technology into the curriculum. The T4 Project includes a three-pronged approach to professional development: 1) facilitator-led technology seminars, 2) webbased technology training opportunities, and 3) the UALR Cyber Teacher program. Emphasis of all training sessions will be on integration of technology into the curriculum, not on learning to merely operate the software. All activities extend and enrich the technology plans of the three districts. If funded, Lucy Neal will serve as the T4 project director. The grant was submitted on May 5, 2003 in order to meet the May 5, 2003 submission deadline. Fiscal Impact The total one-year award request was $506,552.65. The LRSD will serve as the lead agency for grant management and fiscal responsibilities. The requested funds will be used to provide the following: 1) tri-district professional development activities\n2) purchased professional development and technical services to support professional development activities\n3) provide UALR tuition and laptops for 25 Cyber teachers to be selected from all three districts\nand 4) a computer lab for both Woodruff and Dodd Elementary schools. Local match is not required. Recommendation The staff requests approval for the submission of this grant. ~~ r-\n:a CD m ~ [S ::c r.-,\u0026lt;, -c\u0026lt;::\n:a c5 ~oz- ~~ p 0 0z ~ 5z en FINE ARTS DEPARTMENT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 South Pulaski  Little Rock, A R 72206  Phone (501) 447-3343  Fax (501) 447-7612 May 22, 2003 TO: ~ ~ Board of Directors FR~anny Fletcher, Director, Arts Department THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent SUBJECT: 6-12 Art, Music and Drama Textbook Adoption Recommendation In accordance with the District's PN Agreement, the LRSD Art, Music and Drama Textbook Committee has completed the selection process for the 2003-2009 adoption cycle. Committee members voted unanimously to recommend the attached list of textbooks for adoption. DJF/rcm f) C 0 z :!:\n5z u, Music (6-8) ART, MUSIC AND DRAMA TEXTBOOK ADOPTION LIST 2003-2009 Share The Music, Compact Disc MacMillan/McGraw-Hill Silver Burdett Making Music, Compact Disc Pearson Educational Music (6-12) Music, Its Role \u0026amp; Importance in Our Lives Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Art (6-8) Introducing Art Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Exploring Art Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Understanding Art Glencoe/McGraw-Hill A Community Connection Davis Publications A Global Pursuit Davis Publications A Personal Journey Davis Publications Portfolios Pupil's Barrett-Kendall/Pearson Ed. Art (9-12} .,.. Discovering Art History ~~ Davis Publications, Inc. 0\u0026gt; mo ~!\n%:Z \u0026gt; rn Discovering Drawing z\u0026lt; ~ Davis Publications, Inc.\no\nill :c: Exploring Visual Design Davis Publications, Inc. ?\"'~ Art Talk \u0026gt;ID Glencoe/McGraw-Hill c\u0026lt;= 0~ =IZ ill~ Art in Focus c3: .\n.,.: ,n\u0026lt; !\" Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Creating \u0026amp; Understanding Drawings Glencoe/McGraw-Hill ~~ The Jeweler's Art ,....\n,:, ID m Davis Publications, Inc. ~ is %r- ... c ~ ...\n,:, 15 o~z- The Photographic Eye ~~ ~ fn Davis Publications, Inc. Art (AP} Gardner's Art through the Ages Harcourt !\"' 0 0 z Stokstad's Art History ~ 0 Prentice-Hall (Pearson Ed.) z rn History of Art Prentice-Hall (Pearson Ed.) Art Synetics Davis Publication .!=.. z :,, :z c- Design Synetics :,.\n.\n. u Davis Publication A Short Guide to Writing About Art Addison Wesley (Pearson Ed.) The Annotated Mona Lisa University Press Centennial Drama (9-12) The Stage and the School Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Basic Drama Projects Perfection Learning 2002-2003 MUSIC, ART AND DRAMA TEXTBOOK SELECTION COMMITTEE  ~~ 0  me =:i !\nSCHOOL SUBJECT AREA NAME :c\nz!  cn z\u0026lt; Co ~!\" Kayen Baker Gibbs K-5 Music 0\no\nRita Bledsoe Booker K-5 Music A:c:l Sharon Boyd-Struthers Rockefeller K-5 Art Robert Brack Central 9-12 Music Cynthia Buehling Western Hills/Dodd K-5 Music Susan Crosby Southwest 6-8 Music s Edward Duncan Forest Heights 6-8 Music ~  DI Carole Dyson Williams K-5 Art C: C: c!!? Don Enderson Central 9-12 Art =iz Al~ Kathy Goodwin Meadowcliff K-5 Music c3::: ,:,\u0026lt; Jeaneau Julian Parkview 9-12 Music -,n !\" Susan King Hall 9-12 Art Karen Lawson Franklin K-5 Music Olen McCoy McClellan 9-12 Art Kelly Mcintire Booker K-5 Art Boyce Pearson Fair Park K-5 Music Susan Purvis Gibbs K-5 Art ~~ ..... ,,, Barbara Strickland Williams K-5 Music a,m ~ is Becky Webb Dunbar 6-8 Music :c,.... .....,. C...:. Lucy Willis-Washington J. A. Fair 9-12 Art \"o'cz5 Mary Zies King K-5 Art ~- :!!l~ Robin Miller-Bookhout Mann 6-8 Art -\u0026lt; fn Edgar Porchia Henderson 6-8 Art Susan Chambers Mann 6-8 Art Legail Biggs Parkview 9-12 Drama Roxie Hannah Mann 6-8 Drama !\"'I C Ex-Officio Members 0 z .... 5 Judy Magness School Board z Tyrone Harris Principal (/) Felicia Hobbs Principal Danny J. Fletcher Arts Director TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 22, 2003 Board of Directors Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Kenneth James, Superintendent 2003-2004 Recommendations for the Revision of the Student Handbook The District-wide Student Handbook Committee is recommending the attached revisions to the Student Handbook. The old information is presented in regular print, the revised information is present with a strike through, and the new information is presented in bold print. .\u0026gt;,, .x ~~ en :c ~,....,8.... c: en \u0026gt;~\n3!\" z !\"' C 0 z ?. 5z en DRAFT STUDENT CONDUCT CODE 2003-2004 ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND SENIOR IDGB SCHOOL STUDENTS Rule 1: Dishonesty Cheating on tests, (plagiarism) or copying the work of another student/person will not be tolerated. For all offenses involving academic assessments, the student will receive a grade of zero on the assessment or test. Forgery of parent's/guardian's signature(s) or falsifying information will not be tolerated. Rule 6: Failure to Serve Detention A student who fails or refuses to serve detention when directed to do so by a school administrator or other authorized school personnel will be disciplined according to the Student Handbook. Rule 7: Using Verbally Abusive Language, Obscene Gestures, or Fighting Words The use of profanity, inflammatory or verbally abusive language, obscene gestures, intimidation and/or the instigation of a fight or altercation are prohibited in the school environment. Peer Mediation/Conflict Resolution is required. Rule 8: Smoking or Use of Smokeless Tobacco Smoking or possession of matches, lighters, lighter fluids and/or tobacco products of any kind on school district property, at a school-related activity or on the school bus is prohibited. (Arkansas Code 5-78-101-102) First Offense: Enrollment in, and completion of, a smoking H88808B education program. Enrollment documentation required. Three days in-school suspension. Three days out of school suspension for failure to complete the program. Second Offense: Enrollment in, and completion of, a smoking cessation program. ..-\n11rolleui11t IIHHHU!ntation is HlfHind. Three to five day in Hhool sHspension out of school suspension and probation. Failure to complete cessation program will result in long-term suspension recommendation. Third Offense: Enrollment in and completion of a smoking cessation program. Enrollment documentation required. Long-term suspension recommendation. Note: A student found in possession of matches, lighters, lighter fluids and/or flammable products on school buses will be required to attend a student/ parent/ administrator conference within twenty-four hours of the incident. 2 Rule 14: Gambling Playing a game of chance for something of value will not be tolerated. First Offense: Suspension: 3-5 days and probation (regular schedule schools) Suspension: 4-6 days and probation (block schedule schools) Second Offense: Long-term suspension recommendation Rule 18: False Alarm The act of pulling or attempting to pull or calling in an alarm of a fire, bomb threat or other emergency without a lawful purpose is prohibited. The act of communicating a false alarm to or about a school, a school bus, at a school-sponsored or related activity or any public facility is a Class D Felony. Fire Marshall and/or Police notification is required. (Arkansas Codes 5-71-210, 6- 18-502, and 6-17-113) First Offense: Second Offense: Long-term suspension recommendation Expulsion recommendation Rule 21: Repeated Violation of Category 1 Offenses Rule 21A. Habitual or repeated violation (3 or more times) of school rules and regulations will not be tolerated. First Offense: Suspension: 3 days (regular schedule schools) Suspension: 4 days (block schedule schools) Second Offense: Suspension: 5-10 days and probation (regular schedule schools) Suspension: 6-10 days and probation (block schedule schools) Third Offense: Suspension: Long-term suspension recommendation Rule 21B. Repeated Violation of Category 2 Offenses A student who repeatedly violates Category 2 Offenses will be disciplined. l. The violation of a single rule two (2) or more times, or 2. The violation ofa combination of rules two (2) or more times. First Offense: Second Offense: Suspension: 10 days and probation Long-term suspension recommendation 3 .\u0026gt;.. x,.  !!l (J)::c ~,....,8.... C: (J) \u0026gt;\n!i =oi .(J ) z Rule 24: Harassing Communications Harassing communication on school property is prohibited. The use of the voice, telephone, telegraph, mail, E-mail, Facsimile (Fax), or any other form of written, verbal, or electronic communication that intimidates, bullys, annoys, causes alarm, or threatens harm to another person, is deemed in violation of this rule. To knowingly allow another person to use a telephone or other electronic device under your control for such a purpose is a crime. To violate another person by using sexually explicit language or gestures is also prohibited (see the Anti-Harassment Policy, p. '54). (Arkansas Code 5-71-208) First Offense: Second Offense: Suspension: 10 days and probation Long-term suspension recommendation Rule 25: Forgery or Falsification of Information The act of falsifying teacher/administrator or school staff signatures or information on official school records, hall passes, documents, and any items requiring staff signatures will not be tolerated. First Offense: Second Offense: Third Offense: Suspension: 5 days (regular schedule schools) Suspension: 6 days (block schedule schools) Suspension: 10 days Long-term suspension recommendation 4 A committee, composed of elementary principals developed the Elementary Tardy And Early Check-out Policy. The policy was then presented to all of the elementary principals, during a principals' meeting, for their review and input. A needs assessment is provided so that the Board can understand why a policy is needed. (The needs assessment will not be printed in the Student Handbook). NEEDS ASSESSMENT The elementary principals are concerned about the excessive amount of student tardies and early check-outs that most of them are experiencing in their schools. They explained that some parents are bringing students to school late, in excess of 20 times in one nineweeks and some as late as 12:00 noon. In addition, some parents are checking students out prior to the end of the school day because they do not want to be in line with the cars and buses at the end of the school day. The principals expressed that students are missing an extreme amount of instructional time\nbut they (the principals) are held accountable for students' academic achievement. Elementary schools have a 5 and 1/2 hour instructional day with a 2 and 1/2 hour uninterrupted literacy block which generally occurs during the morning school hours. Most tardies occur in the morning\ntherefore, students are missing the entire literacy block. Since the federal government has mandated NCLB legislation, it is imperative that students are at school and participate in the literacy block ELEMENT ARY TARDY AND EARLY CHECK-OUT POLICY DEFINITION A student receives a tardy when he/she fails to be in the classroom or other assigned location by the time the tardy bell stops ringing. A student receives an early checkout when he/she exits school prior to the end of the school day (when the last bell has rung). CONDITIONS 1. There are generally no excused tardies or early student check-outs. However, an exception will be made if the student is delayed or checked out early due to official school business, illnesses or medical appointments (documentation is required on the day the child returns to school) or for other reasons approved by the building administrator, such as an accident or other emergency. 2. Generally, school/class tardiness or early check-outs will not affect a student's citizenship grade. In those cases, however, when the persistent efforts of school personnel fail to eliminate tardiness or early check-out, or if 5 ~~ r-:,, Cllm ~~ :,:,...,.,. C...:.\n,, i5 .o,,z_ !..:.:.l ~,... -\u0026lt; rn f\u0026gt; C 0 z ~ 0z en the student refuses to accept an assigned sanction, the citizenship grade may be lowered by a building administrator. 3. The Tardy and Early Check-out Policy becomes effective one week after the opening of the school year to allow students time to learn the school. 4. Tardies and early check-outs will accumulate on a semester basis. PROCEDURE 1. On the first unexcused tardy or unexcused early check-out, the teacher/administrator will record the tardy or early check-out, document the amount of time missed and warn the student. Parent/guardian notification is required. 2. On the second unexcused tardy or unexcused early check-out, the teacher will record the tardy, document the amount of time missed and warn the student. Parent/guardian notification is required. 3. On the third unexcused tardy or unexcused early check-out, the teacher will document the amount of time missed and the student will be sent home for a required parent conference. NOTE: The conference may be held via telephone. 4. On the forth and fifth unexcused tardy or unexcused early check-out, the building administrator will contact the parent and may elect one of the following procedures, based on the conditions existing in his/her school. A disciplinary sanction will be assigned from the following alternatives: a. Early morning, after school, lunch, or recess detention hall b. In-school time out, or in-school suspension 5. On the sixth and seventh unexcused tardy or unexcused early check-out, the student will receive a two-day short-term suspension. 6. On the eighth and ninth unexcused tardy or unexcused early check-out, the student will receive a five-day, short-term suspension, which may be served in an elementary ALE, if space is available. The parent must provide transportation to the ALE. If the student is tardy while he/she is assigned to an Elementary ALE, another day is added to the ALE assignment. No student will remain in an Elementary ALE for tardies or excused early check-outs more than ten days. 7. If the student continues to be unexcused tardy and/or is checked out early from school unexcused, whether in an elementary ALE or his/her regular school, the student will be recommended to be long-term suspended and assigned to an ALE for a minimum of 20 days. 8. A student who continues to accumulate excessive (10 or more times) tardies and/or early check-outs will be reported to the appropriate agency. 6 The following information is being recommended for review and adoption by the Director of Pupil Services, Coordinator of Health Services, Drug Free Schools Coordinator, school nurses, and a parent. ADMINISTERING MEDICATIONS TO STUDENTS Schools are responsible for providing students the opportunity to take prescription and non..:prescription medications that have been provided by the parent/guardian. Written permission from the parent/guardian must be received before the medication may be administered by school personnel. Narcotic pain medication will not be administered at school. Students who have recently had surgery or a medical procedure and need prescribed pain medication should not attend school. The LRSD Health Services Department is responsible for providing procedures for the safe administration of medications and will provide training for non-nursing personnel on appropriate methods of administering medications. In case of an anaphylactic reaction, or the risk of such a reaction, or severe asthma attack, a school nurse or trained designated staff may administer emergency oral, injectable or inhalation medication to any student in need thereof on the school grounds, in the school building, or at a school function according to the Standing Orders of the school physician or the student's primary care physician. Medication Containers All medication brought to school must be in the original container. Prescription drugs will be in the original bottle with proper label indicating student's name, administration time and dosage. Non-prescription drugs will be in the original container with the original label which will indicate reason for use. Medication is not to be sent in any other container or wrapper (e.g. Saran Wrap, aluminum foil, lunch box, etc.). Parents will be notified if medication has been sent in an inappropriate container. Pharmacists can be encouraged to provide the medication in two appropriately labeled bottles so one can be left at school. Medication Transit Between Home and School Parents of students in elementary and middle school who take prescription medication are responsible for bringing the medication to school. Elementary and Middle school students are not to transport their own prescription medication. Parents are responsible for picking up any unused medication. (The only exception to this is asthma inhalers, Epi-Pens, and antibiotics, which may be carried to and from school by the student.) Permission and Accountability of Medication Parents will provide a written permission slip for any medication that is to be administered by school personnel. When the parent brings the medication to school, the number of pills will be counted, ( or the amount of liquid measured). This counting will be done by the 7 p C 0 z ~ 5z u, parent and a school district employee. The name of the medication, dosage, and amount will be recorded on the BSS (Medication Permission Slip). This information will be dated and signed by the parent and school employee. The amount of medication brought by the parent should not exceed the amount needed for one month. Middle School Students Middle school students may carry their own non-prescription medications and certain prescription medications that have been approved by the school nurse. These medications will be limited to one (1) full day's supply and must be in the original container. All other prescription medications must be kept in the health room or office under lock. Middle school students may carry their inhalers. They are encouraged to report any use of inhalers to the school nurse. Nurses will verify any medication at the request of the school administrators. Senior High Students Senior high students may carry their prescription and non-prescription medication, limited to one (1) full days supply. Routine verification by the school nurse is not required but nurses will verify any medication at the request of school administrators. Student Responsibility It is expected that Senior High and Middle School students will be responsible and report to the school nurse's office to take their medication at the appropriate time. STUDENTS ARE NEVER TO GIVE OR RECEIVE MEDICATION FROM OTHER STUDENTS. 8 Pursuant to the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation the following information is to be provided to parents: TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS At the beginning of each school year, the District will notify parents/guardians that they may request information regarding the professional qualifications of students' classroom teachers. Parents/guardians may be given timely notice that the students have been assigned,.or have been taught for four or more consecutive weeks by teachers who are not fully certified. SAFE AND UNSAFE SCHOOLS Safe Schools Safe schools are those where students, staff members and visitors feel safe and welcome and have the opportunity to learn, teach, work, and engage in activities without being threatened, intimidated, bullied, harassed, or made the victim of crime. Such schools provide an environment in which students are challenged academically, respected and supported socially and emotionally by peers and staff, held accountable for their actions, and able to work without fear. Perhaps, most importantly, a safe school is one where students are connected and feel a part of the school. This broad definition of a safe school extends the concept of safety beyond the realm of physical well-being to include the related areas of social climate and order. Unsafe Schools For the purpose of NCLB, the definition of a persistently dangerous public school implies a pattern of unsafe behaviors as demonstrated over time, not just a single event. The committee recommended a period of two consecutive years, during which the following are evidenced, establishes the condition of \"persistently unsafe.\" A school would be considered persistently dangerous if the following conditions are observed: 1. For each year during the past two consecutive years, the school has had a federal or state gun-free school violation as allowed by the USC and/or Arkansas Criminal Code Annotated, or at least one violent criminal offense has been committed on school property (Violent criminal offense means homicide, rape, robbery and/or aggravated assault), and 2. For each year during the past two consecutive years, the school has experienced expulsions for drugs, alcohol, weapons or violence that exceeds 3% of the total school population as reported on October 1st of each year. A parent/guardian of a student, who is attending an unsafe school, may transfer to another school that has been determined to be safe, under the above guidelines. All such request should be directed to the LRSD Student Registration Office (447-2950). 9 ~~ r- :,0 a,m ~ lS :J: r.... C: -0 .... :,0 c5 Oz -o- ~~ ~~ f) 0 0 z ~ 6z u, != T 2 )\u0026gt; .z.. '.j\n,- \" SEMESTER EXAM EXEMPTION FOR SENIOR STUDENTS SECOND SEMESTER ONLY Students in the second semester of their 12th grade year may be exempt from semester exams in a maximum of four (4) classes if they meet the following requirements. 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 earn a grade of eighty percent (80%) or higher in the class for each of the nine weeks' grading periods. The student's semester grade shall then be calculated by taking the average of the two nine weeks' grades. S. The student shall receive no out-of-school suspensions or expulsions in the said semester. 6. The student shall obtain consent from a parent or legal guardian for the particular class. 7. If the student qualifies for an exemption but chooses to take a semester exam in order to raise his or her grade, the resulting semester grade cannot be lower than the average of the two nine weeks' grades. Authorized Use of Computer Networks Regulations I. Purpose To establish regulations for the appropriate use of the District computer network by students. II. Definitions Chat room: A variation of the interactive messaging board, a chat room is a web site for live, online conversation in which any number of computer users can type messages to each other and communicate IRT (In Real Time). These messages usually appear on an area of the screen next to the user's nickname or handle. Most chat rooms have a particular topic (which you are expected to discuss), but some chat rooms are purely for meeting other people. Other chat rooms are designed as elaborate 3-D environments, where you select an avatar that represents you in this virtual meeting place. Instant Messaging: (IM) - A technology that gives users the ability to identify people online and to exchange messages with them in real time. Referred to by many as the \"coolest way to communicate online since e-mail,\" it typically works like this: The instant messaging system alerts you whenever somebody on your \"buddy list\" is online and trying to contact you via your computer. That person can then initiate a chat session with you and both parties can type text messages back and forth. Hate site: A hate site is defined as, \"an organization or individual that advocates violence against or unreasonable hostility toward those persons or organizations identified by their race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability. A hate site also includes organizations or individuals that disseminate historically inaccurate information with regards to these persons or organizations for the purpose of vilification.\" E-mail: The process by which messages are sent electronically across computer networks. Flaming: To send an e-mail message that is abusive or that offends. Typing in all capital letters is considered shouting and may be offensive. Internet: A network of computer networks. Networks in the Internet are connected so that they can communicate with others regardless of their manufacture. Spamming: To send an annoying or unnecessary message to a large number of people. An example might be a chain letter asking a user to forward the message to x number or people. 11 ~~ r-\n:c ID m ~ [S :::c r... C: \"II ...\n:c i5 Oz \"II- ~~ ... r-\u0026lt; !TI r\u0026gt; C 0 z ~ 5z u, Virus: A computer program that uses various techniques to duplicate itself and travel between computers. Viruses can cause serious damage to computers such as erasing important data or crashing a system. III. Regulations General 1. Computer systems and networks are provided for conducting school business and for the educational benefit of students. They are not intended for private or personal use. 2. Users of the network are responsible for following local, state, federal and international laws. This includes copyright laws. 3. Users are responsible for the use of their own account, including security and proper use. Users are not to allow others to use their password. 4. Users are responsible for respecting the policies of other networks which they access and adhering to those policies. 5. Users may not deliberately damage or disrupt a network or computer system. System components such as hardware, software, property or facilities shall not be destroyed, modified or abused. Examples of activities that are prohibited are altering security codes or passwords and introducing computer viruses. 6. No LRSD network, phone, or computer system will be used to intimidate, threaten or harass. 7. Users will not use the LRSD network for financial or commercial gain or to advertise, promote or endorse products or personal services. 8. The District will not be responsible for financial obligations or legal infractions arising from unauthorized use of the system. 9. Network resources, information and electronic mail are not guaranteed to be private. Routine maintenance and monitoring of the system may lead to the discovery that a violation of a law or regulation has occurred. If there is reasonable suspicion that a law or regulation has been violated, an investigation will be conducted. Hardware 10. Only authorized individuals will install, service or maintain District-owned hardware. Software 11 . Only software authorized by the District may be installed on computer hardware. 12. Only authorized individuals will install software on District equipment. 12 Internet 13. The purpose of providing Internet access to students is for educational benefit only. 14. Before a student is allowed to access the Internet, a Student Use Agreement must be signed by the student and the parent/guardian each school year. 15. E-mail accounts will be issued to secondary students in grades 6-12. Elementary students will not be issued individual e-mail accounts but may be provided access to e-mail through a classroom account. 16. Users will not post personal contact information about themselves or other people. 17. All users should observe network etiquette. Users are expected to be polite and use appropriate language. Using vulgar or profane language is not appropriate. 18. Engaging in flaming or spamming is not appropriate. Students are prohibited from using chat rooms and instant messenger services. 19. Use of the system to access, store or distribute obscene, pornographic or inappropriately suggestive material is prohibited. 20. Use of the LRSD networks and computers to access, store, or distribute materials or sites that are considered racially derogatory or \"hate sites\" is strictly prohibited. 21. Students are to report any inappropriate material they access to a teacher or other staff person. Students are not to share inappropriate materials or their sources with other students. Supervision of the Computer Network 22. Coordination of the District computer network is under the supervision of the Superintendent or designee. At the building level, the principal or designee will be responsible for coordination of activities related to the network. 23. The principal or designee will establish a system that ensures that all students receive instruction on District policies that address computer systems and networks. The principal or designee will also establish a process for supervision of students using the system and will maintain user and account agreements. 24. Any user who violates this policy and accompanying regulations is subject to Joss of computer, phone, and network privilege as well as other District disciplinary actions. 13 \u0026gt;s :. -.,. \u0026gt;!!l Cl) :c i,..8...- c: Cl) \u0026gt;~ o=I .C l) z f) C 0 z ~ 5z en School Little Rock School District Authorized Use of Computer Networks Student Use Agreement Student Section ----------------------------- Student Name _______________ Grade ______ _ I have read the District Authorized Use of Computer Networks Policy. I agree to follow the rules contained in this policy. I understand that if I violate the rules my computer privileges can be terminated and I may face other disciplinary measures. Student Signature ______________ Grade ______ _ Parent or Guardian Section I have read the District Authorized Use of Computer Networks Policy. I hereby release the District, its Board of Directors, staff, employees, and any institutions with which it is affiliated, from any and all claims and damages or any nature arising from my child's use of, or inability to use, the District computer network. This includes but is not limited to claims that may arise from the unauthorized use of the system to purchase products or services. I will instruct my child regarding any additional restrictions I wish to be followed in addition to those outlined in these regulations. I will emphasize to my child the importance of following the rules for personal safety. I give permission for my child to use the District computer system and network, and certify that the information contained in this form is correct. Parent Signature ______________ Date _______ _ Parent Name ---------------Phone- ------ Home Address _________________________ _ Parent's e-mail address _____________________ _ 14 '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" May 22, 2003 TO: Board of Directors FROM: ~ Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services THROUGH: Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Audit Report for June 30, 2002 and Extension of Audit Services Background Information: The District's Annual Financial Audit for the fiscal year 2001-2002 has been provided to you under separate cover for your review. The audit was prepared by Thomas and Thomas, Certified Public Accountants and has been reviewed internally by the Financial Services Department. In June of 1999 the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements-and Management's Discussion and Analysis-for State and Local Governments. The purpose of this new financial reporting model is to provide more understandable and useful financial reports to a wider range of users than the previous model\nhowever, the GASB34 format created a whole new and different way ofreporting than has been used in the past. Because of the new method of preparing financial statements and the complications involved with the reporting transition, it is our desire to extend the auditing services of Thomas and Thomas for another auditing cycle. A more detailed description of the audit can be found in the Management's Discussion and Analysis on pages 3-10 of the audit report. Mr. Don Smith, the managing partner of the Little Rock office of Thomas and Thomas, will make a presentation and answer questions at the Board Agenda meeting. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us c\nn1-~?4_ ?nnn  fax: 'i01-124-2032 !JI m ~ 0 -n (\") ~ f) 0 0 z ::c emn ~ 6z en ------------- Fiscal Impact: The fee for the annual audit will not exceed $53,000 which includes a 3% increase over the previous year. Recommendation: We recommend that the audit be approved as submitted and that the contract with Thomas and Thomas to provide audit services be extended through June 30, 2004. At the end of the 2003-2004 cycle, the Board will send out an RFP for audit services. TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 22, 2003 Little Rock School District Board of Directors Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services THROUGH:~ T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ~ ur. Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Resolution: Sale of Fulbright Elementary School Property The Little Rock School District has recently received an offer of $250,000 for portions of the property of Fulbright Elementary School. In order for this sale to be considered by the Board, a resolution must be made to excess this property in order to dispose of it according to operating procedures. It is requested that the Little Rock School District approve the attached resolution for the excessing of the property at Fulbright Elementary School. The Offer and Acceptance for this property is also attached at this time. Once the Board has approved the Resolution to excess the property, we recommend acceptance of the offer. DE:cg Attachment: 1. Resolution 2. Offer and Acceptance .\u0026gt;.. x,. \u0026gt;!!l V,::,: ,~....8.- c: V, \u0026gt;c5 o~ .V , z p 8 z ~ 6z V, !J:l m ~ 0.. , (\") ~ (\") ::,: m V, ,.:.: 2 )\u0026gt; 2 (\" .'..D. (I FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY 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: Land lying in the County of Pulaski, State of Arkansas, to wit: Part of Section 28, T-2-N, R-13-W and\nWHEREAS, said lands are hereby found to be surplus 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-trust securing bonds issued by the District\nand 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: 1. That the administration take the necessary measures to offer for sale the abovedescribed surplus lands that 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 with 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: STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss COUNTY OF PULASKI ) President, Board of Directors Secretary, Board of Directors Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of ________ , 2003 . Notary Public My Commission Expires: ___________ _ \u0026gt; x \"ti  \u0026gt;~ \"':c i8 ,- re: (/) \u0026gt;c5i o=I(./ ) z ~ i 0.. , 0 ~ :c m (/) fl 8 z ~ 5z (/) ?\u0026lt; n 5 (/) z G') ~ ~ ~ (/) != T 2 ), z (\"' ,).\u0026gt;. r, OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE St. James United Methodist Church{hereinafter referred to as the \"Buyer\") hereby offers this the 16th day of May , 2003, to purchase the Property {as hereinafter defined) from Little Rock School District known henceforth as {\"SELLER\"), pursuant to the following terms and conditions {which are referred to herein as the  Agreemenr): 1. PURCHASE AND SALE: Seller agrees to sell to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller, for the consideration set forth herein and subject to the terms, conditions, and provisions hereinafter stated, certain real property {the \"Property\") located in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, being approximately described as follows: That real property described on Exhibit \"A\" attached hereto, being an undeveloped parcel of land on the north side of Pleasant Valley Drive immediately to the east side of Fulbright Elementary School, the precise boundaries of such undeveloped parcel of land to be more particularly described on a survey of the area to be prepared as set forth in Paragraph 5 below (being approximately 4.04 acres), which precise boundaries must be mutually agreed upon by Buyer and Seller. 2. PURCHASE PRICE: The total purchase price which Buyer agrees to pay and which Seller agrees to accept for the Property is the sum of $250,000.00. 3. PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE: The purchase price shall be payable in cash at Closing. 4. TITLE INSURANCE: {a) Within twenty-one (21) days from acceptance hereof, Buyer shall obtain, at Buyer's sole expense, a commitment for an American Land Title Association {AL TA) owner's title insurance policy, with Buyer as the Named Insured, committing to insure the Buyer's fee simple interest in the Property to Buyer in the amount of the purchase price issued by a company authorized to insure title to real property in the state of Arkansas, {the \"Title Commitment\"). If the Title Commitment shows special exceptions to title other than those standard exceptions contained in the AL TA commitment form, and where such special exceptions relate to restrictions, conditions, defects or other matters which would interfere with Buyer's use or adversely affect the title of the property, then within ten days of delivery of the Title Commitment, Buyer shall deliver written notice thereof to _Seller which notice shall state specifically those exceptions to which Buyer objects. All objections not specifically enumerated in such notice shall be deemed to be waived by Buyer. {b) Upon Buyer's delivery of notice of objections to Seller, Seller shall have twenty-one (21) days within which to cure such objections to Seller's satisfaction. If, within such twenty-one day period, Seller fails to cure and/or have waived such objections and exceptions to Buyer's satisfaction then this Agreement shall terminate in which event all Earnest Money paid or deposited by Buyer shall be returned to Buyer within seven (7) days. At Closing, or as soon thereafter as practical, a policy of title insurance issued pursuant to the Commitment shall be issued to Buyer, which Policy shall have the so-called standard exceptions removed therefrom. 5. SURVEY: Buyer shall, prior to Closing, contract for, at its sole cost and expense, a certified topographical land survey of the Property to be made by an Arkansas-licensed engineer or surveyor showing the following: Adjacent roads, building lines, a metes and bounds description showing the beginning point, the distance and bearing from a readily ascertainable point {such as a street intersection), and the course, bearing and measured distances of all boundary lines\nmonuments or stakes found and set\nany building setback lines\nlocation, dimensions, area, and street address of all buildings and the distance from each side of the building to the property line, location, size, and physical evidence of any building, fence or hedge near any property line\nphysical evidence of any possible easement, power line, pipeline, manhole or drain outlets\nand encroachment or overlapping of improvements\nlocation of all utilities contiguous or adjacent to the Property\nFlood Plain designation\nelevations/distance to the property lines from the center line and roadway pavement edge for Pleasant Valley Drive and the location and recording references of all easements or other locatable encumbrances or restrictions affecting the Property which are established by any recorded instrument. Such Survey shall be dated and all particulars shall be signed and sealed by the aforesaid surveyor or engineer. 6. CONVEYANCE: Conveyance shall be made to Buyer, or as directed by Buyer, by general warranty deed. At the time of Closing, the Property shall be free of any liens and mortgages of any kind. 7. TAXES: Seller warrants that all taxes and other assessments on the Property are paid {or will be paid at the Closing) down to and including the immediate past real estate tax year. General taxes for the current real estate tax year shall be prorated between Buyer and Seller as of the Closing Date, based on the most current statements. Oastjames2rev4 I 403 Seller shall provide to Buyer a copy of the most recent Real Estate Property Tax Bill for the Property. Seller warrants that there are no special tax assessments levied against the Property and none are anticipated and the Property does not lie within the boundaries of any existing improvement districts. Seller has no knowledge of any improvement districts that are in the process of being formed within whose boundaries the property lies. Buyer hereby recognizes, acknowledges, and agrees that during Seller's ownership of the Property, it has been exempt from such taxes. s. CLOSING: The Closing (hereinafter referred to as the \"Closing\") shall take place at the offices of Standard Abstract and Title Company, 3420 Old Cantrell Road, Little Rock, AR 72202 on or before June 30, 2003, (said date is herein referred to as the \"Closing Date\") or at such other time and place mutually acceptable to both parties. 9. POSSESSION. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Buyer upon the Closing Date. 10. EARNEST MONEY: Buyer shall tender a check for Five Thousand Dollars and no/100's ($5,000.00), to be deposited with Standard Abstract and Title Company, 3420 Old Cantrell Road, Little Rock, AR, 72202 upon acceptance, which shall apply to the Purchase Price or Buyer's closing costs at Closing. If title requirements are not fulfilled, or other conditions in the Agreement are not satisfied, and as otherwise provided in the Agreement, all of the Earnest Money shall be promptly returned to the Buyer. If Buyer fails to fulfill its obligations, the Earnest Money may be retained by Seller as liquidated damages or Seller may refund such Earnest Money and bring legal action against Buyer. 11. CLOSING COSTS: Unless otherwise agreed by Buyer and Seller, the party indicated below will pay transaction costs: Buyer: Premium for owner's title insurance policy, Premium for mortgagee's title insurance policy, IRS notification form, Recording fees, Preparation of loan documents, Preparation of conveyance documents, Escrow fees, Documentary stamps, Other charges customarily paid by Buyer, Title examination or search fees. 12. CONDEMNATION: In the event that during the period of time after the date of this \"Agreemenr and prior to the Closing Date, any portions of the Subject Property taken in condemnation or under rights of eminent domain (or conveyed in lieu thereof), Seller shall notify Buyer in writing of such condemnation or conveyance in lieu thereof, and Buyer may, at its option, either: (1) terminate this \"Agreement\" in such case neither party shall have any further liability under this \"Agreement\"\nor (2) receive a pro-rata reduction in such Purchase Price, based on a revised survey, and proceed to consummate this \"Agreemenr as to the remaining portion of the Property in accordance with the terms and provisions of this \"Agreement\". 13. ZONING: Buyer's obligations pursuant to the Agreement are conditioned upon Buyer receiving, prior to Closing, such authority, consent or action that affirms the Property is so zoned by any governmental body, code, law, regulation or ordinance to permit the use of the Property by the Buyer for its intended development, and Buyer has obtained the necessary building, construction, sign, operating, driveway and regulatory permits. Seller agrees to cooperate with Buyer by providing assistance as might be necessary in any way to accommodate the completion of this specific zoning and permitting process to construct and operate the property for its intended use provided, however, Seller shall not be required to incur any costs associated with such assistance. If both parties make the best efforts to accomplish the zoning and it is not accomplished prior to the Closing Date, Seller may extend this Agreement in thirty day increments until the zoning process is completed and permits are issued. 14. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD SURVEY AND SELLER'S WARRANTY: Seller will provide any Environmental Hazard Survey, or other environmental information of any kind that may have any bearing on Buyer's purchase of the Property, that Seller has in its possession to the Buyer within ten (10) days after acceptance of this Agreement. Seller states that to its knowledge, without independent inspection or investigation, there are no environmental problems that exist and no Hazardous Materials are present on the Property. oastjames 2 \u0026gt; x ~ - ~~ en :c ,~...,8... c: en \u0026gt;c51 =oi e. n z !\"'I 0 0 z ~ 6z en !:D m ~ .0... , C') ~ C') :c m en Seller hereby warrants that to its knowledge: (1) The Property is free from any use or occupancy restrictions\nexcept those imposed by applicable ordinances and regulations of the State of Arkansas and except restrictions of record. (2) Seller has received no notice of alleging or claiming any violations of zoning, health, environmental, or other laws, rules or regulations affecting the Property and Seller has no knowledge of any such violations and will promptly notify Buyer if, prior to closing, Seller receives any such notices. (3) To Seller's knowledge, without independent inspection or investigation: a. The Property has never previously been used as Landfill or as a dump for garbage, refuse, or hazardous materials. b. There are no areas on the Property where Hazardous Materials have been disposed of, released or found and Seller knows of no storage or disposal of any Hazardous Materials on the Property. Neither are there any storage tanks, either above or below ground and there are no underground pipes or lines on the Property except for facilities of public utility companies. c. There has been no leaking or intentional disposal of material of any type onto the Property and no permits for Hazardous Materials of any nature have been granted on the Property. (4) For purposes of the agreement, \"Hazardous Material\" means and includes (i) any asbestos or insulation or other material composed of or containing asbestos, or (ii) any hazardous, toxic or dangerous waste, substance or material defined or designated as such in any Federal, State or local statute, law, ordinance, code, rule, regulation, order or decree regulating, relating to, or imposing liability or standards of conduct concerning, any hazardous, toxic or dangerous waste, substance or material, including radioactive materials, or concerning air, land or water pollution, as now or at any time hereafter be in effect. Buyer shall have the right to conduct a Phase 1 environmental survey of the Property, and should the results of that survey indicate the presence of Hazardous Materials, then Buyer shall have the right to conduct further testing. Buyer shall have 30 days from the date this Agreement is signed to complete the Phase 1 audit, and shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in the event the audit reveals the presence of hazardous materials. Buyer agrees to return the Property to its original condition and protect and hold seller harmless for any personal injury or property damage that might occur as a result of this testing and audit. 15. REAL ESTATE BROKERS: Buyer is not responsible for any real estate commission as a result of this transaction. 16. ASSIGNMENT. Buyer shall have the right to assign all rights pursuant to this Agreement to one or more parties who will be entitled to receive the conveyances and all rights pursuant hereto at Closing. 17. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Time is of the essence with this Agreement. 18. PARTIES BOUND: The terms and provisions of this \"Agreement\" shall inure to, extend to and be for the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and legal representatives of the respective parties hereto. 19. NOTICES: Any notice, demand or request which may be permitted, required or desired to be give in connection herewith shall be in writing and deemed given when directed to the Seller and Buyer by U.S. mail, Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, at the respective addresses of Buyer and Seller. In the event such notice or other communication is effected by personal delivery, the date and hour of actual delivery shall fix the time of notice. Notices shall be as follows: TO BUYER: TO SELLER: oastjames St. James United Methodist Church Attn: Dr. Guy Whitney 321 Pleasant Valley Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock School District Attn: Dr. Kenneth James 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 3 20. ENTIRE AGREE~ENT: This Agreeme~t shall ~epresent the entire agreement by and between the parties hereto, except as o_therw1se provided for herein and It may not be changed except by written agreement duly executed by the parties hereto. 21 . FURTHER ACTS: In the event any supplemental agreement or writing contemplated hereunder is not executed at or prior to the Closing through oversight or otherwise, the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless survive the Closing of the sale and purchase and shall continue in full force and effect until all such obligations are fully performed and satisfied. 22. AUTHORITY: Each of the parties to this Agreement warrant and represent that it has the power and authority to enter into this Agreement in the names, titles and capacities herein stated and on behalf of any entities, person, estate, or firms represented by such party, and that all Federal laws in order for Seller to enter into this Agreement have been complied with fully. 23. SEVERABILITY: If any provisions of this \"Agreement\" shall, for any reason whatsoever, be held to be a violation of any applicable law, and so much of said \"Agreement\" is held to be unenforceable, then the invalidity of such specific provisions herein shall not be held to invalidate any other provisions herein which shall remain in full force and effect. 24. CONFIDENTIALITY: Seller agrees that this Agreement, its concept, and all terms and negotiations relating to its development are strictly confidential and not to be discussed with any other parties other than those directly involved in the development of this \"Agreement\" except to the extent required by Arkansas law. 25. DEFAULT: If Seller shall fail to consummate this Offer and Acceptance for any reason other than Buyer's default or the termination of this Offer and Acceptance pursuant to a right to terminate given herein, Buyer may enforce specific performance of this Offer and Acceptance or may bring suit for damages against Seller. If Buyer shall fail to consummate this Offer and Acceptance for any reason other than Seller's default or the termination of this Offer and Acceptance pursuant to a right to terminate given herein, Seller shall have the right to have the earnest money paid to Seller as liquidated damages for the breach of the Offer and Acceptance or return such Earnest Money and bring legal action. 26. EXPIRATION OF OFFER: This offer shall expire, if not accepted, by 3:00 PM on the 30th day of -~M=a=...y __ , 2003. 27. GOVERNING LAW: This Offer and Acceptance shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Arkansas. 28. oastjames RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL: A) Church. If at any time after Closing, Buyer elects not to utilize the Property for church related purposes and elects to sell the Property to a third party, Buyer hereby grants to Seller a right of first refusal to purchase the Property. If Buyer receives a bona fide offer which it intends .to accept (an \"Offer\") to purchase all or any part of the Property (the \"Offer Property\"), the terms and conditions of the Offer (the \"Offer Terms\") will be conveyed to Seller in writing within five (5) days following Buyer's determination that it will accept the Offer. Seller will have ten (10) business days following its receipt of the Offer Terms within which to notify Buyer in writing of its acceptance of the Offer Terms (the \"Acceptance Period\"). If Seller accepts the Offer Terms, Buyer will sell the Offer Property to Seller pursuant to the Offer Terms and Seller will purchase the Offer Property, provided Buyer's title is free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except easements and restriction of record at such time which do not materially adversely affect the value or use of the Offer Property. Should Seller fail to give timely notice of its acceptance of the Offer Terms as provided above, Buyer may proceed to accept the Offer. If Buyer does not consummate a sale of the Offer Property consistent with the Offer Terms within one hundred eighty (180) days of the expiration of the Acceptance Period, any other bona fide offer shall be subject to the provisions of this Paragraph. B) School. If at any time after Closing, Seller elects to sell all or any part of the existing property now owned by Seller comprising the Fulbright Elementary School site and immediately surrounding property (the \"School Property\"), Seller hereby grants to Buyer a right of first refusal to purchase the School Property. If Seller receives a bona fide offer which it intends to accept (a \"School Offer\") to 4 .\u0026gt;,, .x \u0026gt;!!l en::,: ~8 ,- r-e en \u0026gt;c5 o=i .e n z p g z ~ 6z en !D m ~ .0. , n ~ ::,: m en ?\u0026lt; n 5 en z C\u0026gt; i::l ~ 91 en purchase all or any part of the School Property (the \"School Offer Property\"), the terms and conditions of the School Offer (the \"School Offer Terms\") will be conveyed to Buyer in writing within five (5) days following Seller's determination that it will accept the School Offer. Buyer will have ten (10) business days following its receipt of the School Offer Terms within which to notify Seller in writing of its acceptance of the School Offer Terms (the \"School Acceptance Period\"). If Buyer accepts the School Offer Terms, Seller will sell the School Offer Property to Buyer pursuant to the School Offer Terms and Buyer will purchase the School Offer Property, provided Seller's title is free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except easements and restriction of record at such time which do not materially adversely affect the value or use of the School Offer Property. Should Buyer fail to give timely notice of its acceptance of the School Offer Terms as provided above, Seller may proceed to accept the School Offer. If Seller does not consummate a sale of the School Offer Property consistent with the School Offer Terms within one hundred eighty (180) days of the expiration of the School Acceptance Period, any other bona fide offer shall be subject to the provisions of this Paragraph. The parties hereto hereby expressly acknowledge and agree that at the time of Closing a memorandum or \"short form\" of the rights of first refusal set forth in this Paragraph 28 will be prepared, executed by both parties, and recorded in the real property records of Pulaski County, Arkansas. 29. USE AGREEMENT: Buyer and Seller hereby expressly acknowledge and agree that in the event Buyer ultimately purchases the Property, Buyer intends to construct thereon certain facilities for use by Buyer and its members and guests, and that Seller, its employees, visitors, and students shall have certain rights of use to said facilities once constructed. Buyer and Seller agree to enter into a separate written use agreement prior to the date of Closing outlining, among other things, the times, use rights, indemnities, etc ... for use of said facilities, and, in the event the parties are unable to agree upon the terms of and enter into such agreement prior to the date of Closing, either party hereto may cancel this Offer and Acceptance upon written notice to the other, and the Earnest Money shall be immediately returned to Buyer and the parties shall have no further rights or responsibilities hereunder. The parties hereto hereby expressly acknowledge and agree that said Use Agreement shall not run with the land, but rather shall be personal to the Buyer and Seller as set forth in this Agreement, and, in the event , either all of the property comprising the current St. James United Methodist Church property, or all of the property comprising the current Fulbright Elementary School property is sold to a third party, the Use Agreement referenced in this Paragraph 29 shall automatically terminate. Buyer makes this offer at i:tJO .f!_M. on this /,~ay of~r 2003. BUYER: St. James United Methodist Church By: Seller accepts this Offer at ____ M. on this __ day of __ , 2003. SELLER: Little Rock School District By: Dr. Ken James, Superintendent oastjames 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: May 22, 2003 TO: Board of Education FROM, ~al Pacadis, Di,ecto,, Procurement and Materials Mgmt THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, 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 Cloverdale Magnet $1,000.00 cash to be used for Baseline Wal-Mart Store Middle School achievement awards and a school marquee Cloverdale Magnet $1,000.00 cash to be used for Baseline Wal-Mart Store Middle School achievement awards and a school marquee Jefferson Elementary Various food items, valued at Finkbeiner Food Service School $75.00, for use in pancake breakfast fundraiser for playground improvements Jefferson Elementary Various food items, valued at Kroger, 1900 N. Polk School $60.00, for use in pancake breakfast fundraiser for playground improvements Jefferson Elementary Various food items, valued at Kroger, 14000 Hwy. 10 School $25.00, for use in pancake breakfast fundraiser for playground improvements \u0026gt;.., .x ~ !!l en ::c ,~..,8.. c: en \u0026gt;\u0026lt;5i =oi e. n z ~ !Jl i 0., , C') ~ ::c m en ?\u0026lt; ,C.'.) 0 en z C) ~ ~\n,:, ::\u0026gt;\u0026lt; en :- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt; :- 0::,: 5:! C:\n,:,\nz,:z,- :ICC) men .z.. .!=.=. 2 ~ 2 (\" ~ r- (J Board of Education May 22, 2003 Page 2 School/Department Jefferson Elementary School McClellan Magnet High School Williams Magnet Elementary School Various food items, valued at $5.00, for use in pancake breakfast fundraiser for playground improvements $1,000.00 cash for Boys Baseball $250.00 cash for Football Program $1,000.00 bonus grant to be used to benefit the student body $15,484.00 cash to be used for various projects and events Donor Harvest Foods Wal-Mart Foundation Williams Traditional Magnet School PT A It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. Cloverdale Middle Memo To: From: Date: Re: Darral Paradis Angela Munns, Principal at Cloverdale Magnet Middle School 04/08/03 Wal-Mart Donation Please accept the donation from Wal-Mart for the amount of$i000.00 to Cloverdale Magnet Middle School. The money will be used for Achievement Awards and a Marquee for the school. \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\n= \u0026gt;\u0026lt;  :C ::c 5~ C:\nc\nzcZ - :I: C') m rn .z.. . CLOVERDALE MIDDLE Memo To: Darral Paradis From: Angela Munns, Principal at Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Date: 04/25/03 Re: Wal-Mart Donation Please accept the donation from Wal-Mart for the amount of$1000.00 to Cloverdale Magnet Middle School. The money will be used for Achievement Awards and a Marquee for the school. APR 2 8 2uG3 PftOCURtMENT JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL April 8, 2003 To: Darral Paradis, Director From: Procurement and Materials Management Roberta Mannon, Principal j /II Jefferson Elementary School Subject: Donations The following merchants donated various food items to Jefferson School for use in a pancake breakfast fundraiser for playground improvements: value. Finkbeiner Food Service, 3115 Madison St., Little Rock, AR 72204 - $75.00 Kroger, 1900 N. Polk, Little Rock, AR 72207 - $60.00 value. Kroger, 14000 Hwy 10, Little Rock, AR 72212 - $25.00 value. Harvest Foods, Tanglewood Center, Little Rock, AR 72207 - $5.00 value. It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. 2600 N. McKinley Street Phone 671-6281 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; !XI i .0.. . n ~ ::c m \"'\n= \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt; :C ::c :Sg\n: !52!:! zZ !I: Cl zm \"' - McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA DATE: April 16, 2003 TO: FROM: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Lany Buck, Princ!p@, SUBJECT: Donations Please accept these generous donations given to McClellan High School. WalMart Foundation, 702 S.W. Eth St., Bentonville, AR 72716 has give McClellan 3 donations: $1000.00 to be used by our Boys Baseball, $250.00 to be used by our football program, $1000.00 Bonus Grant that will be used to benefit our student body. We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Cc: Dr. Marion Lacey, Associate Superintendent 9417 Geyer Springs Road  Phone 447-2100 J\\?R 1 7 t~il3 ~t ~::~n1Sr\\J~ '!~'1~,~'.l .?,\nl,i\n.A.,. '~l Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 WILLIAMS TRADITIONAL MAGNET SCHOOL TO: FROM: A CHOICE FOR EXCELLENCE April 18, 2003 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement ~ry Menking, Principal SUBJECT: Donations The Williams Traditional Magnet School PTA has graciously donated $15,584.00 to our school for the following: Appreciation Luncheon Teacher Supply Reimbursement Honor Roll Good Citizen Party Audio System for Cafeteria Student Directory Thanksgiving Gift Cards School Carnival Fundraiser prizes for students Staff Appreciation Gifts Fifth grade end of year activities 290.00 2,465.00 1,263.00 176.00 7,525.00 349.00 50.00 253.00 239.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Ph::irie 1501\\ 4~7-' 00  Fax 1501 l 447-710- !JI i g (\") 0 \u0026gt; (\") :,: m Cl) ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 Cl) z G) Rl f\n~ Cl) TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 22, 2003 Board Of Directors ~ Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Of Schools ~onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Financial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\n= \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;=C:: c 5~ C:\n,:\n,\n,:\n,zZ :IC Cl mU\u0026gt; ::i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2001 /02 04/30/02 COLLECTED 2002/03 04/30/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,850,000 57,086,336 98.68% 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% DELINQUENT TAXES 6,950,000 7,783,841 112.00% 8,000,000 9,402,287 117.53% 40% PULLBACK 28,450,000 1,739,021 6.11% 29,400,000 4,531 ,954 15.41% EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 190,000 186,429 98.12% 187,000 209,598 112.08% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 575,000 353,143 61.42% 385,000 174,515 45.33% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 125,000 126,034 100.83% 135,000 337,232 249.80% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 600,000 135,016 22.50% 340,000 294,574 86.64% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 600,000 171 ,343 28.56% 275,000 171 ,061 62.20% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 155,000 152,196 98.19% 160,000 191,433 119.65% TOTAL 95,495,000 67,733,358 70.93% 97,432,000 72,460,434 74.37% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 25,000 21 ,619 86.48% 24,000 20,836 86.82% TOTAL 25,000 21,619 86.48% 24,000 20,836 86.82% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,568,331 43,432,048 79.59% 54,867,630 44,725,180 81 .51% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,455,741 6,724,661 90.19% 7,590,000 6,590,993 86.84% VOCATIONAL 1,325,000 1,117,152 84.31% 1,340,000 1,090,106 81.35% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,900,000 707,441 37.23% 1,700,000 1,106,019 65.06% EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 233,992 100.00% 273,358 273,358 100.00% TRANSPORTATION 3,468,291 2,317,542 66.82% 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,865,000 2,286,063 59.15% 3,265,000 3,028,812 92.77% ADULT EDUCATION 987,869 619,969 62.76% 1,006,014 583,296 57.98% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 1,195,000 1,097,074 91 .81% 658,607 658,607 100.00% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 25,000 124,150 496.60% 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 605,000 497,645 82.26% 650,000 84,923 13.07% WORKER'S COMPENSATION 600,000 TOTAL 76,229,224 59,157,737 77.61% 75,441,106 60,879,650 80.70% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 600,000 620,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 700,000 15,540 2.22% 1,126,233 200,754 17.83% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,639,927 546,642 33.33% 1,664,438 1,109,625 66.67% TOTAL 2,939,927 562,182 19.12% 3,410,671 1,310,380 38.42% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 174,689,151 127,474,897 72.97% 176,307,777 134,671,301 76.38% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 15,868,127 11,009,806 69.38% 22,230,023 14,781 ,578 66.49% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 2,200,027 56.10% 3,980,000 2,365,699 59.44% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 16,396,998 66.11% 25,065,942 18,279,481 72.93% TOTAL 44,592,636 29,606,831 66.39% 51,275,965 35,426,758 69.09% TOTAL REVENUE 219,281,787 157,081,729 71.63% 227,583,742 170,098,057 74.74% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 2002 AND 2003 - APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2001/02 04/30/02 EXPENDED 2002/03 04/30/03 EXPENSES SALARIES 98,743,100 72,494,647 73.42% 100,865,586 72,416,252 \"BENEFITS 25,603,621 18,324,055 71.57% 24,838,361 18,445,774 pURCHASED SERVICES 20,235,454 14,355,086 70.94% 19,795,774 14,678,603 MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 9,252,512 6,334,392 68.46% 8,347,098 6,075,240 '\"cAf\u0026gt;IT AL OUTLAY 1,792,554 922,484 51.46% 1,616,991 975,085 OTHER OBJECTS 8,402,940 5,478,621 65.20% 8,508,680 5,652,723 DEBT SERVICE 10,526,942 10,653,854 101 .21% 12,217,048 12,213,572 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 174,557,123 128,563, 140 73.65% 176,189,538 130,457,249 - EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 16,519,453 9,738,065 58.95% 22,995,210 12,765,479 DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 2,521,593 64.30% 3,980,000 2,729,596 MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 15,906,902 64.13% 25,065,942 16,680,685 - TOTAL 45,243,962 28,166,560 62.25% 52,041,152 32,175,760 - TOTAL EXPENSES 219,801,085 156,729,700 71.31% 228,230,690 162,633,009 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (519,298) 352,029 (646,948) 7,465,048 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,937,298 1,937,298 1,645,440 1,645,440 OPERATING 8,489,087 8,489,087 8,557,652 8,557,652 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,285,972 3,377,569 880,253 4,896,438 OPERATING 8,621,115 7,400,844 8,675,891 12,771 ,703 TOTAL 9,907,087 10,778,413 9,556,144 17,668,141 % EXPENDED 71 .79% 74.26% 74.15% 72.78% 60.30% 66.43% 99.97% 74.04% 55.51% 68.58% 66.55% 61.83% 71.26% ~ !JI i 0 ~ (\") ~ ::c m rn ?\u0026lt; ,(.\".). 0 rn z C) Rl f\n~ rn :- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:- 0 ::c 5~ C:\n:o :z:oz~ C) m rn .z. . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-02 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 04-30-03 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 78,319.02 800.00 77,519.02 CONTINGENCY 1,052,354.15 1,052,354.15 SUBTOTAL 1,163,956.07 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 1,163,156.07 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 0.00 182,400.00 109,945.29 72,454.71 NEW WORK PROJECTS 22,028,270.87 8,295,936.00 9,344,378.80 8,064,131.13 12,915,696.94 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 348,708.80 30,625.90 379,334.70 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 5,749,803.26 650,222.23 2,984,262.24 236,383.35 3,179,379.90 RENOVATION PROJECTS 47,947,115.45 887,767.00 13,662,647.02 11,783,251.02 23,388,984.41 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 4,744,881.05 2,090,512.80 4,288,982.83 116,031 .25 2,430,379.77 SUBTOTAL 80,861,053.40 0.00 12,137,463.93 30,769,550.88 20,199,796.75 42,029,169.70 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 139,801.90 45,713.11 5,896.70 179,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 FULBRIGHT PROJECT 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 31,569,505.02 (12,137,463.93) 19,432,041 .09 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST STATE OF ARK 469,063.03 469,063.03 INTEREST 5,022,644.80 2,098,539.30 7,121,184.10 SUBTOTAL 38,500,102.43 2,194,252.41 {12,137,463.93) 5,896.70 0.00 28,550,994.21 GRAND TOTAL l ~!! :i~:i lll l!!! ~ ll!~ ~:i~ ~l l2.J2.!2 J!! ZZ ~~z ~II ~g ll!l! Zl! Z~ Zl H\n!\n!ll! l! PROJECT CATEGORIES ADMINISTRATION NEW WORK PROJECTS SECURITY PROJECTS LIGHTING PROJECTS MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR RENOVATION PROJECTSTECHNOLOGY UPGRADES UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS TOTAL PROJECT ALLOCATIONS THRU 04-30-03 586,846.55 35,357,280.16 265,814.17 4,853,208.89 11,409,705.52 53,351,543.00 11,735,611.78 20,725,862.06 138,285,872.13 lN3WN'!lnorov 'IIX S!\u0026gt;Nl'!IV3H 'IX - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 2003 EXPENSE EXPENSE ENCUMBERED 2000-01 EXPENSE 2001-02 THRU 04-30-03 THRU 04-30-03 SUBTOTAL 889,772.32 443,467.00 113,930.47 2,641,482.13 791,385.63 397,615.34 575,016.53 (485,325.77) 4,589,606.29 109,609.73 1,832,392.06 4,218,294.40 4,119,045.21 4,325,201.40 109,945.29 9,344,378.80 379,334.70 2,984,262.24 13,662,647.02 4,288,982.83 8,064,131.13 236,383.35 11,783,251.02 116,031.25 514,391.84 22,441,583.22 223,540.20 4,853,208.89 8,230,325.62 29,962,558.59 9,305,232.01 ENDING ALLOCATION 04-30-03 72,454.71 12,915,696.94 42,273.97 0.00 3,179,379.90 23,388,984.41 2,430,379.77 20,725,862.06 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 30,769,550.88 20,199,796.75 75,530,840.37 62,755,031.76 S\u0026gt;t'!IVW3'!1 !\u0026gt;NISOl:\u0026gt; 'X S3H:\u0026gt;VO:\u0026gt; ~O lVl\\3 'B NOllVnlVl\\3 SV!d v 'S:\u0026gt;AS lOOH:\u0026gt;S 'XI LITTLE ROC!f: SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND - FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 2003 1 Fund Purchase Maturity Institution 1In terest Rate Type Principal Date Date Operating 12-09-02 06-09-03 Regions 1.190% Money Market 20,000.00 Operating 01-19-03 07-19-03 Regions 1.190% Money Market 20,000.00 Operating 04-08-03 12-05-03 Pulaski 1.290% Money Market 10,000.00 Operating 04-24-03 TFN Bank of America 1.070% Repo 7,665,000.00 Operating 04-15-03 05-01 -03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% CD 7,000,000.00 Total 14,715,000.00 Food Service 04-23-03 TFN Bank of America 0.980% Repo 800,000.00 Total 800,000.00 Activity Fund 04-03-03 08-14-03 Bank of America 1.020% Treasury Bills 801,966.49 Total 801 ,966.49 Bond Account 03-10-03 09-08-03 Regions 1.190% CD 400,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Metropolitan 1.930% CD 1,000,934.31 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 I Bank of the Ozarks 2.250% CD 5,116,598.09 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 10-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.440% CD 10,000,000.00 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 Superior 2.250% CD 2,500,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 11-14-03 I Superior I 1.900% CD 11,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 11-15-02 05-15-03 USBANK 1.380% CD 11,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 07-15-03 USBANK 1.360% CD 10,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-22-03 01-16-04 Bank of America 1.240% Treasury Bills 5,299,646.43 Capital Projects Fund 03-14-03 06-16-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD 5,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 11-15-02 05-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.480% CD 9,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 04-15-03 08-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.370% CD 3,035,911 .61 Capital Projects Fund 09-17-02 09-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 2.200% CD 10,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 04-28-03 - TFN Bank of America 1.130% Repo 6,100,000.00 Total 91 ,511,987.34 Deseg Plan Scholarship 01-10-03 06-11 -03 I Bank of America 1.050% Treasury Bills 124,445.83 Deseg Plan Scholarship 09-27-02 06-10-03 I Bank of America 1.430% Treasury Bills 534,508.80 Total 658,954.63 Rockefeller Scholarship 01-30-03 06-24-03 I Bank of America 1.090% Treasury Bills 249,898.04 Total 1 249,898.04 TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501} 447-1000 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Sadie Mitchell~ciate Superintendent for School Services Lloyd Sain, Jr., Co-Chairperson, PTAS PTAS Committee Members Professional Teacher Appraisal System (PTAS) April 9, 2003 Background Information On behalf of the Professional Teacher Appraisal System's committee, I submit the Little Rock School District Professional Teacher Appraisal System (PTAS) for your review and adoption. Since your first reading of Track I in April 2002, the committee has developed two additional phases of this appraisal system. In April, you were introduced to Track I, which outlined the evaluation expectations and requirements for all probationary teachers. This document now includes Track II, which describes the evaluation experience for all tenured teachers of the district. In addition, this document outlines a new phase called Track III, which will offer support to any teacher who has difficulty meeting the expectations and teaching standards of this district. During this entire process, the PTAS Committee involved\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_1092","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":["2003-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--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/1092"],"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 APR 2 ~ 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School Distri, Board of Directors' Mee ti April 2003 F.Y.I. Date: r /.J -\u0026lt; l  Ann ~ Gene / Horace ~argie El M ltssa ~ Polly  Linda Return to: ~ ,... (\")\"'D .,,,. ..... .,m\n._1.0. -\u0026lt;ii: Oz o\u0026gt;\n10\n10 c-\u0026lt; m.,,\n10 C: -z\nen 0 ..... ,... c5 r-z ,,(.\"...) Ch ,... \"...'.\" D\n10 g mm Zc .... C: ~~ clt:\n10 :::1 I: m z\n10 i\nl\"'\n10 \"D m C: \"D mo ri~ nl!! 0\n10\ns:m ii:(\") m8 Zz .... =l \"'c5 z \"' f\u0026gt; (\") m =p\nl oc..zm :\"c'\"-' c,.: .C ,~. RECEIVED APR 2 3 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATIOfl MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting I n Apr112003 C')\"tl :. ,,.\nm:a ,r-- r_-,: I: Oz o\u0026gt; el~ m..,\n:cc:: -z\n:en o-\u0026lt; r- c5 r-z C')\"'  r-r-\n:0 -.:,m c::.., mo r-\n:0 c\"\n-\u0026lt; nS!! o\n:c 31:m :I:(') m8 Zz -\u0026lt;=i \"'c5 z \"' fl C') m=l p\no'-mz :\":'c\"-' c::o  C')  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 April 24, 2003 5:30 p.m. B. Performance - Rockefeller Elementary School Choir 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Accelerated Learning Center - Carol Green Twin City Bank - Baseline \u0026amp; 1-30 Branch - Bob Burch \u0026amp; Marilyn Harrington Fulbright Elementary School - Deborah Mitchell Twin City Bank - Highway 10 Branch - Bob Burch, Laurice Taylor \u0026amp; Arnicee Stigars Henderson Middle School - Marvin Burton Twin City Bank - Chenal \u0026amp; Bowman Branch - Bob Burch \u0026amp; Beth Lindsey Mabelvale Elementary School - Tab Phillips \u0026amp; Janice Moore Twin City Bank - Baseline \u0026amp; 1-30 Branch - Bob Burch \u0026amp; Beth Lindsey McDermott Elementary School - Virginia Ashley \u0026amp; Melanie Greenwald Twin City Bank - Rodney Parham Branch - Bob Burch \u0026amp; Marsha Davis Woodruff Elementary School - Janice Wilson, Shirley Davis \u0026amp; Jovita Lacy Twin City Bank - Riverdale Branch - Bob Burch \u0026amp; Julie Wagner Watson Elementary School - Javanna Wood Waste Management of Arkansas - Wayne Rathbun (\")\"D ,,.\u0026gt;. ....\n.,m._a.. ... :11:: Oz o\u0026gt;\n:o\n:o C-\u0026lt; m-n\na C: -z\na\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; o-\u0026lt; F\n(\")\"' ,,\u0026gt;...... U\u0026gt; \"0 -\u0026lt;\na g mm Zo ... C: ~~\na,- ~ ~\n:o::I ~m Z\n:o i\ni U\u0026gt;\na \"Dm C: \"0 aio l'\"\n:o 1'5-\u0026lt; nS!? o\n:o :11::m ii::(\") m8 Zz -\u0026lt;=i \"'o z \"' r\u0026gt; (\") m=I  ,:\n\u0026lt;-m oz en\"' :i::- ~p !:l \u0026gt; Regular Board Meeting April 24, 2003 Page2 C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: V. A. Remarks from Board Members B. Little Rock Public Education Foundation - - Initial Distribution of Grants C. Desegregation Update D. Budget Update E. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects F. Internal Auditors Report G. Technology Update H. Statistical Report on Little Rock Youth APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Regular Meeting - 03-20-03 Special Meeting - 04-10-03 Special Meeting- 04-17-03 B. Personnel Changes VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Arkansas History Textbook Adoption B. Career- Technical Education Textbook Adoption VII . ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: A. Charter School Program Evaluation VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report C. Request for Easement - Wilson Elementary School D. Request for Easement - John Barrow Road and Henderson Middle School n -o ,,.\u0026gt; ..:..:,_mC.. -4:IC Oz o\u0026gt;\nc\nc cm-.,\u0026lt;.,\nc C: -z\nc n ,o..\" c\"5' r-z OU\u0026gt; ,,\u0026gt;....\nc -o m C: -0 ,C..D\nOc \u0026lt;'5-\u0026lt; n{!? 0\nc\ni:m\ni:n m8 Zz\n~ z Cl\u0026gt; !\"' n m:::.  Fl c..m oz Cl\u0026gt; Cl\u0026gt; ::c- !\n:!=' .n.. \u0026gt; Regular Board Meeting April 24, 2003 Page 3 IX. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Varsity / Junior Varsity Athletic Program X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT O\"O .\u0026gt;\nmo ,r---,-__,\ni: Oz o\u0026gt;\no\no om-.,\u0026lt;.,\no C: -z\noo_n, != ~ OU\u0026gt; \u0026gt; !=\no -om C:.,, ,C--D\nOo l'i _, nl!! o::o\ni:m\ni:n m8 Z_, =zI u, 0 z u, .!1,7, .,,. \u0026gt;o ~=I Z\u0026gt; m--\u0026lt; ~a ::cZ ,.\nu, u, f' n m =I  p\n:j o\u0026lt;--zm CJ)CJ) ::cc: o \u0026gt;  n_, \u0026gt; I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Ill. PROCEDURAL MATTERS STUDENT PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. CITIZENS/ D. CTA E. JOSHUA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 April 24, 2003 Board of Directors J Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education~~ T. Kenneth James, 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: Accelerated Learning Center and Twin City Bank-Baseline \u0026amp; I-30 Branch Fulbright Elementary School and Twin City Bank-Highway 10 Branch Henderson Middle School and Twin City Bank-Chenal \u0026amp; Bowman Branch Mabelvale Elementary School and Twin City Bank-Baseline I-30 Branch McDermott Elementary School and Twin City Bank-Rodney Parham Branch Woodruff Elementary School and Twin City Bank-Riverdale Branch Watson Elementary School and Waste Management !='~ a,c, c:m 8 gi ~~ C: \"ti \"CC, ,C,. \u0026gt;..... --,m m ~ C') m =I  ,:::\nc....m oz en en ::c- \n!=' C') \u0026gt; Twin City Bank and the Accelerated Learning Center are proud to announce their partnership: Twin City Bank commits to the following: 1. Twin City Bank will serve as resource speakers and conduct business seminars for ACC students. 2. Twin City Bank will assist when possible with assemblies and educational opportunities for ACC students. Accelerated Learning Center commits to the following: I . ACC will keep Twin City Bank apprised of all educational activities at ACC. 2. ACC will help plan and schedule business seminars with Twin City Bank. 3. ACC will help Twin City Bank with promotional and public awareness events. 4. ACC will acknowledge Twin City Bank as a Partner in Education. Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank-Highway 10 Branch and Fulbright Elementary School Twin City Bank-Highway 10 Branch commits to the following partnership activities:  Recruit employees to read to students  Career Day speakers  Job shadowing  Provide pencils for test bags and tour bags  Count any change collected through fundraisers  Arrange for Penny, Nick and Buck to make appearances  Attend the Spring Supper  Provide volunteers and/or hot dogs for Field Day  Support 5th-grade graduation celebration  Consider ways to support the school's fundraising efforts for the computer lab  Provide speakers for parent workshops on topics such as trusts, wills and planning for college expenses  Consider assisting with a staff breakfast Fulbright Elementary School commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide student artwork and photos of school events for display in bank lobby  Provide the joy choir to perform at special bank events  Acknowledge Twin City Bank-Highway 10 Branch as a Partner in Education  Invite the bank to school events ?I r\no\n.i.\n,: C\u0026gt; ~ tn I !='P C:lO c:m gig ~~ C: \"D \"DO 0)\u0026gt; )\u0026gt;-\u0026lt; -\u0026lt;m m p C') m =l ,-\nc..m oz tn tn ::c- ~!=' C') ..... \u0026gt; Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank-Chenal \u0026amp; Bowman Branch and Henderson Middle School Twin City Bank-Chenal \u0026amp; Bowman Branch commits the following to the partnership:  Speakers on banking, checking accounts, business etiquette and interviewing skills  Job shadowing opportunities  Seminars for after-school program  Support for fundraising efforts to purchase a school sign  Food and staff for a chili hot dog supper  Assistance with staff supper if possible  Certificates for awards assemblies each nine weeks  Readers for 6th-grade classes  Display art, science projects, etc. in bank lobby Henderson commits the following to the partnership:  Student artwork for the bank to display  Allow the band to perform at the bank during the holidays  Acknowledge the bank as a Partner in Education Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank-Baseline 1-30 Branch and Mabelvale Elementary School Twin City Bank-Baseline 1-30 Branch commits to the following partnership activities:  Display student artwork in lobby  Provide volunteers to listen to young readers  Support parent activities such as spaghetti supper  Job shadowing  Career speakers  Recognize the good citizens each month and semester  Dolls and Balls at Christmas Mabelvale commits to the following partnership activities:  Student artwork for display  Choir to perform at bank opening  Acknowledge the bank as a partner  Support partnership activities !='P a,o c:m 8~ !!l~ C: \"ti \"00 O   --\u0026lt; \"m\" '\"' !\" C') 0 z ~\no m c3 ~ p C') m =l\n_~ oz \u0026lt;J)\u0026lt;J) :,:- ~~ .C..'.) J\u0026gt; Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank-Rodney Parham Branch and McDermott Elementary School Twin City Bank-Rodney Parham Branch commits to the following partnership activities:  Support fall carnival, science fair, family math night, honors assemblies and family literacy night  Recruit employees to read with students  Recruit volunteers for McDermott in the bank lobby  Count any change that is collected through fundraisers  Assist with 5th-grade graduation and trip  Arrange for Penny, Nick and Buck to make appearances  Career speakers  Job shadowing  Cook and serve hot dogs at selected school events  Support school efforts to decrease tardies McDermott Elementary School commits to the following partnership activities: Provide student artwork to display in lobby Send choir and cheerleaders to perform at special events Invite McDermott staff to volunteer to assist Twin City Bank-Rodney Parham with keeping their stretch of Rodney Parham clean Acknowledge Twin City Bank-Rodney Parham as a Partner in Education Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank-Riverdale Branch and Woodruff Elementary School Twin City Bank-Riverdale Branch commits to the following activities:  Encouragers to listen to children read  Display artwork in lobby  Cook and serve hot dogs for family or teacher events  Provide student recognition  Job shadowing  Speakers for career week  Assist students with planning end-of-year fund raiser for their graduation trip  Provide Buck, Penny and Nick to make appearances at events Woodruff commits to the following activities:  Provide student artwork for display  Send the cheerleaders and choir to perform at bank events  Acknowledge the bank as a Partner in Education !\" C') 0 z ~ :0 m ~ ~ p C') m =Fll \u0026lt;o-mz en en ::i::- !\n!=' ~ J\u0026gt; Partners in Education Proposal Watson Elementary and Waste Management Watson Elementary School and Waste Management have formed a partnership designed to enhance the education of the students at Watson. Watson commits to the following activities: Provide holiday cards for employees Provide student art work for breezeway Acknowledge Waste Management as a Partner in Education Waste Management commits to the following activities: Sponsor Newspapers in the Classrooms for Watson Encourage employees to read on ViPS Reading Day Provide judges for spelling bees Participate in field day Encourage employees to volunteer as tutors Provide classroom speakers for career week Allow students to job shadow Provide teacher and student awards Provide a field trip to the recycling center Participate in \"career vehicle\" day Provide classroom presentations on landfills and recycling DATE: TO: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Little Rock Public Education Foundation-Initial Distribution of Grants Background Information: I am very pleased to inform you that the Little Rock Public Education Board has successfully accomplished their first major objective. On Wednesday, April 2nd members of the Board distributed 32 grants totaling $95,000.00 for innovative programs that target student achievement, parent and community involvement, and teacher quality. The Foundation received a total of 93 applications. Ms. Saviers and Ms. Black will provide a brief report for the Board. Fiscal Impact: $95,000.00 infusion to improve programs across the LRSD Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors receive the report as submitted and commend Ms. Saviers and Ms. Black for all of their hard work and outstanding coordination of this event. .~... ~Pl c::c ...,zo m~ ?= z .-.~.,\na C: -\u0026lt; .... 0 C: c:~ :ten\na m\ng ~ !=IP 11:JC c: m 8 kl ~~ C: \"D \"DC C  -, m.... m !'\" (\") 0z ~\na m \"D 0 ~ - Public Educ:ui\u0026lt;m li n1 rn btion .  L.ittk Rock ' Board of Directors John Riggs President Herman Davenport Vice President of Development Cynthia East Vice President of - 300 Spring Building, Suite 808  Little Rock, AR 72201  501-372-1461  fortheschools.org To: From: Date: Principals and Teachers in the LRSD Lisa Black, Director of Programs \u0026amp; Development April 2, 2003 Administrative Affairs Subject: Spring Grant Awards Jan Hundley Secretary Steve Strickland Treasurer Senator Jim Argue Larry Berkley Bill Clark Frank Cox Cathy Crass William L. Cravens Eddie Drilling T. Kenneth James, Ed. D. Xavier B. Heard Barbara R. Hoover Gene Levy Larry Lichty Paulette Mabry Freeman McKindra, Sr. Virgil Miller Bruce Moore Billie Rutherford Charles 0 . Stewart Everett Tucker Ill Judge Joyce Williams Warren Staff Vicki Saviers Executive Director Lisa Black Director of Programs \u0026amp; Development The Public Education Foundation of Little Rock Gives Its First Grants to Schools. Thirh\n-Two grants totaling $95,000 are given to LRSD schools for innovative programs that target student achievement, parent and communihJ involvement, and teacher quality. The Public Education Foundation of Little Rock is a unique non-profit organization dedicated to enriching and improving student achievement in the Little Rock Public School District. On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock will provide 32 grants, totaling $95,000, involving over 71 teachers and reaching 24 schools within the Little Rock School District. In SWEEPSTAKES award style\nthe Public Education Foundation Board of Directors, Public Education Foundation Donors, Little Rock City Board Members, Little Rock School Board Members, along with community volunteers\nwill surprise teachers in the Little Rock School District by presenting them with grant awards. Each grant funded must target student achievement, parent involvement or teacher quality programs. \"We think surprising the teachers is a great way to announce grants and celebrate the success of the Foundation at the same time. The Public Education Foundation provides an avenue of giving and a way to help public schools that did not exist in Little Rock before. These grants represent creative, instructionally focused ideas that would not have been possible before. And because of families, community organizations and corporations like Entergy Arkansas, Fifty for the Future, the Winthrop Rockefeller Family, Riggs Family Trust, CDI Constriction, Inc., Education America, and Metropolitan Bank we are able to make a direct impact in these schools,\" said Vicki Saviers, Executive Director of the Public Education Foundation. Public Involvement Public Education Public Benefit 12 Powerful Presentations by Kids J.A. Fair High $5,000 13 Outdoor Learning Center J.A. Fair High $2,000 p .... 14 Read to Succeed Wilson Elementary $3,994 ~~ 0::,: \u0026gt;...,zo mg 15 Stage A Central High $3,900 -\u0026lt; 16 Literacy in Physics Central High $1,490 17 Fair Park Band Program Fair Park Elementary $1,000\n,: z m 18 Fair Park Stock Market Team Fair Park Elementary $724 ,....~.,\na C -\u0026lt; .... QC ~~ 19 Story Characters ... Jumping off Points for Fair Park Elementary $5,000 ::,: U\u0026gt;\na m Writing ~ 20 Fair Park Family Readers Fair Park Elementary $3,000 ~ 21 Multimedia in the Classroom Forest Heights Middle $2,000 22 Seventh Grade Literacy Fair Forest Heights Middle $776 !=' f\u0026gt; a\u0026gt;o cm 8~ 23 Celebrating Diversity Hall High $4,000 !!IC') C c~ ~o 0  \u0026gt;-tm-t 24 Urban 4-H Southwest Middle $1,500 m 25 Business Theories/Applications Southwest Middle $1,500 26 Parkview All-Star Academy Parkview High $4,850 rn (') 27 $2,215 0 A Science Project for Second Grade Brady Elementary z ~\na m ~ 28 Discovery Lab McDermott Elementary $5,000 0 ~ 29 Special Needs Advancements Fulbright Elementary $1,770 30 Creating the Interactive Classroom Fulbright Elementary $4,750 :,-, 31 ALC Jr. Great Books Alternative Learning Center $1,000 z.... m\na\na mZ 32 Art Bug Group of 5 Elementary Schools $5,000 c3 ~\no \u0026gt; -tC 0 =I 0 Total Grant Funds Provided $94,750\no U\u0026gt; \"The Public Education Foundation wants to send a message to teachers, principals, parents, and students in the Little Rock Schools that says the community believes these schools can succeed and we plan to continue to work to support them\", said John Riggs, President of the Public Education Foundation Board. The Foundation received a total of 93 applications and felt that getting that number of project requests was truly reflective of the tremendous energy and creativity found within the Little Rock School District teaching community. Although we were unable to fund all of those requests we hope those that were not funded at this time will not be discouraged. There were many wonderful projects and we look forward to seeing new requests when applications are accepted in the fall of 2003. Congratulations to all involved and we want to thank everyone that participated. We look forward to working with you in the coming year. To those receiving approved grants please send an updated implementation date to Lisa Black at lblack@fortheschools.org so that we can take your projects to the next step. Grants provided to the Little Rock School District from the Public Education Foundation on April 2, 2003 are listed below: Project Title School Name 1 Candid Camera Kids Carver Elementary $985 - 2 Reading On Up Washington Elementary $5,000 3 Music to Share Mann Middle $1,000 4 The AWS School WeatherNet Program Mann Middle $5,000 5 Life Interrupted: The Story Quilt Gibbs Elementary $1,627 6 Lion Club Camp King Magnet $4,725 7 Cultural and Physical Diversity Awareness Watson Elementary $4,000 8 Chicot Family Literacy Program/Parenting Chicot Elementary $4,700 Component 9 Otter Pockets Otter Creek Elementary $2,300 10 Dodd Mini-Mall Dodd Elementary $3,944 11 ISSE-IDP Information Science \u0026amp; Systems J.A. Fair High $1,000 Engineering Community TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: ~n Individual Approach to a World efKnowledge\" April 24, 2003 Board of Directors T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Bill Goodman~ b April 2003 Construction Report, Bond Projects I am pleased to report that the following projects have been recently bid, and the contracts have been awarded: 1. Media/classroom addition and renovation of Pulaski Heights Middle and Elementary Schools in the amount of $3,674,000. 2. New roof for Southwest Middle School in the amount of$761,534. 3. New HV AC and electrical upgrade to support technology for Forest Park Elementary in the amount of$607,253. 4. Athletic field renovations including irrigation systems at Quigley, J. A. Fair and McClellan in the amount of$146,000. Bids were taken on April 17 for Phase 2 of the Technology Center and are being evaluated. Bids will be taken on April 24 for the classroom addition to J. A. Fair High School. You will be given a report on both of these projects at the Board meeting. Bids will be taken in May on the addition/renovation of Dunbar, the addition to Williams, and the addition/renovation of McClellan. The design for the replacement school at Wakefield is nearing completion. This project will be bid this summer, and the completion is scheduled for the start of the 2004-05 school year. If you have any questions, please call me at 447-1146. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.1rsd.k12.ar.us c:n1 'l0a '\"'\"\"\"  ~-- c\nn1 'l0A 0n'l0\nz: z ,...~.,\n,o C: -\u0026lt; ... 0 C: !:iill ::cu, ill c3 ~ !\" ~\n,o is z z ,m.. CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Carver Parking lot $111,742 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $100,000 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,0QQ I Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SPRING/ SUMMER 2003 Facility Name Project Description Cost Baseline Renovation $953,520 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Central Parking  Student parking $50,000 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 16 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music I J. A. Fair room addition $3, 1 ss.640 I J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 --- J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 J. A. Fair Irrigation System I $14,000 I Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 I McClellan Classroom Addition I $2,155,622 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 McClellan Irrigation System I ~.750 Otter Creek Repair surface water drain I $25,000 Parkview I Addition $2,121,226 Southwest Drainage / street widening $250,000 Southwest New roof $690,000 -Sou-thwest Addition - $2,000,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 I Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams 1 Parking expansions $183,717 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 t:st. c.\nompIetIon Date Jun-03 May-03 Jul-03 Dec-05 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-03 Aug-03 May-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jun-03 Aug-04 Aug-04 Jun-03 Aug-03 t:st. c.\nompIet1on Date Dec-03 Dec-04 Aug-03 Aug-04 Mar-04 Unknown Jul-03 Jul-03 Unknown Dec-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-03 Mar-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 May-04 -Feb-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-03 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. l,\nompIet1on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Wilson Energy monitoring system installation I Unknown Woodruff ParkinQ addition I $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Bale HVAC $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 -Cloverdale Elem. E nergy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Fair Park 1Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 I J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair Security cameras I $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 1 Fulbright ~ ergy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 I Fulbri~-- I Roof repairs I $200,000 Franklin 1Renovation $2,511 ,736 ----- Gibbs 1 Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs 1 Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 I Hall 1 Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall !Intercom I - Hall Security cameras I $10,600 Es1. --Comple11on Date Mar-03 Mav-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 Mav-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-0_! Jul-0-1 Aug-01 Jul-01 Apr-01 Aug-01 F~ Jun-01 2 !D ~ m\no !S zz m,.... CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Henderson Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Jul-01 Henderson Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Aug-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Aug-02 IRC Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Jul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatement $43,639 Oct-01 Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Nov-02 Laidlaw Parking lot $269,588 Jul-01 Mabelvale Elem. 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 $106,598 Dec-02 Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers $134,793 Aug-01 Mann Asphalt walks The total $1.8 Dec-01 Mann Walkway canopies million is what has Dec-01 Mann Boiler replacement been used so far on Oct-01 Mann Fencing the projects listed Sep-01 Mann Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Aug-01 McClellan Security cameras $36,300 Jun-01 McClellan Energy efficient lighting $303,614 May-01 McClellan Stadium stands repair $235,000 Aug-01 McClellan Intercom $46,000 Feb-02 McDermott I Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Feb-01 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Aug-02 Meadowcliff I Fire alarm $16,175 Jul-01 Meadowcliff . Asbestos abatement $253,412 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 I Dec-02 Metropolitan I Replace cooling tower I $37,203 Dec-00 Metropolitan Replace shop vent system I $20,000 I May-01 Metropolitan Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 I Aug-01 Mitchell 1 Energy efficient lighti~ $103,642 Apr-01 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation I - $16,695 Jul-01 Mitchell Asbestos abatement $13,QQQ I Jul-01 - Oakhurst HVAC renovation I $237,237 i Aug-01 Otter Creek IE nergy monitoring system installation $10,695 May-01 -- Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Apr-01 -- !Asbestos abatement I Otter Creek - $10,000 Aug-02 Otter Creek Parking lot $138,029 Aug-02 Otter Creek 16 classroom addition -1- $888,778 Oct-02 -- ---- t Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 I Jun-02 --- - Parkview - Roof replacement -r - $273,877- -- Sep-01 Parkview Exterior lights $10,784 Nov-00 -- Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Aug-01 -- Parkview Locker replacement $120,000--+-- Aug-01 -- Parkview Energy efficient lighting $315,ooo I Jun-01 Procurement I Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground - $17,000 . Dec-02 Rightsell  Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting I - $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC I $539,175 Aug-OJ_ Rockefeller Parkinq addition I I $111,742 1 Auq-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Washington Security cameras $7,900 Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $800,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement I $191,946 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 Est. c.\nompIetIon Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Aug-00 Jan-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Aug-02 4 .!D,, m Al z~ z m r- Date: April 24, 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors @). From: Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report-April This is the forty-second communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two high schools and two middle 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 implementation of technology by participation in the technology committee( s ). b) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. c) Participating with the Technology Committee.\nx: z\n,....., :,0 C: -\u0026lt; .... 0 C: ~~ %VI :,0 m c3 ~ ?\" \"'0 m :,0 z~ z ,m... Audit Report - April 2003 Page 2 of2 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. 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. 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) 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 internal controls. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Serving 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. Current Projects:  New Network Little Rock School District Board of Directors Technology Update April 24, 2003 o Conversion to the new district network continues to be implemented site by site. Two to three sites per week are scheduled. This project will be finished by mid June. o As each site comes on the network the benefits include:  Being able to share files and folders across the district,  Managing routine maintenance and management from the Tech Center,  Managing desktop troubleshooting from the Tech Center.  Printers/Network Copiers o Network cards are being added to copiers in the schools in order to use them as network printers. o Additional network printers will be added to schools this summer.  Training Plan o Work continues on developing on-line training for district staff. o UALR continues to offer Saturday technology workshops for our teachers.\nx: z .... .S.J,\n%1 C: -\u0026lt; .... 0 C: Sfl:l :c (/) ~ ~ !J:I \"'0 m\n%1 ~ zz .m... DATE: TO: From: Re: ~~~ Mu - ~ \u0026amp;6-\u0026amp;rt CM tt~ - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools To Receive a Statistical Report on Little Rock Youth Background Information: A statistical report detailing trends of Little Rock Youth from 1989-2002 will be presented. The report was recently shared with members of the New Futures Board. Fiscal Impact: None Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board receive the report as presented. The Status of Youth In Little Rock 2003 Presentation by New Futures for Youth, Inc. 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% NOUdOO\\t 1X31 ,UIOlSIH ')nl\\t '\\t 'S::lAS l\\tNOll::\u0026gt;mllSNI 'II\\ Ages O -17 Total Population 1990 - 43,687 Total Population 2000 - 46,711 111 1990 Census 13NNOS'!l3d a S31nNIW '\\t S'!13ll\\tW 3Nlln0'!1 'A  2000 Census 'l\\tA3 lOOH::\u0026gt;S '1131'!1\\tH::\u0026gt; '\\t 'S::lAS 'NIWO\\t 'IIA H::\u0026gt;31'!133'!1\\t::l NOlldOO\\t lf0081X31 a -- - - - -------------------------------------------------~ 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% C 111990 Census Ages O - 4 Total Population 1990 -12,775 Total Population 2000 - 13, 309  2000 Census ~ \u0026lt;/Ji 30% - NOUdOO\\I lX3l Al!OlSIH ')ll!\\I '\\I 'S:li\\S l\\lNOU:\u0026gt;Ol!lSNI 'I,\\ !':\u0026gt;'- Ages 5 - 9 Total Population 1990 - 12,193 Total Population 2000 - 12,991 !':\u0026gt;'- b\" ~ \u0026amp;~ ~\u0026lt;o ~\u0026lt;o ~\u0026lt;o 0~ . ~~ ~ ~~  c,O ~\u0026lt;:f'~ 11 1990 Census 13NNOS\"ll3d a S3lnNIW '\\I Sl!3ll\\lW 3Nlln0\"11 'A ~'1\u0026gt; c'i'\u0026lt;:.\u0026lt;  2000 Census 'l\\li\\3 lOOH:\u0026gt;S l!3UI\\IH:\u0026gt; v 'S:li\\S 'NIWO\\I 'II,\\ b\" \u0026lt;/) H:\u0026gt;31\"1133\"11\\l:l NOlldOO\\I \u0026gt;1008lX3l a Ages 10 - 14 Total Population 1990 -11,795 Total Population 2000 - 12,709 1111990 Census  2000 Census -------- [ - - ----~----- 1111990 Census NOlldOOV 1X31 AMOlSIH .\u0026gt;IMV y 'S01\\S lVNOllOOMlSNI .II\\ 13NNOSM3d a Ages 15 - 17 Total Population 1990 - 6,924 Total Population 2000 - 7,702 S3lnNIIH y SM3llVIH 3NllnOM .I\\  2000 Census 1Vl\\3 lOOH::\u0026gt;s M31MVH::\u0026gt; v 'S01\\S .NIIHOV 111\\ H03lM33MV::\u0026gt; NOlldOOV \u0026gt;10081X31 a 25% Cl 1990 Census Ages 18 - 24 Total Population 1990 - 18,094 Total Population 2000 - 18,689  2000 Census 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% N011d00\\l 1.X31 AMOlSIH \"\u0026gt;tM\\I v \"S:l,\\S l\\lNOll:lnMlSNI \"I,\\ 13NNOSM3d a Black Youth, Ages O - 17 Total Population 1990 -21,411 Total Population 2000 - 24,587 11 1990 Census S31nNll'I v SM3li\\ll'l 3NllnOM \",\\  2000 Census \"l\\1,\\3 lOOH:\u0026gt;S M31M\\IH:l v s:ihs \"Nll'IO\\I \"II,\\ H:l31M33M\\l:l NOlldOO\\I \u0026gt;t0081.X31 a 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% ,r- \"- ~\u0026lt;l,c., \u0026lt;,.~ l'I 1990 Census White Youth, Age O - 17 Total Population 1990 - 21,718 Total Population 2000 - 18,891  2000 Census 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Far West N0Ud00V lX31 AHOlSIH \"\u0026gt;tHV y \"S:\u0026gt;AS lVN0U:\u0026gt;0HlSNI \"IA [ \"Other\" Youth, Ages O - 17 Total Population 1990 - 558 Total Population 2000 - 3,233 West r-brthwest Southwest Mdtown CentraVDow ntow n 11 1990 Census 13NNOSH3d a S310NIW y SH3UVW 3Nl100H \"fl  2000 Census \"lVA3 lOOH:\u0026gt;S H31HVH:\u0026gt; y \"S:\u0026gt;AS \"Nllr'l0V \"IIA East H:\u0026gt;31H33HV:\u0026gt; NOlldOOV \u0026gt;4008001 a Percent Below Poverty by Area 60% .---------------------------------------------------- ---~ 40% +--------------------------------------------t 30% +------------------------------\"\"\"\",r-------------t 22% 21% 20% 10% 5% Little Rock Far West West Northwest Southwest Midtown Central East Area Source:2000 U.S. Census /, 6096 I 5096 ,-1-- 4096 13596 I 3096 20% 1996 1096 Little Rock Source:2000 U.S. Census NOlldOO\\I 1X31 A'l!OlSIH ')I'll\\/ '\\I 'S:lAS l\\lNOll:ln'lllSNI 'IA 1696 Far West Percent Below Poverty Level by Race, Age O to 1 7 West 13NNOS'll3d '8 Northwest Southwest S31nNIW '\\I S'1!3llVW 3NllnO'll 'A 5396 4696 Midtown Central 'l\\li\\3 lOOH:lS '1!31'1!\\IH:l '\\I 'S:lAS 'NIWO\\I 'HA IJ Black  White  Other East H:l31'1!33'1l\\l:l NOlldOO\\I )40081X31 e [Median Income I $80,000 ) '74,713 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $43,591 --------- $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Far West West Northwest Southwest Midtown Central East Source:2000 U.S. Census 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% NOlldOOV 1X31 AM01SIH \"\u0026gt;IMV v \"S:)i\\S 1VNOl1::\u0026gt;0M1SNI \"th / \u0026lt;P'~ ~ro\"'\" v~ 'l, ,,_,s- 13NNOSM3d a Percent of Single-Parent Families with Children Under 18 Years Old ~ro\"\"' 1111990 Census 6\" .,, ,j.' ,j. 'l, ~  ~ e:,O S310Nll'l v SM3UVW 3N1100M \",\\ 59%  2000 Census \"lVi\\3 lOOH::\u0026gt;S M31MVH::\u0026gt; \"V \"S::\u0026gt;hS \"Nll'IOV \"llh H::\u0026gt;31M33MV::\u0026gt; NOlldOOV \u0026gt;1008001 a -- ---- ---------- --------------------~ [wedian Fami--,-\nincome by Family Type I $90,000 $80,608 -- $80,000 ------------------------------\u0026lt; $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Far West West Northwest Southwest Midtown Central East C II Married  Single Father  Single Mother Source:2000 U.S. Census Little Rock Source:2000 U.S. Census N011d00\\l 1X31 AHOlSIH \")IH\\I y s:\u0026gt;AS l\\lNOl1:\u0026gt;0M1SNI 111 Percentage of Households Without Vehicle Far West West 13NNOSM3d e Northwest Southwest S310NIW y SM3ll\\11f113NllnOM \",\\ Midtown \"l\\li\\3 lOOH:\u0026gt;S M31H\\IH:) y \"S:\u0026gt;AS \"NIWO\\I 1111 Central East H:\u0026gt;31H33H\\I:\u0026gt; NOlldOO\\I \u0026gt;4008001 e 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% '- ~q,\u0026lt;o ,'8 Source:Little Rock Police Department Percent of High Violent Victimization of Youth Little Rock - 2000 200 182 184 180 163 160 ~ 1.54 140 120 100 80 1989 1990 1991 1992 Source:Arkansas Crime Information Center NOlldO0V 1X31 A't!0lSIH \"\u0026gt;t'!IV v s::\u0026gt;/\\S lVNOll::\u0026gt;0'tllSNI \"I/\\ 13NNOS'tl3d a 143 1993 Juvenile Arrests In Little Rock Violent Crime 1989-2001 1994 1995 1996 I - Ju~nile Arrests I S310NIIH v S't1311WI 3Nl100'tl 11. 1997 1998 \"lV/\\3 lOOH::\u0026gt;S 'tl31'!1VH::\u0026gt; v \"S::l/\\S \"NIIH0V \"II/\\ 1999 86 2000 2001 H::\u0026gt;31'!133'!1V::\u0026gt; N0lldOOV \u0026gt;40081X31 a TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003 Board of Education Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes 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 19, 2002 are considered intern teachers. .!D., z \u0026gt;z n\nE en Personnel Changes Page 2 April 24, 2003 NAME Brewster, Melanie Reason: None Given Cleveland, Joyce Reason: Personal Flanigan, Laura Reason: Retired Lee, Mildred Reason: Retired Moore,Ann Reason: Deceased Samuels, Lori Reason: Personal Shells, Byron Reason: Leaving City Smith, Phyllis Reason: Deceased Breckenridge,Lynn POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Certified Employees Spanish I 1-6-03 4-11 METRO 3-11-03 TCH925 Elem IV 8-13-98 1-11 MITCHELL 4-10-03 TCH925 Pupil Personnel 9-21-87 62-12 ATHLETICS 12-10-02 ADC105 ElemV 8-24-87 1-17 WAKEFIELD 4-16-03 TCH925 Elem I 9-23-69 2-17 TERRY 3-28-03 TCH925 Elem I 8-9-00 1-03 WILLIAMS 4-1-03 TCH925 Social Studies 7-22-99 1-11 HALL 4-16-03 TCHl0 Voe. Business 8-10-87 6-21 MCCLELLAN 3-18-03 TCHl0 ew Certified Employees Law Enforcement 3-3-03 1-12 METRO TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 39742.00 35735.00 45000.00 42339.00 43667.00 27567.00 35735.00 53213.00 36756.00 annual 12060.56 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 April 24, 2003 NAME Doss, Jimmy Goodman, Tamora Harris, Veronica Higginbotham, David Jackson, Susan White, Jerald POSITION SCHOOL ISSP FORESTS HGTS. ElemV KING America History PARK.VIEW Music CHICOT Counselor FAIR Metal METRO START DATE END DATE 3-31-03 2-24-03 2-18-03 3-10-03 3-3-03 2-3-03 SALARY CLASS 1-02 TCH925 1-17 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 5-12 CNLl0 1-04 TCHl0 ANNUAL SALARY 27056.00 annual 6341.25 prorated 42339.00 annual 35944.05 prorated 26546.00 annual 9263.45 prorated 26546.00 annual 8019.10 prorated 42141.00 annual 15144.42 prorated 28588.00 annual 12953.94 prorated .,,. ns %- \u0026gt;'\nc\u0026gt; -\u0026lt;c\nm, cS-: ~\nz %~ ,8-~. m r~ :S \u0026gt;\n= 8~ z!!! .\u0026gt;.,.Zm c5\"' z\"' \"'~n !\" .!J.,l z \u0026gt;z n ,\u0026gt;- en .,,.\n\u0026gt;,c.s\n:-:z :::en in~ cl~\nc..,. ~ c5 5~ \u0026gt;~ 8n .\".C.C. I\u0026gt; c5 z Personnel Changes Page 4 April 24, 2003 NAME Chambers, Anthony Daniels, John Harris, Donald POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE PROMOTION Head Football Coach MCCLELLAN Head Football Coach HALL Head Football Coach FAIR SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Baird, Sharon Care 9-27-94 1-10 Reason: None Given CARE 11-26-02 CARE Banks, Arthur Security Officer 8-16-99 37-19 Reason: Resigned SAFETY \u0026amp; SECUR. 4-14-03 ANl0 Boyd, Nakita Child Nutrition 10-14-02 5-01 Reason: Abandonment ROCKEFELLER 3-14-03 FSH6 Bright, Kenrick Inst. Aide 9-10-92 1-10 Reason: Accepted Another MlTCHELL 4-9-03 INA925 Position Carter, Linda Child Nutrition 8-18-00 1-10 Reason: Accepted Another DUNBAR 3-21-03 FSH5 Position ANNUAL SALARY 3959.00 Head FB Stipend 3959.00 Head FB Stipend 3959.00 Head FB Stipend 7.391hr 26292.00 8773.00 14067.00 7564.00 Personnel Changes Page 5 April 24, 2003 NAME Chatman, Dennis Reason: Leaving City Clanton, Willie Reason: Leaving City Dunbar, Ora Reason: Deceased Ellison, Damein Reason: None Given Ellison, Shannon Reason: Terminated Fox, Carla Reason: Personal Hasan, Abdullah Reason: Health Jackson, Evelyn Reason: Health Jackson, Shirley Reason: Abandonment Johnson, Thomasine Reason: Accepted Another Position Langston, Dorothea POSITION SCHOOL Custodian BALE Maintenance MANN Bus Driver TRANS. Custodian WAKEFIELD Custodian FOREST HGTS. Kindergarten STEPHENS Custodian FAIR Child Nutrition FOREST HGTS. Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Care CARE Custodian Reason: Returning To School FRANKLIN START DATE END DATE 12-6-00 3-31-03 8-26-02 3-13-03 8-17-87 4-13-03 7-12-00 3-10-03 5-22-00 3-18-03 8-12-99 3-31-03 4-22-92 3-25-03 8-21-02 4-4-03 8-5-02 4-1-03 2-12-03 3-18-03 2-12-02 4-18-03 SALARY CLASS 1-03 CUS12 1-01 CUS12 3-11 BUSDRV 1-03 CUS12 1-03 CUS928 2-05 K925 3-09 CUS12 1-01 FSH5 1-04 FSH5 2-03 CARE 1-01 CUS928 ANNUAL SALARY 14535.00 13399.00 14553.00 14535.00 11201.00 30936.00 20703.00 7312.00 7396.00 6.94/hr 10329.00\n,,, ns ::C- \u0026gt; \" ::c\u0026gt; --\u0026lt;c m:: c31-: ~\nz: ::c\"' 8,....~. ~ r s \u0026gt;\n= 8~ z!/? \u0026gt;.,..mz 0 g: ZCJ\u0026gt; \"'\u0026lt;n !\" !.,\"., z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;,.... CJ\u0026gt;\n,,,\n\u0026gt;:c .s ?t z :CCI) en\na b8 ~ .... .... l5 s~ c\u0026gt;C\nsJ\u0026gt;\nOU\u0026gt; ~- l5 z Personnel Changes Page 6 April 24, 2003 NAME Moore, Lana Reason: Abandonment Owens, Craig Reason: Terminated Purdiman, Earnest Reason: Personal Singleton, Veronica Reason: Leaving City Smith, Vivian Reason: Health Trammell,Rickey Reason: Personnel Allison, Curtis Anderson, Almarie POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition PUL. HGTS. MID. Security Officer SOUTHWEST Custodian WATSON Secretary CENTRAL Child Nutrition FRANKLIN Custodian BRADY START DATE END DATE 9-6-02 2-19-03 3-8-95 3-18-03 3-25-91 3-28-03 8-23-01 5-16-03 2-23-98 4-30-03 8-15-01 3-31-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 36-16 SOFR9 3-11 CUS12 38-13 CLKl0 5-11 FSH6 1-02 CUS928 New Non-Certified Employees Custodian MCCLELLAN Instr. Aide CHICOT 3-17-03 3-13-03 1-01 CUS12 1-10 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 7312.00 16336.00 21899.00 22656.00 9113.00 10737.00 13399.00 annual 4105.23 prorated 14067.00 annual 3725.85 prorated Personnel Changes Page 7 April 24, 2003 NAME Bonds, Dorothy Davenport, Earl Harper, Carolyn Hines, Demetra Hunter, Thelma Jackson, Ossie Jenkins, Cleburn POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition ROCKEFELLER Custodian CENTRAL Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 4-2-03 1-27-03 3-13-03 MABELV ALE MID. Security Officer 3-17-03 SOUTHWEST Instr. Aide 3-10-03 FRANKLIN Child Nutrition 3-21-03 PUL. HGTS. MID. Custodian 3-24-03 PLANT SERVICES SALARY CLASS 5-01 FSH6 1-01 CUS928 5-01 FSH6 36-12 SOFR9 1-10 1NA925 1-01 FSH5 54-5 ADN12 ANNUAL SALARY 8773.00 annual 1987.25 prorated 10329.00 annual 3565.09 prorated 8773.00 annual 2375.01 prorated 14502.00 annual 3585.56 prorated 14067.00 annual 3877.93 prorated 7312.00 annual 1737.10 prorated 28764.00 annual 8053.92 prorated ~ ns ::C- \u0026gt;\" Al\u0026gt; -\u0026lt;c m :I: Al- ~\nz :g:cg\"' .-  m r~ s \u0026gt;\n= 8~ z!!? \u0026gt;..,.Zm c5 gi Zu, \"'\u0026lt;n !\" .!.I,' z \u0026gt;z n .\u0026gt;.... \"' ~ \u0026gt;s\n\u0026lt;:, . ?-z ::c UJ in~ cl~ Al-\u0026lt; ~ c5 mz ~\ne \u0026gt;~ g~ ~ - c5 z Personnel Changes Page 8 April 24 , 2003 NAME Love, Tawanna Miller, Kim Phillips, Jeremiah Porter, Hazel Reyes, Norma Ricks, Anjanette Scott, Derrick Stacey, Robert POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition MCCLELLAN Bus Driver TRANS. Care CARE Care CARE Child Nutrition DUNBAR Care CARE Custodian FAIR Custodian METRO START DATE END DATE 4-7-03 3-17-03 3-17-03 4-1-03 4-4-03 3-17-03 3-21-03 3-3-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 3-04 BUSDRV 1-03 CARE 1-04 CARE 1-01 FSH5 1-04 CARE 1-01 CUS12 1-01 CUS928 ANNUAL SALARY 7312.00 annual 1535.12 prorated 11296.00 annual 2855.73 prorated 6.431hr 6.551hr 7312.00 annual 1575.51 prorated 6.551hr 13399.00 annual 3877.16 prorated 10329.00 annual 3199.74 prorated Personnel Changes Page 9 April 24, 2003 NAME Sterley, Pamela Thompson, Jesse Tyler, Earnest Washington, Sydney POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition FOREST HGTS. Child Nutrition FAIR Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Child Nutrition GEYER SPRINGS START DATE END DATE 4-4-03 2-14-03 4-7-03 4-1-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 7312.00 annual 1575.51 prorated 7312.00 annual 2511.37 prorated 7312.00 annual 1535.12 prorated 7312.00 annual 1696.71 prorated .,. ns :\u0026gt;:C. -\nn \u0026gt; m--\u0026lt;,1c:\nn - ~\nz: ::c U) 8,-~. m\n: ' s \u0026gt;\n= 8~ z!!? \u0026gt;z --4m ou, zu, u,~ !II ?..,' z \u0026gt;z 0 ,\u0026gt;- u, TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: DATE: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District Instructional Resource Center Social Studies Department 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Board of Directors T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Marie A. McNeal, Director of Social Studies Education April 24, 2003 Arkansas History Textbook Adoption Recommendation The Arkansas History Textbook Adoption Committee established according to Board Regulation U-Rl, has completed the selection process for Arkansas history textbooks and materials. After extensive review of available textbooks and materials, the committee is recommending for Board approval the adoption of An Arkansas History For Young People. This textbook is published by the University of Arkansas Press and will have a 2003 copyright edition. The major factors that led to the decision to select the University of Arkansas Press textbook are listed below:  Correlation to the Arkansas History Guidelines  Correlation to the District's Social Studies Curriculum  Compatibility with a Student-Centered Activities  Historical Accuracy  A Multicultural inclusion. For your review, a copy of the textbook and the teacher's edition will be located in the conference room. .!.D, z \u0026gt;z (\") \u0026gt;,... en 2003 ARKANSAS HISTORY TEXTBOOK ADOPTION COMMITTEE Jeff Carr, Forest Heights Middle School Irene Holcomb, Mann Middle School Sandra Pearson, Southwest Middle School Rebecca Simpson, Dunbar Middle School Gertrude Stubblefield, Dunbar Middle School Laura Beth Arnold, Lead Social Studies Teacher Marie A. McNeal, Director of Social Studies Education Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Little Rock School District Board Member Sharrell Tate, Textbook Coordinator RECOMMENDATION Grade 7: University of Arkansas Press. An Arkansas History For Young People. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-3580 E-mail: linda.watson@lrsd.org April 7, 2003 TO: Board of Education THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools LINDA WATSON, Ed. D. ASSIST ANT SUPERINTENDENT STUDENT DISCIPLINE Fax: (501) 447-3581 FROM: Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline SUBJECT: 2001-2002 Charter School Program Evaluation Background Information The 2001-2002 Charter School Program Evaluation is being presented to the Board for approval as a requirement of the Federal Court. On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Charter School Evaluation to Dr. Larry McNeal. Recommendation The administration recommends approval of the 2001-2002 Charter School Program Evaluation for submission to the Federal Court. s  ?' 8~ z!!? ..,.Zm 0 gi z\"' \"'\u0026lt; C') !h .~., z \u0026gt;z C') ~ \"' To: From: Through: Subject: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT CAREER-TECHNICAL EDUCATION 7701 SCOTT HAMIL TON DRIVE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72209 April 24, 2003 Board of Directors Carol Green, Director, Career-Technical Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Career-Technical Education Textbook Adoption Recommendation In accordance with the District's PN Agreement, the LRSD Career and Technical Education Textbook Committee has completed the selection process for the 2003-2009 adoption cycle. Committee members voted unanimously to recommend the attached list of textbooks for adoption. /ljh 03/CBG/077 :s \u0026gt;\n= 8~ z!!? -\u0026gt;-,Zm c5 gi Zu, UJ n\u0026lt; !\" .!D., z \u0026gt;z n ,\u0026gt;.... UJ CAREER-TECHNICAL EDUCATION TEXTBOOK ADOPTION LIST 2003-2009 Career Orientation (grades 7-8) Exploring Careers, 2003, 4th Edition Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Workplace Readiness Skills At Wark Thompson Learning/Southwestern Publishers Jobs for Arkansas (JAG) Succeeding In The World of Work, ?1h Edition, 2003 Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Business Education Keyboarding Century 21-Computer Applications \u0026amp; Keyboarding, ?1h Edition, 2000 Thompson/Southwestern Publishers Keyboarding Application Applied Computer Keyboarding, 5th Edition Thompson/Southwestern Publishers Word Processing A and B Mastering and Using Word 2002: Comprehensive Course Thompson/Southwestern Publishers Dragon Naturally Speaking-2003, ?1h Edition Thomson Learning Publishers Computerized Accounting I Century 21 Accounting: Multicolumn Journal Text Thomson Learning Publishers Computerized Accounting II Century 21 Accounting: Advanced Text Thomson Learning Publishers Programming A and B Microsoft Visual Basic 6: Complete Concepts and Techniques Thomson Learning Publishers Rapid Writing A and B Alphabetic Writing Systems 2nd Edition Thomson Learning Publishers Marketing Education I Marketing Essentials 2002, Yd Edition Thomson Learning Publishers Marketing Management Business Principles and Management, 11 th Edition Thomson Learning Publishers Computer Technology: Introduction Computer Literacy with Microsoft Office XP Prentice-Hall Publishers Multimedia Applications A and B Microsoft PowerPoint 2002: Complete Tutorial Thomson Learning Publishers Adobe Illustrator 9: Illustrated Introduction, 2000 Thomson Learning Publishers Desktop Publishing A and B Desktop Publishing 2002: Complete Concepts and Techniques, 2001 Thomson Learning Publishers Adobe PageMaker 7 Basics, 2003 Thomson Learning Publishers Business Applications Office XP: Introductory Concepts and Techniques, 2001 Thomson Learning Publishers Database Management Microsoft Access 2002-Complete Tutorial Thomson Learning Publishers Spreadsheet Applications Microsoft Excel 2000-Complete Tutorial Thomson Learning Publishers .!I.I, z \u0026gt;z C') \u0026gt; I'\"\" V, Fashion Merchandising Fashion Marketing, 1st Edition, 2004 Thomson Leaming Publishers Advertising Advertising, 1st Edition Thomson Leaming Publishers Hospitality and Tourism Hospitality and Tourism Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Publishers Banking and Finance Principles Banking and Financial Systems Thomson Leaming Publishers Banking Operations Midtown Bank: A Bank Teller Simulation Thomson Leaming Publishers Banking and Finance Law Introduction to Banking, 1st Edition Thomson Leaming Publishers Office Management The Office: Procedures and Technology, 4th Edition Thomson Leaming Publishers Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship: Ideas In Action, 1st Edition, 2000 Thomson Leaming Publishers Business Law Understanding Business and Personal Law, 11 th Edition, 2003 Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Publishers International Finance Investing in Your Future, 2nd Edition, 200 I Thomson Leaming Publishers Securities and Insurance Fundamentals of Insurance, 200 I Thomson Leaming Publishers Travel and Tourism Introduction to Travel and Tourism Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Publishers Introduction to Hospitality Introduction to Hospitality Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Publishers Web Design Macromedia Dreamweaver 4, Against the Clock Pearson Education-Prentice Hall Publishers Microsoft Frontpage 2002, Again the Clock Pearson Education-Prentice Hall Publishers :S  == 8~ z!!? .,..Zm oz\"\"'' \"'~ !\" .?.,' z  z C') ,\u0026gt;- \"' 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-3580 E-mail: linda. watson@lrsd.org April 17, 2003 TO: Board of Education THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent fJrftf LINDA WATSON, Ed. D. ASSIST ANT SUPERINTENDENT STUDENT DISCIPLINE Fax: (501) 447-3581 FROM: Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline SUBJECT: 2001-2002 Charter School Program Evaluation Background Information The 2001-2002 Charter School Program Evaluation is being presented to the Board for approval as a requirement of the Federal Court. On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Charter School Evaluation to Dr. Larry McNeal. Recommendation The administration recommends approval of the 2001-2002 Charter School Program Evaluation for submission to the Federal Court. s ,,.\n= ~tD 0 C: ,z,!.!z? ..,.m 5gi Zen tn\u0026lt; (') !I' !.J.,I z \u0026gt;z (') ~ tn LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: April 24, 2003 Board of Education FROM: ~arral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: School/Department Geyer Springs Elementary School Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet Mabelvale Magnet Middle School McClellan Magnet High School McClellan Magnet High School Item $500.00 Literacy Grant to be used for student incentives to continue promotion of the Accelerated Reader Program Baseline Wal-Mart Store $1,000.00 cash to Julia Lloyd's Mrs. Genevieve Y. Jackson Pre-K class to be used to purchase educational materials and classroom supplies $1,500.00 grant to the Accelerated Reader Incentive Program. Funds will be used to purchase books for students and to fund the AR incentive parties held each nine-weeks. $1,000.00 cash for the Baseball Team $250.00 cash to be used for a student to attend AR Boys State Trinity Episcopal Cathedral Outreach Committee Ms. Sharon Prested Cloverdale-Mabel vale American Legion !..D., z \u0026gt;z n ~ V, Board of Education April 24, 2003 Page 2 School/Department Little Rock School District Little Rock School District Item A pallet of library books valued at approximately $1,000.00 Five (5) portraits of President George Washington for each of the District's high schools. Portraits are framed in cherry mahogany wood and are valued at $250.00 each for a total value of $1,250.00. Ms. Cynthia Brown, Sales Consultant for Scholastic Mr. Dave Elswick of Radio Station KARN It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From~onna Hall, Principal of Geyer Springs Elementary School Date: March 18th , 2003 Re: Donation Our school received a $500 Literacy Grant from the Wal-Mart store on Baseline Road. We are very grateful to Wal-Mart for this grant. The grant will be used as student incentives to continue to promote our Accelerated Reading program at our school. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Wal-Mart Store 8801 Baseline Road Little Rock, AR., 72209 5240 Mabelvale Pike Phone /501) 447-4800 Little Rock. Arkansas 72209 ?\u0026lt; C\") .!D., z \u0026gt;z C\") ~ \"' 5 \"z' G\") ~ ~ ~ \"' MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement .j1~I From: Tyrone Harris, Principal Date: March 7th , 2003 Re: Donation Mrs. Genevieve Y. Jackson of 16801 Davis Cup Lane, Little Rock, AR 72210 made a donation of$ 1000. 00 to our Pre K teacher, Julia Lloyd. This donation was given to her to purchase educational materials and supplies for her 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. ... -.,..:  ~ --\nr r ..\n:',. c ~\n, .. !,L.. ~ .. ~ ~.: .. 905 Martin Luther King, Jr Drive  Phone (501) 44 7-5100  Fax (501) 447-5101  Little Rock, Arkansas 722C ~ Linking Students to the Future through  Environment Science  Information Communications Technology  Medical Studies To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Ann Blaylock, Principal Date: March 18, 2003 Re: Donations Mabelvale Magnet Middle School 10811 Mabelvale West Road Mabelvale, Arkansas 72103 501/455-7400 Fax 501/455-7403 Please accept the grant donation of $1 ,500.00 from the Trinity Episcopal Cathedral Outreach Committee. These funds were donated to our Accelerated Reader Incentive Program. This program is managed by Beckie Jones, Reading Specialist, and Stella Cameron, Media Specialist. The purpose of the donation is to buy books for the students and to fund the AR incentive parties, which are to be held each nine-week period. Paperback books will be purchased as a final reward for summer reading for the top AR readers. Our students are very excited about the Accelerated Reader program and look forward to participating each year. We will hold a special celebration at the end of the year for the AR Readers and their parents. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. .~,, z z\u0026gt; (\") ~ en McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL DATE: TO: FROM: THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA March 20. 2003 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Larry Buck, Princip~ SUBJECT: Donations Please accept these generous donations given to McClellan High School. Ms Sharon Prested, 105 Oak Lane, Flint, MI 48506 has given a cash donation of $1000.00 to be used for the McClellan Baseball Team. Cloverdale - Mablevale American Legion Post 128, Mabelvale, AR 72103 has given a donation of $250.00 to be used for a student to at.tend Arkansas Boys State. We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance With the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Cc: Dr. Marion Lacey, Associate Superintendent r,:\n::.\u0026lt;r. :: .. ~:::~:,.. .. ~-:\n,. u ..  --v ~\"' .. . ~ . -.,t. , 9417 Geyer Springs Road Phone 447-2100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Little Rock School District Department of Instructional Technology March 24, 2003 TO: FROM: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services SUBJECT: Donation of Library Books Ms. Cynthia Brown, sales consultant for Scholastic, has donated a pallet of library books to the Little Rock School District. The value of the books is estimated to be $ 1000. It is recommended that the donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Contact information is as follows: Ms. Cynthia Brown 14112 St. Michael Drive Little Rock, AR 72211 r- ~ -:-.. -..... -,.-{\nI{\"!-\\ ~ ~-~::\n:.:: ~: .:_9 L: ~\nJ .!J.:,l z )\u0026gt; z (\") ~ \"' ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 \"z' C) ill f\n~ \"' To: From: Date: Subject: Little Rock School District Social Studies Department Instructional Resource Center 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone (501) 447-3395 Fax (501) 447-7613 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Management ~ - McNeal, Director of Social Studies Education April 24, 2003 Donation Mr. Dave Elswick of radio station KARN wishes to donate a portrait of President George Washington to each high school in the Little Rock School District. The listeners of Mr. Elswick's daily radio program provided the funds for the purchase of these portraits. Their goal is to furnish each high school in the central Arkansas listening area with a portrait of the first president of the United States. The portraits are framed in a cherry mahogany wood and each is valued at $250 for a total of $1 ,250. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003 Board Of Directors It{ Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services THROUGHMKenneth James, Superintendent Of Schools ~.....,onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Financial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. ~ ?\u0026lt; C') 5 V, z C'l Rl ~ ~ V, ,- \u0026gt;\u0026lt;  ,- 0 ::c g~\n,\n,_ zz :11::C'l .zm.. . v, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2001/02 03/31/02 COLLECTED 2002/03 03/31/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,850,000 57,086,336 98.68% 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% DELINQUENT TAXES 6,950,000 7,273,053 104.65% 8,000,000 8,936,338 111 .70% 40% PULLBACK 28,450,000 29,400,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 190,000 186,429 98.12% 187,000 205,072 109.66% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 575,000 353,143 61 .42% 385,000 174,515 45.33% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 125,000 126,034 100.83% 135,000 337,232 249.80% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 600,000 182,143 30.36% 340,000 287,973 84.70% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 600,000 156,275 26.05% 275,000 150,103 54.58% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 155,000 146,770 94.69% 160,000 183,777 114.86% TOTAL 95,495,000 65,510,182 68.60% 97,432,000 67,422,790 69.20% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 25,000 17,024 68.10% 24,000 17,215 71 .73% TOTAL 25,000 17,024 68.10% 24,000 17,215 71.73% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,568,331 38,808,339 71 .12% 54,867,630 40,257,119 73.37% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,455,741 6,101 ,709 81 .84% 7,590,000 5,241,465 69.06% VOCATIONAL 1,325,000 1,006,688 75.98% 1,340,000 903,646 67.44% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,900,000 707,441 37.23% 1,700,000 757,851 44.58% EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 175,782 75.12% 273,358 205,407 75.14% TRANSPORTATION 3,468,291 2,317,542 66.82% 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,865,000 2,286,063 59.15% 3,265,000 2,212,482 67.76% ADULT EDUCATION 987,869 586,220 59.34% 1,006,014 583,296 57.98% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 1,195,000 1,097,074 91 .81% 658,607 658,607 100.00% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 25,000 124,150 496.60% 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 605,000 116,653 19.28% 650,000 84,923 13.07% WORKER'S COMPENSATION 600,000 TOTAL 76,229,224 53,327,660 69.96% 75,441,106 53,643,152 71 .11% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 600,000 620,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 700,000 15,540 2.22% 1,126,233 200,754 17.83% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,639,927 546,642 33.33% 1,664,438 554,813 33.33% TOTAL 2,939,927 562,182 19.12% 3,410,671 755,567 22.15% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 174,689,151 119,417,049 68.36% 176,307,777 121,838,724 69.11% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 15,868,127 10,063,640 63.42% 22,230,023 11,634,200 52.34% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 2,091 ,348 53.33% 3,980,000 2,082,476 52.32% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 9,744,782 39.29% 25,065,942 11 ,601 ,757 46.28% TOTAL 44,592,636 21,899,770 49.11% 51,275,965 25,318,432 49.38% TOTAL REVENUE 219,281,787 141,316,819 64.45% 227,583,742 147,157,156 64.66% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2001/02 03/31/02 EXPENDED 2002/03 03/31/03 EXPENSES SALARIES 98,743,100 64,161,051 64.98% 100,865,586 64,090,483 BENEFITS 25,603,621 16,270,102 63.55% 24,838,361 16,098,491 PURCHASED SERVICES 20,235,454 12,815,684 63.33% 19,795,774 13,340,573 MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 9,252,512 5,584,365 60.36% 8,347,098 5,434,989 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,792,554 712,748 39.76% 1,616,991 927,565 OTHER OBJECTS 8,402,940 2,863,443 34.08% 8,508,680 2,932,072 DEBT SERVICE 10,526,942 10,653,854 101.21% 12,217,048 12,213,572 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 174,557,123 113,061,247 64.77% 176, 189,538 115,037,745 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 16,519,453 8,380,209 50.73% 22,995,210 11,442,759 DEDICATED M\u0026amp; O 3,921,766 2,295,160 58.52% 3,980,000 2,113,349 MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 14,012,636 56.50% 25,065,942 14,296,955 TOTAL 45,243,962 24,688,005 54.57% 52,041,152 27,853,063 TOTAL EXPENSES 219,801,085 137,749,252 62.67% 228,230,690 142,890,808 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (519,298) 3,567,567 (646,948) 4,266,346 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,937,298 1,937,298 1,645,440 1,645,440 OPERATING 8,489,087 8,489,087 8,557,652 8,557,652 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET'\u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,285,972 (850,937) 880,253 (889,191) OPERATING 8,621,115 14,844,889 8,675,891 15,358,630 TOTAL 9,907,087 13,993,952 9,556,144 14,469,439 % EXPENDED 63.54% 64.81% 67.39% 65.11% 57.36% 34.46% 99.97% 65.29% 49.76% 53.10% 57.04% 53.52\"/4 62.61% ~ ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 en z C) Rl ~ ~ en ,... \u0026gt;\u0026lt; ,... 0::,: 5~ !5 e! zz :I: C) men .z.. . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-02 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 03-31-03 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 78,319.02 800.00 77,519.02 CONTINGENCY 1,052,354.15 1,052,354.15 SUBTOTAL 1,163,956.07 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 1,163,156.07 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 0.00 182,400.00 109,945.29 72,454.71 NEW WORK PROJECTS 22,028,270.87 8,302,568.00 8,535,570.17 8,774,542.13 13,020,726.57 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 348,708.80 30,625.90 379,334.70 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 5,749,803.26 406,072.00 2,952,613.67 236,838.54 2,966,423.05 RENOVATION PROJECTS 47,947,115.45 983,360.00 12,996,044.03 12,372,345.20 23,562,086.22 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 4,744,881.05 2,090,512.80 4,003,245.64 154,220.09 2,677,928.12 SUBTOTAL 80,861,053.40 0.00 11,995,538.70 28,976,753.50 21,537,945.96 42,341,892.64 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 139,801.90 45,668.11 5,771.03 179,698.98 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 FULBRIGHT PROJECT 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 31,569,505.02 (11,995,538.70) 19,573,966.32 P_8.OCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST STATE OF ARK 469,063.03 469,063.03 INTEREST 5,022,644.80 2,056,177.03 7,078,821.83 SUBTOTAL 38,500,102.43 2,151,845.14 (11,995,538.70) 5,771 .03 0.00 28,650,637.84 GRAND TOTAL liD :ii:i lll l!D il:il 11:1:il:I l2.llll ill a11a ai:1 :ia il :iaZ ll:l:i llli Zi l5~ B ~~ PROJECT CATEGORIES ADMINISTRATION NEW WORK PROJECTS SECURITY PROJECTS LIGHTING PROJECTS MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR RENOVATION PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS TOTAL AMV1N31'1313 NOSllM  1N3W3SV3 :, PROJECT ALLOCATIONS THRU 03-31-03 586,846.55 35,363,912.16 265,814.17 4,853,208.89 11 ,165,555.29 53,447,136.00 11,735,611 .78 20,867,787.29 138,285,872.13 1N3WNMnorov 11x S9NIMV3H 'IX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2003 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE 2000-01 2001-02 THRU 03-31-03 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 109,945.29 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 8,535,570.17 113,930.47 109,609.73 2,641 ,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,334.70 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 2,952,613.67 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 12,996,044.03 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 4,003,245.64 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 28,976,753.50 S\u0026gt;4MVW3M 9NIS010 'X ENDING ENCUMBERED  ALLOCATION THRU 03-31-03 SUBTOTAL 03-31-03 514,391.84 72,454.71 8,774,542.13 22,343,185.59 13,020,726.57 223,540.20 42,273.97 4,853,208.89 0.00 236,838.54 8,199,132.24 2,966,423.05 12,372,345.20 29,885,049.78 23,562,086.22 154,220.09 -- 9,057-,68-3.66 2,677,928.12 - - - - 20,867,787.29 21,537,945.96 75,076,192.20 63,209,679.93 -- -- --- WVMOOMd :\u0026gt;1131HlV v S3:\u0026gt;IJ\\H3S 100HOS 'XI lOOHOS 3100IW NOSH30N3H1N3W3SV3 o Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Fund Total Food Service Total 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 Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Total Deseg Plan Scholarship Deseg Plan Scholarship Total Rockefeller Scholarship Total LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULEOFINVESTMENTSBYFUND FOR THE PE~o ENDED MARCH 31, ~2-~ 00~3~------------ - Purchase Date Maturity Date 12-0-9-02 - 06-09-03 --- 01-19-03 07-19-03 08-10-0-2 - 04-08-02 03-31-03 TFN 03-03-03 04-15-03 - \u0026gt;--- -- Institution lnteres_t_R_a_te-+-__ T~y~p_e __ !--_P_ri_ncipa_!_ __ +-------+------ - ---- ~egio~ _ 1---1_.19_0_/co +--M_o_n_e~y_M_a_rke_t-+- _ 20,000.00 Regions _ 1.190% Money__ M_ark_et ___2_ 0~,o_o_o.o_o, Pulaski 2.330% Money Market 10,000.00 - - - - - -----'---1----'------l------- Bank of America 1.160% _R__ e ~p_o_ _+ -_8,~3_25~,_ooo_._oo_ Bank of the_O_zark~ _ 1.360% = __gQ__ _____ 1_0~,o_o_o~,o_o_o_.o_o ... 18,375,000.00 03-31-03 TFN - ~ank of America 1.030% Repo 800,000.00 -+-------+----~---+---~ao~o~.~00~0~.0~0~ 1 11-14-02 03-10-03 01-17-03 01-17-03 02-14-03 - r 04-02-03 ,- -- 09-08-03 01-16-04 - 01-16-04 - -- 10-15-03 Bank of America 1.120% - Treasury ]lif~!----8_0_0--,'--5_2-=3=.1_5--l 800,523.15 - --- ,- -----+-------t---~--l - --- -------tf---------1----- Regions 1.190% CD 400,000.00 ___l:-1etro~litan - 1.930% --r CD 1,000,934.31 Bank of the Ozarks 2.250% CD 5,116,598.09 Bank of the Ozarks 1.440% CD +- -- -- - 10,000,000.00 - 01-29-03 01-17-03 1-- 02-14-ro 11-15-02 - 02-14-03 01-22-03 - 03-14-03 11-15-02 ~ ----- 09-17-02 09-17-0-2 03--31-03 - - 01-29-04 01-16-04 - 11-14-03 05-15~ ~ -15-03 - - f---- - 01-16-04 06-16-03 -- - -- 05-15-03 04-=--i5-03 09-15-~ ---=ri=N-- 01-10-03 06-11-03 09-27-02 - --- - 06-10-03 01-30-03 06-24-03 Bancorp South 2.000% CD 2,058,896.90 Superior 2.250% CD 2,500,000.00 Superior 1.900% CD 11,000,000.00 USBANK 1.380% CD 11,000,000.00 USBANK - -1.360%- -- -- CD 10,000,000.00 - Bank of America 1.240% Treasury Bills 5,299,646.43 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD 5,000,000.00 - Bank of the Ozarks 1.480% CD 9,000,000.00 --- Bank of the Ozarks 2.070% CD 3,000,000.00 -Ban-k of t-he O-za-rks 2.200% CD 10,000,000.00 Bank of America 1.160% _ Re~ 7,850,000.00 - - --- -- -- 93,226,075.73 -- Bank of America 1.050% -- Treasury Bills 124,445.83 Ba-nk of- Am-eri-ca 1.430% Treasury Bills 534,508.80 -- --- r 658,954.63 -- ---- Bank of America 1.090% -- Treasury Bills 249,898.04 249,898.04 TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003  :kck ool District Board of Directors a o~n, D1rfectoFr o ac1 11 ty Serv.1 ces _ yenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Funald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Request for Easement, Wilson Elementary School The City of Little Rock has requested that the Little Rock School District grant a 5-foot right-of-way easement north of Wilson Elementary School as depicted on the attached map. The granting of this right-of-way is to allow for eventual street-improvements and construction of sidewalks in the area. Our agreement to this right-of-way was a condition of our Conditional Use Permit that was granted by the City in February of 2003. Assessment of this dedication indicates that it will not negatively impact the operation of Wilson Elementary School. Permission is requested for the Administration to enter into this agreement. DE:cg ?5 ?\u0026lt; n 5 u, z C) ~ f\n~ u, ,... \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;,... 0:,: 5g\n! :C,::::,,:_:, zz ~ C) mu, .z.. . I COR. 1/4, SWl/4, :.13 T!N, R13W . AHTil JOB 6965 7 I I _ _J I 5' WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION DESCRIPTION: A PART OF THE SW!/4 OF THE SWl/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 13 WEST, CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, PULASKT COUNTY, ARKANSAS. BEJNG MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED A5 FOLLOV\\'5: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SWJ/4 OF THE SWJ/4 OF SECTION 13\nTHENCE S8703'23\"E 114.52 FEET\nTHENCE :\n()2'56'37\"W 23. 70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING SAID POINT BE!tJG AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EXT.5T!NG SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST 40TH STREET AND THE EXJST!ll!G E.t'.ST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STANNUS STREET\nTHENCE ALONG SAID EXISTING SOUTH ,,- fUGHT-OF-WAY LINE S8719'12\"E 636.34 FEET\nTHENCE DEPARTING SAID EXISTING SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S17!4'03\"E 5.32 FEET TO THE PrtorCSED sourn RlGHT-OFWAY LINE OF WEST 40TH STR::=T\nTrlcNCE ALONG SAID PR00SED SOUTH RJG'IT-OF-Wt.Y LII/E N8\"'19'C''W 638.09 FEET TO THE EXISTING E/1.ST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE O 5TAPNUS STREET\nTHErJ:E /\\LONG SAID :'\u0026gt;:!STING E~ST I\n::111-0FWAY LINE N010:: 0 '58\"E S.O(' F:'ETTOTHE POIIITOF a: .~Ir1I n iG, CCNTAUIJI\\IG J, 186 s:-i~t.nE FEE7 C.1!: U.07J1 ACn.ES, I 1~P.E 0P. I_E:'S. SURVEYOR'S DECLARATION: I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I HAVE THIS DAY COMPLETED A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON, TH!S MAP IS A TRUE REPRESENTATION OF THE TOPOGRA AND PHYSICAL FEATURES AS FOUND IN THE FIELD. 6!:l.t'.N D. SCOTT, AR. PLS f 1287 DATE 1::o:., - O I ~J - /7.\n- \\0 - o- I:\n ~ ':-D - ,,()  !Ze' GRAPHIC ~ ( IN p I INCH= TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003 \\:\n.!~:t School District Board of Directors ~~ of Facility Services THROUGH: ~T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ~~r. Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Request for Easement: John Barrow Road and Henderson Middle School Entergy has requested that the Little Rock School District grant a 15-foot right-of-way easement along the east line of John Barrow Road adjacent to Henderson Middle School. Entergy is requesting this easement for the purpose of relocating the electrical lines that must be moved in order to accommodate the City's widening of John Barrow Road. Details of the easement-area are depicted on the attached map. Assessment of this dedication indicates that it would have no negative impact on the operation of Henderson Middle School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be permitted to enter into this agreement. DEC:cg ?5 :- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt; :- 0 ::c 5,\n! C\n:o\nlCzz\ni:: C) zm... . \"' Mar. 13 03 03:40p p.5 Doctt 2003021809 0 CJ 0 D u ST A TE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI LinelJ\u0026gt;roject Identification: WR 351363 RIGHT-OF-WAY INSTRUMENT ENTERGY ARKANSAS, I.NC. KNOW ALL MEN BY TI-IESE PRESENTS THAT: Little Rock School District , Grantor(s), acting individually, and for, and on behalf of, my/our heirs, successors, assigns and any other person claiming the ownership to the property hereinafter described, collectively \"Grantor\", for and in consideration of one dollar, in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, assign, convey unto and warrant and defend Entergy Arkansas, Inc., and its successors and assigns, collectively \"Grantee\", a right-of-way. servitude and easement 15 feet in width, for the location, construction, reconstruction, improvements, repairs. operation, inspection, patrol, replacement and maintenance of electric power and communication facilities, or the removal thereof, now or in the future, including, but not necessarily limited to, poles, cross arms, insulators, wires, cables, conduits, hardware, transformers, switches, guy wires, anchors and other equipment, structures, material and appurtenances, now or hereafter used, useful or desired in connection therewith by Grantee over, across, under or on that land of Grantor in the County of Pulaski, State of Arkansas described as follows, to-wit: As built along and adjacent to the East line of John Barrow Road all on a part of the NEI/4 SWI/4 and SEI/4 NWl/4, Section 2, T-l-N, R-13-W. In conjunction with highway relocation for the City of Little Rock. Together with the right of ingress and egress to and from said right-of-way across the adjoining land of the Grantor and the right to attach wires and cables of any other party to Grantee's facilities. Grantee shall have the full and continuing right to clear and keep clear vegetation within or growing into said rightof- way and the further right to remove or modify from time to time trees, limbs, and/or vegetation outside the said right of way which Grantee considers a hazard to any of its electric power or communications facilities or a hazard to the rendering of adequate and dependable service to Grantor or any of Grantee's customers, by use of a variety of methods used in the vegetation management industry. Grantor shall not construct or permit the construction of any structure, obstruction or other hazard within the said right-of-way, including but not limited to, house, barn, garage, shed, pond, pool or well, excepting only Grantor's fence(s) and Grantee's facilities. Grantor shall not construct or permit the construction of any buildings or other structures on land adjoining said right-of-way in violation of the minimum clearances from the lines and facilities of Grantee, as provided in the National Electrical Safety Code. Grantor. if husband and wife, do hereby release and relinquish all of our rights of curtesy, dower, and homestead to the said right-of-way. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Right-of-Way Instrument on this _ day of GRANTOR: Little Rock School District By: __________ _ Title: _____ ______ _ ACKNOWLEDGMENT ST ATE OF AR.KANSAS COUNTY OF _________ ____ _ BE IT REMEMBERED that on this day come before me the undersigned. a Notary Public. within and for the cow1ty and state aforesaid. duly commissioned. and acting ________ me well known as the ________ of Grantor in the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that Little Rock School District had executed the same for the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth. Witness my hand and seal as such Notary Public this __ day of ___________ , 2003. Commission Expires ___ _ _ Notan Public ~ ?\u0026lt; n 5 \"z' Cl ill ~ ~ \"' :- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:- 0:,: 5,\n! C ::0 :z: 0z- 3C Cl zm \"' --\u0026lt; DATE: TO: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools To Consider Moving to a Varsity and Junior Varsity Athletic Program Background Information: Earlier this year, Mr. Johnny Johnson brought forth a recommendation to move to a Varsity/Junior Varsity athletic program in the LRSD. The rationale for this request is the number of actual participants at the 9th grade level. I have attached a report indicating the level of recent 9th grade ~articipation in football, volleyball, basketball, and track. The report reflects that 9 h grade participation has fluctuated from year to year and campus to campus. During this past season, only one high school (Central) was able to field three teams. Representatives from the Arkansas Activities Association have indicated that it would not be a problem for the LRSD to implement the Varsity/Junior Varsity approach. In this format, coaches would still have the option to schedule sophomore games if they have sufficient players to do so. The ninth grade student-athletes would also be able to play in the sophomore games. All Varsity coaches and secondary principals overwhelmingly support the proposal as submitted. Fiscal Impact: There will be minimal financial savings as a result of moving to this concept. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the request to move to a Varsity/Junior Varsity concept for the 2003-2004 school year. ,i!.:.S. \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;,... O:r 5~ C:\nu\nzu z- 3C C') mUJ z... . To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II\\ ATHLETIC DIRECTOR-SECONDARY SCHOOLS ii\\ February 12, 2003 Dr. Ken James, Superintendent ofLRSD Johnny Johnson, Director of Athletics Ninth Grade Athletic Proposal The information below shows the number of ninth grade students participating in the sports of football, volleyball, basketball, and track for the school years of 2001-02 and 2002-03. These numbers can be a bit misleading because they are the numbers of students that began the season and not the numbers of students that finished the season. One fact that is not misleading is the number of ninth grade girls participating in sports. This is one major reason why I believe going to a varsity-junior varsity program will benefit our athletic program. 2001-02 9th Grade Participation Football Volleyball Basketball (Bs) Basketball (Gs) Track (Bs) Track (Gs) Fair 38 5 11 15 1 2 Central 47 13 21 15 0 1 Parkview 20 8 17 9 5 6 McClellan 32 0 13 3 12 0 Hall 31 4 16 4 (NIA) 12 2002-03 9th Grade Participation Football Volleyball Basketball (Bs) Basketball (Gs) Track (Bs) Track (Gs) Fair 31 6 18 18 Central 46 13 18 19 Parkview 24 5 16 8 McClellan 25 3 12 4 Hall 22 5 15 9 The number of ninth graders fluctuates from year to year. Parkview could not play a ninth grade football schedule in 2001. Hall could not play a ninth grade schedule this past year. In both cases, the main reason was not enough players. Both schools could have played a junior varsity schedule if they would have been allowed to move their ninth graders up to junior varsity. Attrition plays a major role in this proposal. In 2001 , Central had a large class ofninth graders, but could not field a junior varsity team because of lack of sophomores and juniors. The past year, Central had only eight seniors on the football team. With a varsity-junior varsity program, 3615 West 25th Street*Little Rock, AR 72204*(501 )447-2060 there will not be a school that would not be able to field two quality teams. This past football season, Central was the only school to be able to field three teams. The AAA has said that they do not have a problem with the LRSD not designating ninth grade athletics for the AAAAA high schools. I really believe this proposal will strengthen our athletic program, especially for women's athletics. One final point to bring up is that coaches would still have the option to schedule sophomore games if they had a large group of athletes. The ninth graders would be able to play in the sophomore games. I hope you will continue to look closely at this proposal. I really believe it will benefit our coaches and athletes. Attached is a copy of Parkview's 9th grade participation for the last three years. ~ :- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt; :-- 0 :c :s ! \u0026lt;=\n:o\nJIJzz\ni:Q .zm.. . \u0026lt;n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  fllrkview Athletics 2501 Barrow Road Little Rock, AR 72204 501-447-2300  Fax 501-447-2301 PATRIOTS PATRIOTS PATRIOTS PATRIOTS PATRIOTS PATRIOTS PATRIOTS PATRIOTS The following are the number of athletes who participated in Parkview football for the last 3 years at the beginning of the school year. Year JV 9th 2002 20 24 2001 21 15 2000 20 38 Each year we cancelled the JV season after the fourth game due to injuries to athletes or our opponents no longer had enough players to complete their season. The 9th grade season had to be cancelled in 2001 after the fourth game due to injuries and lack of athletes. * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\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_1409","title":"\"2002-03 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":["2003-03-26"],"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 improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","School enrollment","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["\"2002-03 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/1409"],"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":["106 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_562","title":"Program evaluations, Volume I","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":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume I"],"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/562"],"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\nBox 5 LRSD 1) Program Evaluations, March 14, 2003, Volumes I - IVCollection Number $ S O S' Box of Collection Name: OC^ (V\\ Q Coo PelsX ri X z a 2 VOLUME H  P3 \u0026gt; SC X X  RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING J 2 X \u0026gt;, 2 r e o e k/ o e z \u0026gt;6 O O oSOUTHWEST SF.m. PWXiKXM CHARTER SCHOOL EARl.Y LITERACYri ri LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education ri FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: J Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent ^bBonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation Background Information Dr. Linda Watson and Ms. Krishna Young, former director of the LRSD Charter School, presented to the Board of Education in June 2001 the program evaluation for the Charter School. That report was presented as information, but the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan requires that the Board formally approve each of the program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Charter School Program Evaluation was prepared by Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Serving on the team with him were Dr. Linda Watson, Ms. Krishna Young, and Dr. Ed Williams, members of the LRSD staff. All of the Charter School teachers, grades 3-5, participated in administering the assessments: the Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, the SAT9 at grade 5, and the State Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark examinations at grade 4. and the Success for All quarterly assessments in reading. z The program evaluation included not only student achievement data, but also demographic data, student attendance rates, records of suspensions, student grades, and financial costs for the program. S 0p 99 Performance data for the program evaluation were not disaggregated by race. The student body, however, was 87 percent African American. Due primarily to budget constraints, the District eliminated funding for the Charter School in summer 2002 after two years of operation, so this program has now been abandoned. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve the LRSD Charter School Program Evaluation for 2000-2001. BAL/adg Attachment 1 I  kI k1 ku LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2000 - 2001 ELEMENTARY CHARTER SCHOOL EVALUATION p 9 9 9 9 9 I 2 IJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PI \u0026gt; -J \u0026gt; EVALUATION REPORT: 2000-2001 Prepared By Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor University of Arkansas at Little Rock Little Rock, Arkansas e 2 \u0026gt;2, t  ! 0 0 c p 9 9 3 Executive Summary The twentieth centurys influence on school choice is reflected in the introduction of charter schools, school vouchers, magnet schools, academy schools, alternative schools, and a host of other specialty schools that focus on specific and often time unique student groups. The recent interest in school choices can be traced to the Nation At Risk report, which was published by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983. The findings about the poor quality of public education alarmed the American public. The report concluded that America was losing its competitive edge in the global marketplace because of its educational system. The result was the passage of educational reform laws and legislation that promoted standards for students, teachers, and administrators. The American educational system continues to search for programs and services that meet the developmental needs of its students. Charter schools are the latest spin-off to a discontented American public looking for vast improvements in educational practices that will better equip its children with marketable skills. Arkansas has also been influenced by this trend. Arkansas modified its existing charter school law in 1999 (Arkansas Charter School Act of 1999) and as a result the charter school movement in Arkansas took off. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School opened its doors in the fall of 2000. The charter school offers a nontraditional innovative learning environment for students in the 3,4, and 5 grades. \u0026gt;  Pl \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Mission The missions of the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School are mutually supportive and facilitative of student success. The intent of the missions of both are to provide students with programs and services that fit their educational and developmental needs, as well as prepare them with the knowledge and skills needed to compete in the marketplace. Z P O 9 9 P 9 9 Goal The goal of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is to provide opportunities for students educational and behavioral needs while guiding them to adjust 1 4 their behavior and habits in such a manner that they will become successful, lifelong learners and productive citizens. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School accomplishes its goal through an alternative learning environment. Description of Need The description of need is an overview of the variables that influence student academic achievement and behavior at the elementary grade level. Collectively, these variables provide a richer understanding of what is happening at the elementary grade level to some students in the Little Rock School District and why it has become increasingly more difficult to educate all children in a regular classroom setting. Poverty and other factors present barriers for many children who reside in the city of ?5 \u0026gt; JC PI \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Little Rock from receiving the educational opportunities critical for their development. The inability to obtain preschool and other early-childhood education programs is evidenced in the Little Rock School Districts Early Childhood Program where an enrollment capacity of some 750 students leaves approximately 1,000 children on the programs waiting list each year. Once behind, children face a significant challenge of catching up in their school career and many of these children become potential school dropouts in later years. In the 1997-1998 school year, 921 students out of 10,628 students at the secondary level dropped out of school. This represents 8.7% of the Little Rock School District secondary student enrollment. Black students accounted for 69% of the dropout population, with black males representing 44% and black females representing 25.1% of the total. During the 1998-1999 school year the dropout rate increased to 9.7%. For many of these students, the barriers that they faced prior to elementary school were so overwhelming that it left them ill prepared for the challenges associated with schooling\ntherefore, less capable to take advantage of the educational opportunities at the secondary level. 9 2 2 \u0026gt; ii Iz* b 9 9 9 s 9 Student performance on standardized tests also served as an indicator of the extent of at-riskness for some students in the Little Rock School District. Scores on standardized tests showed percentile ranks across the District and the racial disparity in academics in all grades and subjects. Standardized test scores in reading for the 1997-1998 school year 2 5 I revealed that overall more than one-third of Little Rock School District students were in the lowest 25% nationally for reading skills, with elementary students at 38%, junior high students at 36% and high school students at 34%. Standardized test scores for the 1998- 1999 school year revealed that overall approximately two-thirds of the students (64% of the fifth grade students tested, 63% of the seventh grade students tested and 70% of the tenth grade students) tested were at or below the 50* percentile. The pattern of low performance on standardized tests can be contributed to several factors with the lack of availability of early childhood education programs and low social development being but two. Children who come to school ready and able to learn usually face fewer educational barriers than students who come to school not ready and able to learn. These students are less capable of performing at the levels necessary to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to take advantage of the opportunities of education. n \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Student success can also be influenced by the composition of the family unit. Family composition is related to income and poverty for youth, with two-parent families generally having greater income than families with only one parent. Students coming from families with higher incomes are usually better prepared at an earlier age for schooling. Nationally, in white families a single parent heads two out of every ten households, while single parents head five out of ten Afincan American households. In the city of Little Rock single parents head about six out of ten Afincan American householders. The majority of whom are single mothers. The relationship between income, poverty and academic success suggests that some students who are attending school in the Little Rock School District may need more support prior to the formal schooling experience and perhaps throughout their educational career in the public school system. Students who experience behavior problems often times are not benefiting as much from the academic aspects of schooling because usually they are removed from the educational setting. The number of students who were long-term suspended and/or expelled from the Little Rock School District increased during the 1992-93 to 1997-98 school years. The District revamped its alternative learning environments during the 1997-98 school year by enlarging the Alternative Learning Center and establishing an Accelerated Learning i ! X9 \u0026gt; z p 9 O o p 9 9 3 6 Center for secondary students. During the 1998-99 school year, the District experienced a decrease in the number of long-term suspensions and a significant decrease in the number of expulsions. At the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, the District established four elementary alternative classrooms in four of its elementary schools. The fall 2000 opening of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School was a logical progression in the Districts goal to provide for the educational and social needs of all students, especially, those with behavioral problems. The continued development of alternative learning environments is representative of the Districts commitment to providing the proper match between programs and services and students. The needs of some students cannot be met within the regular classroom setting and so alternative learning enviroiunents that focus on academics and behavior modification can ensure that all students receive an education that will prepare them to be lifelong learners and productive members of society. \u0026gt;P5 2 5P!I \u0026gt; Governance Two years of exploration and planning took place prior to the establishment of the charter school by the Little Rock School District Charter School Planning Team. The comprehensive effort included teachers, parents, and community members. The charter school model developed by the team was based on twelve years of research and evaluations by parents and teachers of the Alternative Classroom Experience (ACE) program at Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp. The team reviewed data to determine where the greatest needs exist. After careful review, subcommittees made up of classroom teachers, specialists, parents, and administrators discussed the implementation of various programs and services. For instance, a subcommittee examined the Success For All program while the Mental Health/Parental Involvement Team subcommittee investigated possible programs and services to include parents, families, and the community. Reports from the subcommittees were made to the Planning Team. After careful consideration, the Planning Team delineated issues, concerns, and discussed subsequent proposals. The Planning Team was later changed into an advisory group (Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School Advisory Committee). 4 IZ* P 9 9 9 P 9 9 7 The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School Advisory Committee met periodically to monitor the progress of the school as well as provide assistance and feedback to the charter school principal and staff. Little Rock School District personnel facilitated the planning and advisory process and provided technical assistance and support. District personnel were instrumental in supporting the charter through inservices on proven educational practices, data evaluation, and a review of the Title I plan. They also offered parental involvement suggestions as well as conducted research activities. D Instructional Program The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is located at the Badgett Elementary School. The Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School was modeled on proven methods and strategies used in the Alternative Classroom Experience at Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp. Those strategies include effective early intervention/prevention for academic underachievement, effective early intervention/prevention for socio-behavioral and personal failure, and an aggressive approach to rebuilding community and parent identity and support for public education. In addition to these methods and strategies, other innovations include Success For All, an Extended Day/After School Program, Gifted and Talented Program, Exceptional Children Services Program, Accelerated Reading Program, Read Across America Program, Media Center Program, Awards Programs, Incentive Programs and programming using computer technology, mathematics and science modules, field trips, the residential component located at Pfeifer Camp, music, experiential education, and physical education. Students also wore school uniforms. PI \u0026gt; 2\u0026lt; Pl I z 5 5 \u0026gt;1 21 fl z p 9 O e p 9 9 The charter school has six classrooms staffed with teachers and program assistants to teach each student. A gifted and Ulented teacher, resource teacher, reading specialist, reading tutor, media specialist, music teacher, speech therapist, occupational and physical therapist, counselor, nurse, school examiner, director, secretary, cafeteria personnel, and custodians provide other services. 5 8 I Student Demographics The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School offers a nontraditional innovative learning environment for students in the 3*, 4*, and 5* grades. Students attending the school come from a host of elementary schools in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District\nhowever, priority admission was given to students cunently enrolled in Baggett Elementary School. Other students were eligible for admission if they were academically functioning one or more grades levels below grade placement\nhad a pattern of recurring absenteeism\nhad poor social and interactive skills (displaying unacceptable patterns of behavior and failure to fit the social environment of the school)\nwere retained one or more grades: and, were from an unstable family structure. 2\u0026gt; P5 % \u0026gt; Once students were selected multiple assessment measures were used to assess them. The assessments included Success For All Baseline Assessment (which is reported in terms of grade level). District Achievement Level Test (RIT Score), State Benchmark Test (4 grade 2000 only) and Teacher Recommendations. The data generated from the assessments facilitated a better understanding of the needs of individual students. i 5X \u0026gt;1 2 Initially, 116 students made application to enrolled in the school\nhowever, 17 students did not attend for various reasons including relocation out of the District, logistics (parents wanting their children to all attend the same school or schools closer to home). program fit (some parents concluded that the program and services offered were not appropriate for their child), and a few students withdraw prior to the start of the 2000- 2001 school year. Ninety-nine students attended the school at some period during the school year of which eighty-seven students completed the school year at the school. z p 0 p 9 9 The demographic data shows that overall the characteristics of the students enrolled were similar to other schools within the District\nhowever, there were significant differences in some aspects. For instance, the school was different than most other elementary schools because of its concentration of students who were academically underachieving and 6 9 I I behaviorally and socially challenged. No other elementary school in the District had an exact similar student population. I I The demographics of this student population are highlighted in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The demographic data examined include racial makeup, grade level, attendance, absenteeism, and discipline. In addition, social economic statue and mobility are discussed. I I Table 1 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Racial Make Up Black Female White Female Black Male White Male 3rd Grade 4 3 23 1 4th Grade 2 3 24 1 Sth Grade 10 1 23 4 Total 16 7 70 6 Percentage 16% 7% 71% 6% Total Student Count 31 30 38 99 100% \u0026gt; g Pl ? \u0026lt; 3 A review of the data shows that the majority of the students attending the school were black. The majority of the students were black males followed by black females. The number of white females and males attending was about the same. The overall gender and racial make up of the school does not reflect the gender and racial make up of the average elementary school in the Little Rock School District. The above data includes student suspension data. If the suspension data were subtracted from the data, the overall attendance rate would be 94.5%. 2 2 \u0026gt;, pj z p o p 9 9 In addition, an examination of student records shows that an overwhelming majonty of the students in attendance receive reduced or free lunch. Of the students attending the school, 91% receive reduced or free lunch. Again, this percentage is higher than the average elementary school in the District. The combination of gender, race, and reduced or free lunch provides a better understanding of the social-economic status of the student population at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. 7 10   L Part of the criteria for admission to the school was a pattern of recurring absenteeism. On average absenteeism is lower at the elementary school level than at any other grade level\nhowever, the absenteeism rate for students attending the charter school is higher than normal. The attendance history of the student body is presented in Table 2. Table 2 STUDENT ATTENDANCE BY QUARTER Grade Level 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade__ Qverall Average 1st Quarter 87% 84% 92% 88% 2nd Quarter 94% 83% 87% 88% 3rd 4th Quarter Quarter 84% 92% 89% 88% 83% 85% 82% 83% Average 87% 86% 88% 87% The overall average attendance rate for all grades was 87%, which means that the school had an absenteeism rate of 13%. The attendance percentage is lower than the District elementary school average of 95%. The attendance and absenteeism rates of students in attendance at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School are more similar to the attendance and absenteeism rates of other schools with similar students. In addition, the mobility rate of the school was 14%\nhowever, the adjusted mobility rate was 4%. Mobility can be understood as the relationship between the number of students who started out the school year attending a particular school and the number of students who were still in attendance at that same school at the end of the school year. The number of student transfers and suspensions impacted the mobility rate at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. When the impact of the transfers and suspensions are factored out, the mobility rate declines from 14% to 4%. A major criterion for admission to the school was a history of academic, social and behavior problems. Students attending the school usually had poor social and interactive skills along with imaccepUble patterns of behavior. As a result students who attended the 8 n \u0026gt;2 P3 ft \u0026lt; j: V. i XX \u0026gt;, ! Z p 9 e p9 0 11 school usually had experienced more instances of inappropriate behavior, which resulted in more suspensions than other students. Students with poor social and interactive schools came from all three of the school Districts. Table 3 reflects the disciplinary records of students. Table 3 STUDENT DISCIPLINE Total Number of Suspensions Total Enrollment________________________ Total Number of students with Suspensions Total Number of students with No Suspensions Percentage of student with Suspensions______ Percentage of students with NO suspensions 66 99 37 62 37% 63% P5 \u0026gt; 2 P5 r\n\u0026lt;  When considering the grade level of students being suspended the 3\"* and 4* grades had 13 student receiving suspensions, and the 5* grade had 11 students receiving suspensions. Several of the students had multi-suspensions. In addition, some of the students who were suspended no longer attend the school. The majority of students attending the charter school had no suspensions. Furthermore, it is anticipated that suspensions will decrease in the 2001-2002 school year with the _. cih current 5 grade class leaving and with the 3\"* and 4* grade students returning to an environment that advocates behavior and social management. Student Academic Achievement The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School complies with all mandated state and federal testing, and other assessments based on student needs, which the teacher deems most appropriate. Student performance is measured in part by the same critena as for the rest of the schools in the Little Rock School District. The performance indicators include the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4, Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, Success For All. quarterly grades, WRAT (pre 9 12 V 5 \u0026gt;1 2 z p 9 9 9 9 9 Iand post), and SAT 9 at grade 5. These performance indicators are examined in the tables and charts contained in this section. The data presented in Table 4 represents the 1999-2000 school year student literacy achievement as measured by the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4 for current 5* graders at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. Table 4 PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR LITERACY: SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 PREFORMANCE LEVEL _______ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT ADVANCED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 86% 7% 7% 0% As illustrated in the table, only 7% of the then 4* grade students were proficient in literacy. The majority of students fall within the below basic range. This can be interpreted, as the overwhelming majority of 4* grade students who entered the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School in the fall of 2000 could not read at grade level. An examination of the results of the 2000-2001 benchmark scores, as presented in Table 5, further illustrates the challenging task of improving student reading achievement. Table 5  PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR LITERACY: SCHOOL YEAR 2000-2001 PREFORMANCE LEVEL PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS BELOW BASIC 83% BASIC 17% PROFICENT ADVANCED 0% 0% 10 13 Pl P\u0026gt;l 2 Z P 0 c p 9 9 STAFF Staff Title I Staff Residential Component TOTAL Materials \u0026amp; Equipment Computers Classroom equipment/ Furniture Printers Computer Tables Computer Software_______ Cabling________ Server(s) Hubs__________ Classroom supplies Office materials and supplies Repairs of equipment Textbooks Periodicals Audiovisual materials TOTALS CHARTER SCHOOL BUDGET 2000-2001 Proposed 725,000 96,000 821,000 53,100 35,000 7,000 8,500 1,500 20,000 10,000 1,000 2000-2001 Acutal 345,000 71,000 20,000 400 2,000 158,000 89,000 505,000 61,596 34,147 7,000 8,500 1,500 31,176 3,811 26,681 Source of Funds LRSD Title I Provided Provided 174,411 2001-2002 345,000 71,000 ADE Grant ADE 43,000 USDE 62,335 ADE 35,000 LRSD LRSD LRSD ADE 36,000 USDE 43,700 USDE USDE ADE LRSD LRSD LRSD 33,500 449,500 7,000 3,000 5,000 5,700 1,000 5,000 Provided Provided 26,700 Source of Funds LRSD Title I LRSD LRSD USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD 1 14 B \u0026gt; \u0026lt; d PI JB \u0026gt; J i 3 ?) z I* p 9 9 9 P 9 9fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl nn HH fl fl Contractual 2000-2001 Proposed 5,000 2000-2001 Actual 10,000 Staff Development Training \u0026amp; Curriculum/ Improvement Success for All - Staff Development \u0026amp; Materials Travel Dues and Fees Telephone Postage Printing Utilities Maintenance Supplies \u0026amp; Equipment Construction \u0026amp; Repairs Transportation Other Support Services TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 50,000 49,135 40,000 10,000 1,200 500 500 500 30,000 3,500 100,000 (at least) 150,000 346,200 1325,700 9,751 1,000 38 144 Provided Provided 175,000 224,263 S09331 1,188,742 Source of Funds USDE 35,000 USDE 50,000 ADE 40,000 USDE 10,000 USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD 2001-2001 Proposed 50,000 4,700 10,000 2,500 1,200 500 300 500 Provided 3,500 250,000 5,000 328,200 804,400 Source of Funds USDE USDE LRSD USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD NOTE: The above budget included grant funds from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and United States Department of Education (USDE). 1 15 P5 \u0026gt; r 5 Pl XX \u0026gt;1 2 z * p Q9 0 P 9 0 5     The number of students scoring below basic decreased from 86% to 83%. The largest increase occurred in the number of students rated basic. The number increased from 7% to 17%. Overall, the student of students who were rated as proficient readers decreased from 7% to 0%. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary Schools emphasis on reading has not yet impacted student reading achievement.   The data presented in Table 6 represents the 1999-2000 school year student mathematics achievement as measured by the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4 for current 5*'' graders at the school. As previously mentioned he current 5* graders were not in attendance at the school during the 1999-2000 school year.  ?5 \u0026gt; P5 \u0026lt; Table 6  PRIMARY (GRAPE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR MATHEMATICS^ SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 PREFORMANCE LEVEL _____ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 86% 7% 7% 0% i \u0026gt;1 Seven percent of the then 4* grade students were proficient in mathematics. The overwhelming majority of students fall within the below basic range which indicates that students were not proficient in mathematics at grade level prior to attending the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School in the fall of 2000. An examination of the results of the 2000-2001 benchmark scores, as presented in Table 7, further illustrates the challenging task of improving student mathematics achievement.  P 0 0 P 0 0 t 0 11 16  Table 7  PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR MATHEMATICS\nSCHOOL YEAR 2000-2001     PREFORMANCE LEVEL ______ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT ADVANCED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 96% 0% 4% 0% The number of students scoring below basic increased from 86% to 96%, while the number of students rated basic and proficient decreased 7% to 0% and from 7% to 4% respectfully. Again, the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary Schools emphasis on mathematics has not yet impacted student reading achievement. \u0026gt; g W I   In addition to the benchmark examinations, the Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School has an array of iimovative programs and services to offer students that focus on their academic development. A variety of means exist to measure the effectiveness of those programs, for instance, the grade level reading and mathematics tests. These tests are given in the fall and spring of the year. The grade level achievement tests highlight student progress. They measure students progress over the school year. The reason for measuring the rate of student growth is because it serves as an indicator of how much progress students are making compared to themselves over a defined period of time. I \u0026gt;,  The data are presented in Charts 1 and 2. The data presented compare the growth rate of students in the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School to similar students in the Little Rock School District and nation. In Chart 1 the grade level reading achievement growth rate is presented. Z P o c p 9 9 0 12 17E 14 12 Chart 1 READING ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL TEST FALL 2000 TO SPRING 2001 LU s *r P s  z \u0026lt; 5 UJ S 10 I6.J' i5 1^5 J5.4\n Charter\n District j I National \u0026gt; ft \u0026lt; OJ' 3rd Grade 31- 4 Grade Sth Grade 8 6 4 1 ' ^5 I At the 3* and 4* grade levels, the growth rate exceeds those for students in the Little Rock School District and in the nation. The increases range from 4.2% at 3\"* grade to 2.5% at 4* grade. The growth rate in both cases is significant. At the 5* grade level, the growth rate is equal to those of students in the Little Rock School District and only slightly below the national growth rate for similar students. 2 * 21 In Chart II the grade level mathematics achievement growth rate is presented. The data contained in the chart also indicate that the growth rate for students in the Little Rock * P 9 O Q P o 9 School District Charter Elementary School is either higher or slightly below that of the Little Rock School District and the nation depending on the grade level. 9 13 18E 16 14 12 10 Chart 2 MATH ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL TEST FALL 2000 TO SPRING 2001 111.9 U15| \u0026gt;n 2 P |9 8.7 s O Z. \u0026lt; uS 2 a'  Charter  District  National 0-* JI 10 2 Si 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade ?! 8 6 4 2 w ( i 1 i + ! I 8 1^11 yi Similar statements can be made about student performance on the mathematics achievement level test. At the 3\"* and 4* grade level the growth rates exceed those for students in the Little Rock School District and in the nation. The increases range from .1% at 3\"* grade to 6.3% at 4* grade. The growth rate at 4* grade is significant. At the 5' grade level, the growth rate is 1% lower than the Little Rock School District and 2% lower the national growth rate for similar students. th p e o e p o 9 The Charter School also used the Success For All program. The program has been used in more than 1000 schools. Benefits are particularly strong for students who are at risk. This is especially the case for those students in the lowest 25th percentile of their class. 1 i 14 19 IM The data contained in Chart 3 show the progress of students at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School during the 2000-2001 school year. Charts SUCCESS FOR ALL READING BY GRADE LEVEL d ! fl u o \u0026lt; UJ u 100%/r 90% ** 80%'*' 70%-*' 60%** 50%-^ AS/? !56%r|  BASELINE ' PI \u0026gt; Pl 40% 30% 20% 10% 132% :24'}^n ir^39?i38% llnl iQ FIRST SECOND IBTHIRD io FINAL A 3 pi third grade FOURTH GRADE FIFTH GRADE The 3\"* grade reading scores have increased each quarter of the school year. The percentage of students reading at grade level in the 3\" grade went from 0% to 56% over the course of the school year. The 4*\" grade reading scores have remained fairly constant with 40% of the students reading at grade level at the beginning and end of the school year The 5* grade reading scores have also increased from 24% to 38% during the same time period. Student reading scores have increased as a result of the Success For All reading program and other such programming activities. Those other activities include a total of 1,776 hours of staff development in such areas as Success For All, active learning with technology, experiential education, Smart Step, and cooperative learning. Student grades are also indictors of achievement. Student report card grades are presented in Charts 4 and 5. In Chart 4 reading grades by grade level and quarter are presented 15 20 I IS \u0026gt; z r  o e p  d d d I _ I I I I X Chart 4 READING SCORES BY GRADE  A 60/ u g H CZ3 b O u o \u0026lt; u CU 50--^' 40 30^ 20 10 J21 14 1616 2( JS11 28 124 1 24' X-  1ST QUARTER READING  2ND QUARTER READING  3rd QUARTER READING '  4th QUARTER READING \u0026gt;n 2 P3 r\u0026lt;\nGRADE The number of students receiving an A and B grade increased at the same time that the number of students receiving a C grade decreased in the 4* quarter. The number of students receiving a D grade also increased. Overall, 2 more students received an A grade by the 4'*' quarter and 31 more students received a B grade by the 4* quarter. The number of students receiving a C grade decreased by 17, while the number receiving a D grade increased by 1 in the 4* quarter. Reading grades have continued to rise with significant improvement occurring in the number of students receiving a B grade along with the decrease in the number of students receiving a C grade. fl I\u0026gt; Si P V- r n e a e u o o 16 2X \u0026lt;3 I I I t 1 B 0 A B C D Math scores have also risen with a significant increase in the percentage of students receiving a B grade. Chart 5 MATHEMATICS SCORES BY GRADE LEVEL 60/   50-^ i43 UJ O  CZ5 o UJ o  UJ U 40-^ 30 i22!\n28 28 20-'\" 120B 10 1321 :23 H3B3 13  FIRST QUARTER MATH B SECOND QUARTER MATH J B THIRD QUARTER MATH i BFOURTH QUARTER MATH\nP5 \u0026gt; g Pl 5C \u0026gt; r: I\n37 I 1 I I 0 1 0  B A c GRADE s X X \u0026gt; F D The percentage of students receiving a B grade has increased over the course of the year, while the number of students receiving an A, C, D or F grade has decreased. Overall, the number of students receiving a B grade increased from 28 in the 1 quarter to 51 in the 4* quarter. The biggest decrease was in the number of students receiving a C grade. That number went from 43 to 23. There were also small decreases in the number of students receiving an A, D, or F grade. The numbers ranged from 2 to 3. The decrease in the number of students receiving an A, C, D, or F grade is offset by the increase in the number of students receiving a B grade. Z P o c p 9 9 \u0026lt; 17 22 Additional data about student performance at the Little Rock School District Charter School can be glanced from results of the Math WRAT assessment. Student performance on this examination is presented in Chart 6. The examination was administered both as a pretest and posttest to students in the 3\"*, 4*, and 5* grades in the fall and spring of the 2000-2001 school year. Chart 6  g \u0026lt;  ou u\u0026gt; \u0026lt; O s oo cU4J a 2 z 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 1 0 MATH WRAT ASSESSMENT 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE  PRE i I a post\n9 i /i V 2 2 Student performance as measured by WRAT indicates an increase in the average number of correct responses at all three grade levels. In 3\"* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 2.5. In 4* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 1.3. In 5* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 2.6. B z * p e c p e 0 The final academic assessment examined is the Stanford 9 Basic Battery for the 5 grade from fall 2000. As shown in Table 7, the examination provides another view on student performance. The test was administered to 5* grade students shortly after the start of the 2000-2001 school year. B The performance of the 5* graders reflects their prior academic preparation rather than their preparation at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. The 18 23 a students had been attending the school for only several weeks before the test was administered. I 1 Chart 7 a STANFORD 9 NORM REFERENCE TEST NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY STH GRADE FALL 2000 1 a a a a a CZ3 LU Q  H CZ2 LU O LU u u oi u Qb 100 90- 80 10 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ,88 12 OE 0%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-99% QUARTILES The test results show that 88% of the student population performed in the 0 - 25% quartile, while the remaining 12% of the students performed in the 26% - 50% quartile range. Student performance for this group represents past academic preparation efforts. This groups performance should be compared with that of the fall 2001 S* graders who were 4 .* graders during 2000-2001 school year. This kind of comparison would ascertain the affect of the charter school program on 4* grade students during the 2000-2001 school year. Academically, the students at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School have made progress. The arrays of assessments highlight this improvement in 19 24 Pl 2 Pl ft 5/5 I % \u0026gt; 2 7- C C o o t Ia mathematics and reading. The schools success is a measure of the effectiveness of the programs and services provided in the innovative alternative learning environment. Financial The program and services provided during the 2000-2001 school year by the Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School cost $1,182,842 (see attached budget).  fl Even in an otherwise well-conceived and fairly funded charter school the need to purchase textbooks, instructional materials and supplies, computers and equipment as well as provide for the staff development training needs of staff can make it appear to be an expensive venture. Given the singular nature of several of the expenditures, the overall cost of operating the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School should decrease during the remaining years of the charter school contract (see attached budget). W \u0026gt; 2 P5 \u0026gt; ft \u0026lt; fl fl Also, in comparing the start up cost of the charter school to similar schools a more reasonable comparison would be with other elementary schools in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, or Pulaski County Special School District that have opened within the past three years. Just like in these schools the initial cost is high but tends to decrease over a period of time. Another comparison could be made between other schools in the Little Rock School District that are serving students with special needs such as the magnet or incentive schools. 1 ?! y z ?! 2 2 \u0026gt; 2 Conclusion Virtually all charter schools have had to overcome obstacles during development and implemenUtion. The barriers range from lack of start-up funds, lack of planning time, inadequate operating funds, inadequate facilities, state or local board opposition, internal conflicts, hiring staff, acquiring enough students, determining the right mix of programs and services, accountability requirements, and community opposition. While not all of the barriers apply to the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School, some did. They include barriers associated with sharing a building, acquiring enough students, and meeting accountability standards. In addition, to the biggest challenge of them all pi z p 9 0 P 9 9 / 20 25a which was meeting the needs of all of the students who were academically, socially, and behaviorally challenged through the right mix of programs and services. The ability of an organization to respond to these bamers can be somewhat quantified by examining student demographic data, student academic data, staff commitment to program goals, and stakeholders satisfaction. The demographic data indicates a student a a population that is highly challenged academically, socially, and behaviorally. The impact of this challenge is felt in the areas of student attendance, mobility, and discipline. The school can positively impact attendance and discipline, however, its ability to impact mobility is questionable. a a The academic data also illustrates a population that produces mixed results. Pre and post student achievement scores range from above average to below average. The school has the capacity to positively impact student achievement with its array of programs and services. The issue of matching students with the right program may still need to be refined. a P5 \u0026gt; P5 ft \u0026lt; I ifi Another way of quantifying the organizations ability to respond is by examining the diligent and commitment of staff to the goals of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. The closer the alignment of diligent and commitment to goals the better the chance that the needs of all students will be met. The numerous hours devoted to staff development and volunteerism is an indicator of the staffs diligent and commitment to students. JO 2 \u0026gt; a Still another way to quantify the affect of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is through the impact that it has on stakeholders. Those stakeholders are the parents, children, teachers, and staff of the school. Stakeholder satisfaction is crucial to the overall success of the program. The overall impact of the charter school to stakeholders can best be summarized by the responses attained from a survey given earlier in the school year to parents, students, and staff and from the comments of parents at the end of the school year. Stakeholders developed consensus on the importance of curriculum, instruction, sUff development, and parental involvement. These items were a z r c c e p 9 0 21 26a key elements in the program and related directly to successful student outcomes. The stakeholders felt these items would provide the foundation for long-term success.  a In closing, the overall impact of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is apparent not so much in the data presented but in the comment of one parent who perhaps speaks for all stakeholders. She comments, The benefits that my child received from being in the program can not be understated. He is better as a result of being at the charter school. a a \u0026gt; 2 r 5 P5 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; a a Vi 3 4 fl fl n 2 ?! 2 z r c p 9 9 a a 22 27EARLY LITERACY 1 Lisa 7 i J J '3 fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206  fl TO: Board of Education fl FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Early Literacy Program Evaluations fl fl Background The Board of Education approved in its 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda the Early Literacy program, which began implementation in fall 1999. During July and August 2000 the Assistant Superintendent of PRE presented to the Board drafts of this evaluation, which the Board tabled in August 2000 pending completion. That early draft was never completed and was not again submitted to the Board of Education for review and approval. ys 23 I j: ri 2  During summer 2001 Dr. Bonnie Lesley, on behalf of the Early Literacy Program Evaluation team (Pat Price, Pat Busbea, Ann Freeman, Ed Williams, Ken Savage, Anita Gilliam, and Sharon Kiilsgaard) presented a completed 204-page program evaluation: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District (1999-2000 and 2000-2001). This report was presented for information, but our Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan now requires that all program evaluations be presented for Board acceptance and approval. z* p c p 9O Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis had served as an external consultant to the team. He read both a near-complete draft and made several suggestions for its improvement, which were incorporated into the final draft. He also read the final draft and responded. 1, All grades K-2 teachers administered the assessments, both fall and spring, in all three years, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. All elementary principals supervised both the fall and spring administrations of the Developmental Reading Assessment and the Observation Surveys and the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2. Central office Elementary Literacy staff conducted the training for the assessments, collected the answer documents, and participated in the analysis of data: Patricia Price, Pat Busbea, Judy Milam, Judy Teeter, Kris Huffman, and Ann Freeman. Both Dr. Ed Williams and 28 f D Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Two II II Ken Savage assisted in the production and analysis of score reports. Anita Gilliam and Sharon Kiilsgaard assisted in checking the data tables for accuracy and in preparing the final reports. Copies of this program evaluation were provided to Mr. John Walker, to Ms. Ann Marshall at ODM, and to all elementary principals and elementary literacy staff. Executive summaries, including the program evaluation recommendations, were sent to all K-2 teachers with a cover memorandum congratulating them on their successes. The program evaluation was comprehensive, including the following:  an introduction\n a chapter on the literacy program design and its relationship to the Districts Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\n a description of all of the K-2 assessments used to measure student progress\n a chapter aligning the program with national research studies on effective early literacy programs\n numerous tables displaying the data in several different ways, disaggregated by grade level and race\n an analysis of the results (based on student performance data)\n an analysis of additional data relating to achievement gap among schools and the impact of professional development on student achievement:  a chapter on findingsanswers to the six research questions originally posed\n a bibliography: and  tables of school-level data on each assessment for the two-year period. An important chapter of the program evaluation relating to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was the one on findings. Research Question 2 was as follows: Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? The discussion filled pages 81-96. The following paragraph includes the criteria that were used to determine effectiveness.\" To determine the effectiveness of the new program in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students, the District used the performance results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment. The basic criterion established in determining program effectiveness for black students was that black student achievement would have to improve and then that growth over the two-year period of the programs implementation would need to be equal to, but preferably greater than, the growth of non-black students, (p. 81) II II n n H B n n n n H n 29I - 7 1 i Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Three I The report included a detailed analysis of all available data: I I I - I The following findings based on Observation Survey, Developmental Reading Assessment, and Achievement Level Test results make it possible to conclude that the new early literacy program has so far been effective in improving and remediating the reading achievement of African American students, as well as all students. It is unusual in any District to find gains by both blacks and non-blacks over a two-year period on eight different measurements, as this study finds. Again, however, experts on program implementation advise that it takes approximately five years to determine program effectiveness, so this year 2 study at best establishes baseline and early trend data for comparisons in future years, (pp. 82-83) In this sections conclusions, the program evaluation included not only a summary of findings as they relate to the achievement gap, but also how they compare to the findings in recent national research on reading achievement among African American and white students: The results of two years of changes in the LRSD policies, programs, and procedures in grades PreK-2 indicate that both black and non-black children in the Little Rock School District are learning to read independently by grade 3 (see Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan). The findings and analyses in this report indicate trends in the opposite direction of the national research findings cited above and of scores of other similar studies. Instead of black students growing at slower rates than non-blacks, in most of the measurements the LRSD results indicate higher rates of growth of black students than non-blacks. Instead of the gap widening between grades 1 and 2 as it does in national studies, it narrows significantly in the LRSD by every one of the eight measures (fve sub-tests of the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and two sub-tests of the Achievement Level Test), (p. 94) 3 fl fl i \u0026gt; {fl z p 9 e p 0 0  Pages 107-113 included recommendations for improvement in instruction, parent involvement, interventions, and professional development. Five schools were identified for improvement since they were the lowest performing schools in at least two of the three grades tested. Recommendations for the next program evaluation were also included. These recommendations were all considered by the program staff and by school-level staff and many were immediately implemented, as well as others identified in formative evaluations during year 3. The major recommendations made to principals for program improvement included (1) ensuring that all teachers are fully trained and are implementing the District program\nand (2) adding Reading Recovery and literacy coaches wherever possible, since both of these actions in some schools had resulted in higher achievement. / I 30B Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Four B B At the end of 2001-02 the staff decided that another comprehensive study was not necessary so early in the programs implementation (year 3). They, therefore, presented to the Board of Education in June 2002 an update that included all the 2001- 02 scores on the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment, along with a summary of analysis of performance, especially comparisons of African American student achievement with other students. Those findings not only confirmed the findings of the 1999-2001 study, but the results were even stronger in year 3. At the end of year 3. African American students scores were at least 90 percent of other student scores on all five measures of the Observation Survey by the end of grade 2. In other words, the achievement gap was either closed on these measurements or almost closed, given the standard of 90 percent as an acceptable ratio. On the Developmental Reading Assessment, the most difficult of the measurements, the black to non-black ratio grew from 35 percent at the beginning of kindergarten in fall 1999 to 82 percent at the end of grade 2 in 2002. Deeper analysis also revealed that although many African American children from poverty were not learning to read in grade 1, they did successfully learn to read in grade 2, so they will most likely reach the goal of independent reading by grade 3, even though they began far behind their peers. Interestingly, the growth of other students generally exceeded African American student growth on the DRA in grade 1, but African American growth exceeded other student growth in grade 2. Copies of the program evaluation and the update are attached for Board members review. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve, as submitted, the following: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Update on the Implementation of the PreK-2 Literacy Program, Little Rock School District, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 BAUadg Attachments B B B B B B B B n nnn H 31 i: k:t It-  Ir b-' b- Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Presented to the Board of Education Little Rock School District October 2001 I fl 9 2 \u0026gt;2 Ir b^ pj z r p G G G y G G I Prepared by Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley Dr. Ed Williams Patricia Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Ken Savage Anita Gilliam Sharon Kiilsgaard 1 I 32 p I i p Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 s Section I: Introduction I I 1 d i 1 Introduction During March 2000 the Little Rock School District provided to the Board of Education, the federal court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and administrators an Interim Compliance Report, which included a status report on the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program (pp. 93-105) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). In August 2000 the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) office provided to the Board and staff a draft copy of a program evaluation for the first year of implementation of the K-2 Literacy Program. At least two subsequent drafts were developed as more data became available, but these were not presented to the Board of Educationjust discussed among staff members.  An implementation update was provided to the Board in January 2001 by the curriculum staff, on the status of program implementation and including an analysis of available data, along with an outline of next steps. Then in March 2001 the staff provided a summary evaluation in the Compliance Report (pp. 72-93) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was filed with the federal court and provided to members of the Board of Education. 3 d 5 5 fl fl I \u0026gt; The Board of Education approved on second reading in March 2001 a new policy on program evaluation. Policy IL: Evaluation oflnstructional Programs requires that the staff evaluate the instructional programs designated by the Board of Education in their annual approval of the program evaluation agenda. Each evaluation is to provide valuable insights into how programs arc operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost-effectiveness, and directions for the future. In August 1999, 2000, and 2001, the Board of Education included the PreK-2 literacy program on its approved research agenda for the following year. P c p 9 0 An interim program evaluation was provided to the Board of Education in June 2001, the first analysis of the scores on the Developmental Reading Assessment in grades K-2 for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. At that time the scores were reported as the percent of students at each grade level, by race, who met the standard for readiness, the level that would predict success at the next grade level (level 2 at kindergarten\nlevel 16 at grade 1\nand level 24 at grade 2). Copies of that report, plus the summary and the slides were immediately sent via e-mail to principals to use in their own analysis and to provide to J 1 33 I' I' (' I. I' 1 E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and a copy of the slides for the June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education n I I B B B B B n n n 34 I ' Table of Contents Section I: Introduction Introduction Research Questions Methodology Outline of Program Evaluation Sections Outline of Appendices 1-6 1-2 3 3-5 5-6 6 I Section II: Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 7-13 7-8 8 8-13  Section III: The Assessments The Assessments: Observation Survey The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment Defimtion of Readiness vs. Proficiency Reliability and Validity: National Study Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage 14-25 14-15 15-21 16-19 19-20 20-21 21-23 23-25 V: I JC I Section IV: Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy 26-29 Section V: Description of Tables Table 1: Kindergarten, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 3: Grade 1,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 4: Grade 1,2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 5: Grade 2,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 30-42 31 31 32 33 33 35 [fl r G C\u0026gt; c p 9 9 I I I Table 6\nGrade 2,2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 7\nCohort 1, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 Table 8\nCohort 2, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 Table 9: Grades K-2,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students Table 10: Grades K-2,2000-01, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students Table 11: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Black Students Table 12: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Non-Black Students Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students Table 14: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Black Students Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Non-Black Students Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students Table 17: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Black Students Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Non-Black Students Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 All Students Table 20: Cohort 1All Students, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 Table 21: Cohort 2All Students, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 Table 22: Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black Students Table 23: Percent Readiness, DRA, All Students Table 24: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons Table 25: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, All Students Table 26: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons Table 27: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, All Students 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 42 36 i- I i 3 Section VI: Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Letter Identification Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing and Recording Sounds Developmental Reading Assessment 43-67 43-46 47-51 52-54 55-59 60-63 64-67 f Section VII: Additional Data Achievement Gap Among Schools Impact of Professional Development 68-71 68-70 70-71 I I Section VIII: Program Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for Improvement Research Question 1^Program Effectiveness Research Question 2Achievement Disparities Research Question 3Professional Development Research Question 4Four Literacy Models Research Question 5^Program Strengths and Weaknesses Research Question 6Cost Effectiveness Recommendations for Improvement Instruction Parent Involvement Interventions Professional Development Schools Identified for Improvement Year 3 Program Evaluation 72-113 72-80 81-96 96-100 100-103 103-105 105-106 106- 107-109 109-110 110-112 112 112 112-113 ( pl V! pl 9 IB2 \u0026gt; Section IX: Bibliography 114-116 Section X: School-Level Data Letter Identification, Kindergarten Word Test, Kindergarten Concepts about Print, Kindergarten Writing Vocabulary, Kindergarten 117-205 119-122 123-126 127-130 131-134 135-138 pj z r p 0 c Hearing and Recording Sounds, Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment, Kindergarten 139-142 Letter Identification, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 1 Concepts about Print, Grade 1 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 1 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 1 143-146 147-150 151-154 155-158 159-162 I 37 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 1 163-166 Word Test, Grade 2 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 2 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 2 167-170 171-174 175-178 179-182 Cohort 1^Letter Identification, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Concepts about Print, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1^Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black 183 184 185 186 187 188 Cohort 2Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2^Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2^Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black 189 190 191 192 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Rank Order, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black 193-195 196-198 199-201 ! Grade 2 ALT, ReadingAll Students Grade 2 ALT, Reading, Black and Non-Black Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, All Students Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, Black and Non-Black 202 203 204 205 Appendices A. B. C. D. PrcK-3 Literacy Program Plan Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2000 Interim Compliance Report Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2001 Compliance Report Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) 38 I teachers and parents. (See Appendix E.) Elementary principals used these materials in their August 2001 preschool inservice sessions. I I This Year 2 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District builds on the information provided in all earlier reports. It is intended to meet the requirements specified in Policy IL for the 2000-01 school year, as well as to fulfill the requirements in Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The grade levels evaluated include only grades kindergarten through grade 2. Another report will include grades 3 through 5. I I The curriculum staff received from PRE on July 19,2001, the report on the mean scores for K-2 students on both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for 2000-01. Achievement Level Test data were available earlier, but they had not yet been disaggregated by race. This program evaluation, therefore, differs from, but builds upon, the evaluation report that was presented to the Board of Education in June. It includes a much more detailed analysis of data\nit includes the results of the five sub-tests of the Observation Survey\nand it includes the average performance scores for each school on each sub-test^not just the percent of students meeting the standard. It also includes the results of the grade 2 Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage. The new data permit the staff to calculate and analyze the scores in a different way (mean performance vs. percent readiness), and they permit the calculation of a black to non-black student ratio so that the degree to which the achievement gap in narrowed can be measured, as well as how the gap has changed over the two years of program implementation. One caution in comparing the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 pre-test scores on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment is that some schools did not complete their fall testing by the deadline in 1999 and so their pre-test scores were higher than they would have been had the testing been done in a timely manner. There were instances when there were several weeks difference in the test date, so this variance would affect the pre-test scores. The kindergarten pre-test scores in fall 2000, for instance, were generally lower than those for fall 1999, for both black and non-black students. These differences do not necessarily indicate that this past years kindergarten class was that much weaker than the one the year beforeespecially when this past years end-of-year scores were higher than the previous classs end-of-year scores. The third and fourth tests administered are the Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage that are given in spring of grade 2. Those scores, combined with the results of the Observation Survey and the DevelopmenUl Reading Assessment, enable the District to assess the effectiveness of the early literacy program in LRSD, including its impact on the improvement of the academic achievement of Afiican American children. 2 39 3 1 fl dX V. fl *I pzl pr c 0 ep 0 8 r* 1 Research Questions Using the obligations set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP), the Boards Strategic Plan, and the Boards Policy IL, the following research questions were estabhshed to guide this study: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Are the new curriculum standards/benchmarks, instructional strategies, and materials effective in teaching primary grade students how to read independently and understand words on a page? (See Section 5.2.1a of RDEP and Strategy 2 of the Strategic Plan.) Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) Is there a relationship between teacher participation in professional development and student achievement? (See Policy IL expectation to examine cost effectiveness and Strategy 7 of the Strategic Plan.) Is there evidence of success in each of the four Uteracy models in useEarly Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) only\nELLA and Reading Recovery\nSuccess for All\nand Direct Instruction? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) What are the programs strengths and weaknesses? (See Policy IL.) Is the program cost effective? (See Policy IL and Strategy 3 of the Strategic Plan.) Methodology An interdisciplinary team was assembled to prepare the program evaluation for the PreK- 2 literacy program for Year 2. Several staff members provided assistance and support in the construction of 27 separate tables of district-level data to display not only the mean scores for each sub-test, by race and for all students, on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, but also to display the percent who scored at or above the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment and the median RIT score on the sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests. Calculations were verified three times by separate staff members to ensure the highest possible degree of accuracy. Among the calculations that were made to assist in the analysis of data were numbers of points of growth from fall to spring for each of the two years, spring to spring, and fall of one grade to spring of the following grade (for a two-year growth). Black to non-black ratios were calculated to determine the degree to which black students were attaining essential knowledge and skill at the same level as non-black students. Growth ratios were also determined^the degree to which growth in a given year by black students was at the same level or higher than that of non-black students. The percent of growth for one year of instruction and then two years of instruction in the program was calculated for each level and each sub-test, although these calculations were not used in the section on findings or in the recommendations made for improvement. And, finally, the mean 3 40i I  score on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment was divided by the maximum possible score to determine the average percent for each score. An additional table was constructed to display the achievement gap between/among schools for each sub-test at each grade level. i The Districts statistician conducted three statistical studies that informed the study: one of the average number of days of teacher participation in professional development on the implementation of ELLA, by program model, and another of descriptive statistics between teacher participation in professional development on ELLA implementation and student achievement. A third study was conducted to determine the validity of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in relationship to the Achievement Level Tests. fI 5 Finally, 87 tables of school-level data were constructed to add to the study and to provide the critical information for school-level staff members to conduct their own analyses at the school level.   Throughout the writing of this report individual staff members, both program staff and assessment specialists, were interviewed and queried in order to clarify issues of program implementation, testing administration, instructional procedures, and data interpretation. Their assistance was invaluable. The research studies which guided the initial design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan were again reviewedespecially the research on the identification of prerequisite knowledge and skills that children must acquire on their pathway to learning to read. These findings were once again mapped with the implementation plan for LRSD, as well as the assessment instruments to ensure ongoing alignment. Serendipitously, the National Center for Education Statistics published a report in July 2001 entitled Educational Achievement and Black-White Ineoualitv. which proved to be very helpful in interpreting Little Rock results in a national context, and which is cited in this program evaluation, along with other external studies. Multiple strategies to analyze the data were employed so as to establish as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible a basis for determining the programs quality. The detailed analysis is found in Section VI. No attempt was made in this study to analyze the results for limited-English proficient children since that program is evaluated separately. It is important to note, however, that the scores of limited-English proficient students are included in each schools results. The District requires them to take the tests so their progress in learning English, as well as in learning to read, may be monitored. And, finally, credible research studies were consulted, as were informed staff, in the determination of recommendations for improvement or determining next steps in becoming even more effective. 4 41 J I fl 4 CZ! fl 2 s 2 ?5 Z e P 0 0 \u0026lt; Before the program evaluation was published, it was reviewed by many individuals, including Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis, and groups, including the Early Literacy program staff, PRE staff representatives, and School Services staff. The District is grateful to all who offered feedback and suggestions for the improvement of this report. To the best of the writers ability, the suggestions for improvement were incorporated into the draft. Others were added to recommendations for the Year 3 study. Outline of Program Evaluation Sections This report is organized into ten sections: 1. Section I includes the Introduction, as well as a delineation of the Research Questions for the study and a description of the methodologies employed. 2. Section n provides background information on the program design and its relationship to the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation Plan. 3. Section HI describes the selection of appropriate assessments for grades K-2 and the processes by which readiness standards were established for each grade level for the Developmental Reading Assessment. It also includes information on national and local validation studies of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, as compared to the Achievement Level Test. 4. The literacy plans design in relationship to the findings in national research studies on early literacy is described in Section IV. This section also includes an alignment of the research with the assessments selected by the District. 5. Three major sections on data analysis follow. Section V is a description of each of the tables that was constructed from the data reports to assist the writers of this report and its readers in analyzing the results on the eight measurements: the five sub-tests on the Observation Survey (OS)\nthe Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)\nand the reading and language usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs). 6. Section VI is a detailed analysis of the data in each table and a comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-01 data, by race. 7. Additional data are provided in Section VII on the achievement gap among schools and on some statistical studies that were conducted relating to program effectiveness and the relationship between teacher participation in professional development and the achievement of their students. 8. Following the data analysis is Section VIH that summarizes the program strengths and weaknesses and specifies the implications for instruction, with specific recommendations for improvements in 2001-2002. 5 414 1 9. Section IX is the Bibliography for the study. 10. Section X includes 87 tables of school-level data. Those interested in individual school performance or comparisons are encouraged to use the model in this report for data analysis at the District level to conduct similar analyses at the school level. Behind Section X are appendices A-E for more background and further reference: A. PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan e B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2000 Interim Compliance Report I C. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2001 Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, and a copy of the slides for June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education 6 z 0 5 ?! *5 43 4 I \u0026gt; J r C e p o e 4II. Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program During early fall 1998 a committee was formed in the Division of Instruction of the Little Rock School District to design a new elementary literacy program, with an emphasis on the primary grades of PreK-3. The processes and ultimate design of that plan are described in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan in Appendix A. All elementary schools in the Little Rock School District are expected to teach the same curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks, regardless of the instructional strategies and/or materials that are selected according to the various implementation models. Twenty-seven of the Districts 35 schools are implementing the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) instructional strategies that are the content of the professional development program for PreK-2 teachers. This model was developed through a collaborative effort that included the Reading Recovery Training Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, the Arkansas Reading Recovery teacher leaders, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Nine schools are implementing the Reading Recovery program, a first-grade intervention, developed by Marie Clay. Seven schools are implementing the Success for All model that was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Little Rock schools receive their training for this program from the University of Memphis. Both ELLA and Success for All training are designed fixjm the same research base on early literacy\nthey differ in implementation strategies and materials. One school is implementing Direct Instruction through an approved waiver from the District program. Both the Success for All schools and the Direct Instruction school are supplementing their programs, in some cases, with ELLA strategies for greater effectiveness. According to Busbea (2000), In ELLA the importance of helping students feel like readers and writers on the first day of school is stressed. In order to achieve such a goal, teachers must provide students with the needed materials and opportunities for literacy activities. A balanced literacy approach is used to give students these opportunities. The children are engaged in whole text, but they are given formal instruction based on their strengths and needs (30-31). The literacy components taught in the ELLA professional development program, again according to Busbea, are as follows:  Read aloud.  Shared reading.  Guided reading.  Familiar reading.  Modeled writing or shared writing.  Interactive writing. I 7 441 Writing aloud. Revising and editing. Independent writing and conferencing. Phonetic skills. Classroom management. r Each school is required to dedicate a two and one-half hour block of uninterrupted time daily for literacy instruction. :9 3 ' Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan The District adopted its Strategic Plan in 1996, and it was updated in fall 1998. Three of the eleven strategies were important in the development of the PreK-2 Literacy Program Plan:  Strategy 2: In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Strategy 3: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the Sd'' percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. I z 0 .*) z3 Strategy 7: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The charge to the design committee of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan included three major sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was approved by the federal court in February 1998: Section 2.7, Section 2.7.1, and Section 5.2.1. The first of these sections (2.7) establishes the obligation to improve the achievement of students, especially those who are African American. I\u0026gt; 2 Section 2.7: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African- American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. zr ec 0P 9 0 On January 21,1998, Mr. John Walker, on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors, signed an agreement with the Little Rock School District that was filed with the federal court, which included the following statement: \u0026lt; With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement (2). 9 8 45 To that end and to address the obligation in Section 2.7, the staff made a conscious decision to emphasize designed to improve... the academic achievement of African- American students, rather than to remediate that achievement, given the failure of most remediation efforts not only in Little Rock, but across the country. This is not to say that the District abandoned its remediation efforts. It did not. Re-teaching, tutoring, Title I programs, computer-assisted instruction, inter-sessions in the Extended Year schools, after-school programs, summer school, and Reading Recovery (first-grade intervention in some schools) continued as much as ever, but as supplemental to the efforts going on in every classroom to prevent as much failure as possible, rather than try to correct failure after it had occurred. These remediation efforts are documented in the schools School Improvement Plans and their Title I Plans. And, of course, the Success for All program implemented in seven LRSD elementary schools and Direct Instruction at Washington Magnet can be described as both preventative and remedial in nature. This decision to emphasize prevention of failure vs. remediation is supported in the published work of the National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties Among Young Children (1998)\nthe research in scores of studies sponsored by the International Reading Association\nand from Marie Clay, who developed the Reading Recovery program. The National Research Council concluded in their massive study the following: The majority of reading problems faced by todays adolescents and adults are the results of problems that might have been avoided or resolved in their early childhood years. It is imperative that steps be taken to ensure that children overcome these obstacles during the primary grades (5). Marie Clay writes the following\nTeachers and parents of 11- to 16-year olds often believe that schools have done nothing for the reading difficulties of the young people they are concerned about. Yet the older child has probably been the focus of a whole sequence of well-intentioned efforts to help, each of which has done little for the child. This does not mean that children do not sometimes succeed with a brilliant teacher, a fantastic teacher-child relationship, a hard-working parent-child team. What it does mean is that the efforts often fail (15). Dorothy Strickland makes a similar finding: Historically, educators focused their attention on remediation, allowing children to fail before help was given. The importance of intervening early and effectively is well established among educators and social service providers (325). I t She explains that  the cycle of failure often starts early in a childs school career and that there is a near 90% chance that a child who is a poor reader at the end of grade 1 will remain a poor reader at the end of grade 4. Therefore, as the child continues to experience failure and defeat, he/she becomes likely to drop out of school (326). Also, 9 - 46 I' r she states that supplementary remedial programs such as Title I and replacement programs that substitute for regular, in-class instruction have had mixed results over the years (326). She concludes: sr* Those who have turned their attention to early intervention state that it is ultimately less costly than years of remediation, less costly than retention, and less costly to students self-esteem. This final point may be the most compelling of all because the savings in human suffering and humiliation is incalculable. Teachers in remedial programs often observe that students who feel they are failures firequently give up and stop trying to learn despite adequate instructional opportunities (326). Linda Dom (1998), Reading Recovery Teacher Leader Trainer and developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model, and her colleagues French and Jones explain this shift in understanding about teaching as follows: i I7 Recently, Linda asked a group of teachers in a college course how they taught reading to their lowest achieving children. From their responses, it was clear that their theory was a deficit one guided by their concern about how much the children did not know. Traditionally, we have tested children to identify their weak areas and then designed instruction based on what they do not know. This theory of learning is in direct opposition to what research tells us about how the brain acquires information and then organizes related information into larger networks. 0 I ... instruction that is based on inadequate background is grounded in a deficit model, which may force young learners to rely on low-level processes (24-25). 9 I 3 In their summary of Chapter 1, they wrote: Prevention of reading problems must begin in the early grades. If children are not reading on grade level by the end of third grade, their chance of success in later years is minimal. One significant characteristic of problem readers is their lack of literacy experiences during their preschool years. Schools must compensate by providing the children with rich literacy classroom programs and supplemental literacy services that focus on early intervention (15). z p c c c p 0 0 In other words, those who persist in insisting on remediation of learning as the primary emphasis for the lowest-achieving children doom those children to lessons that never get beyond the rote memorization of basic information, and those children will never have an opportunity to understand anything well, much less apply higher-order thinking skills. Dom, si si (1998) urge teachers, therefore, to identify the strengths of young children and use this information as the basis for designing rich learning experiences that emphasize problem-solving (p. 25). In these ways, schools can prevent failure. I 10 47 It should be noted that the District sees its HIPPY and expansive pre-kindergarten program as a part of its overall prevention-of-failure efforts. (See Compliance Report of March 2001, pp. 72-73, for a break-down of the 1312 youngsters involved in early childhood education during 2000-01.) The second section fiom the Revised Plan (2.7.1) requires the District to conduct annual assessments of English language arts and mathematics in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the achievement of Afiican American studentsand then to take appropriate action if the program is not effective by either modifying the programs implementation or replacing it. Section 2.7A: 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 African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African- American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. ! Prior to fall 1999 there was not in place a reading assessment (except the eight-week assessments in the Success for All schools) that measured student progress in their acquisition of leaming-to-read skills in the early grades. For a time the SAT9 was administered in grades 2-3, but it was not used to drive instructional practice as much as it was used to identify students for the gifted/talented program. The Literacy Benchmark examination required by the State of Arkansas in grade 4 was the first formal assessment of whether students could read independently. The design committee believed strongly that to comply with the Revised Plan and also, importantly, to be able to diagnose potential reading difficulties, as well as to identify progress and growth of individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District, an annual assessment would be required. The District could not afford to wait until grade 4 to find out whether every student had learned to read independently, a goal established in the Revised Plan. After a review of the available literacy assessments for young children and after consulting with the experts involved in the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) professional development program and with specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education, District staff decided to adopt two sets of measurements-the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement developed by Marie M. Clay and the Developmental Reading Assessment developed by Joetta Beaver. Subsequently, because of a need to have a measurement for the identification of students for the grade 3 gifted/talented program, the Achievement Level Test developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association in collaboration with LRSD teacher teams was added to the assessment plan for grade 2. The results of these data would be the primary basis for evaluating program effectiveness. 11 48 i The third section (5.2.1) of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes several curriculum, instruction, professional development, assessment, and parental involvement obligations\n[ I 1 IIf Readim/Lansuaee Arts Section 5.2.1: Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through third grade: a. b. c, d. e. g-h. i. j-k. I. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nFocus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\nPromote thematic instruction\nIdentify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\nMonitor the appropriateness of teaching/leaming materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nEstablish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\nMonitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nProvideparents/guardians with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\nProvide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, andfirst grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nTrain teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nUse the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Rather than repeat in this program evaluation the information provided in a number of earlier reports, the relevant pages from those earlier reports are included in the appendices. The document in Appendix E entitled Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan includes the following list of initiatives that have been implemented from the PreK-3 plan and which require emphasis (pp. 2-3): 12 49 7 0 3 fl 3 CZ! fl 2 2 z r p c a c p 9 9 9 Title I programming was restructured and aligned with the Districts program. A moratorium was placed on adding any new supplemental reading/ language arts programs. Some programs in previous use were abandoned. A waiver was granted to Washington Magnet to keep its Direct Instruction program. Cumculum standards, instructional strategies, instructional materials, assessments, and professional development were tightly aligned. Each school established a sacred, uninterrupted, two and one-half hour daily block for the teaching of reading/language arts. A new English-as-a-Second Language program was implemented that is also tightly aligned with the Districts general education program. New assessments that are developmentally appropriate and aligned with the curriculum and instructional program were implemented. Animated Literacy, a phonemic awareness program, was implemented in kindergarten. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) was implemented in grades K-2, with Pre-ELLA added in fall 2000 for prekindergarten students. More than $35O,(XX) was expended in the purchase of reading and other cumculum support materials during the past two years. 9 A committee has almost completed work on a new elementary report card. Most primary teachers experienced a minimum of one week of ELLA training, with follow-ups as necessary and appropriate (See Compliance fiSgOU in Appendix C for lists of professional development sessions.) The Parent-School Compact was revised, and the Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) was developed and implemented. The Parent Program was restructured in May 2000. An ESL Parent Coordinator was employed in spring 2001. 13 50 f 3 in. The Assessments 1 ' - -Jg h H I I i Marie Clay makes the point repeatedly in her book, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (1993), that no one observation task is satisfactory on its own when one needs to make important instructional decisions for children (p. 20). She would find strong support from Grant Wiggins, who is a national expert in assessment. In his book, Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing (1993), Wiggins wrote: One test signifies nothing, let us emphatically repeat, but five or six tests signify something. And that is so true that one might almost say, It matters very little what the tests are so long as they are numerous (13). In the Little Rock School District, the tests are numerous. The Assessments: Observation Survey Below is siunmary information about what the five sub-tests in the Observation Survey measure. Letter Identification This sub-test answers the following questions: What letters does the child know? Which letters can he/she identify? All letters, lower and upper case, are tested. The observation includes an analysis of the childs preferred mode of identifying letters\nthe letters a child confuses\nand the unknown letters. (Clay, p. 43) The maximum score is 54. This test is administered in grades K-1. 5 I ?! V. Word Test The student is tested over the most fi-equently occurring words in whatever basic reading texts are being used. Scores on this measure are useful in determining a childs readiness to read. (Clay, p. 53) The maximum score is 20. This test is administered in grades K-2. Concepts about Print This sub-test (5-10 minutes) includes testing whether the student knows the front of the book, that the print (not the picture) tells the story, that there are letters, that are clusters of letters called words, that there are first letters and last letters in words, that you can choose upper or lower case letters, that spaces are there for a reason, and that different punctuation marks have meanings. Scores on this measure have proven to be a sensitive indicator of behaviors that support reading acquisition. (Clay, p. 47) The maximum score is 24. This test is administered in grades K-1. Writing Vocabulary The student is asked to write down in ten minutes all the words he/she knows how to write, starting with his/her own name and making a personal list of words 14 51 9 I {fl z r p c p 0 9he/she has managed to learn. There is no maximum score. This test is administered in grades K-2. Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words The teacher asks the child to record a dictated sentence. The childs performance is scored by counting the childs representation of the sounds (phonemes) by letters (graphemes). The maximum score is 37 at grades K-1 and is 64 at grade 2. This test is administered in grades K-2. The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment The Developmental Reading Assessment is a one-on-one assessment of reading skills primarily accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and re-telling of narrative stories. The assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty. Factors which contribute to the gradient of difficulty of the stories include the number of words on a page, complexity of vocabulary, length of the stories, degree of support from the pictures, as well as complexity of sentence and story structure. The assessment formats are as follows: Levels A-2 (Kindergarten Grade Level), 7-8 minutes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Teacher selects book Teacher introduces text Teacher reads one or two pages Child points and reads rest of story\nteacher takes running record Teacher asks print questions Teacher asks preference questions Levels 3-16 (First Grade Level), 10-15 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Child looks at pictures\ntells what is happening 4. 5. 6. 7. Child reads story aloud\nteacher takes running record Child retells story Teacher asks response questions Teacher asks preference questions Levels 18-44 (Second Grade Level), 15-20 minutes 1. Teacher selects range of three texts 2. Child previews and chooses one 3. Teacher introduces text 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Child reads first 2-4 paragraphs aloud Child predicts what will happen in story Child reads complete story silently in another location Child retells story Teacher asks response questions Child reads selected portion of text\nteacher takes ruruiing record 15 52r 10. Teacher asks preference questions 11. Teachers asks one or two inference questions (Levels 28-44). 3 3 Readiness levels for the Little Rock School District have been established as follows:  KindergartenLevel 2  Grade 1Level 16\nand  Grade 2Level 24. 4e 5 The explanation below (developed in summer 2000) on Definition of Readiness vs. Proficiency is a delineation of the Districts efforts to define appropriate cut scores for each grade level so that a determination could be made of the percent of students who are achieving a standard of readiness for success at the next grade level. I' I Definition of Readiness vs. Proficiency The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. Proficient is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are coimected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows teachers to assess reading levels of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. V! 2J 5 fl fl I\u0026gt; 2 r I The desire was to establish appropriate cut points that would define proficient performance. To gauge which level is equivalent to how Arkansas defines proficiency, the staff used national reading standards for each grade level as defined in Reading and Writing Grade bv Grade: Primary Literacy Standards from Kindergarten through Third Grade (New Standards Primary Literacy Committee, National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh, 1999). The staff then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: fl z r p c e p 9 0 f I 16 53 Grade Level Kindergarten Grade I I I Grade 2 Reading Standards Children at the end of kindergarten should understand that every word in a text says something specific. They can demonstrate this competence by reading Level B books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, attending to each word in sequence and gening most of them correct. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to\nread Level 16 books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, with 90 percent or bener accuracy of word recognition (self-correction allowed). When they read aloud, we expect first graders to sound like they know what they are reading. Fluent readers may pause occasionally to wo^ out difficult passages. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to independently read aloud from Level I books that have been previewed for them, using intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. By the end of the year, we expect second-grade students to be able to independently read aloud unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or bener accuracy of word recognition (selfcorrection allowed). DRA Level_______________________________________ Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a repeated word or sentence panem with natural language structures. The simple illustrations include animals and objects familiar to primary children and highly support the text. One or two lines of text appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that children can point as they read. The number of words in the texts ranges fiom ten to thirty-six._______________________ Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and setting is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty. Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stones with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and sening is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty.___________________________________________ The staff also considered the work of others who use the DRA in their determination of appropriate cut points to define proficiency at each grade level. Several sUtes and many school districts have adopted the DRA for early literacy assessment. One example is the chart establishing proficiency levels developed by the East Baton Rouge Parish School System in Louisiana. They have determined that On Grade Level is defined by a kindergarten students performance at levels 1,2 on the DRA\ngrade 1 is levels 16,18\nand grade 2 is levels 24,28. Above Grade Level is defined as levels 3-14 at kindergarten\nlevels 20-28 at grade 1\nand levels 30-38 at grade 2. In Lindsay, California, the Approaching Proficiency levels are defined similarly: level 2 at kindergarten\nlevels 10-12 at gr^e 1\nand level 24 at grade 2. 17 54 3 5^^ IS fl 1 I 4 A program evaluation conducted by the Austin, Texas, Independent School District indicates that the Grade Level performance on the DRA was defined level 2 at kindergarten\nlevel 16 at grade 1\nand levels 24-28 at grade 2. as The State of Ohio defined Success Indicators for reading for each grade level. These can be compared to the national standards developed by the National Center for Education and the Economy: At the end of kindergarten, children should be able to write in a left to right/top to bottom manner, have a firm grasp of letters and their sounds, and recognize a few simple words. By the end of first grade, students should be using and integrating phonics and reading strategies as they read, writing simple stories, reading independently, and demonstrating comprehension of stories through drawing, writing, discussion, and dramatization. By the end of second grade, students should be reading silently for extended periods and reading orally with appropriate use of punctuation. They should demonstrate that they can gather information by reading, predict how stories will end, compare and contrast story elements, sequence evens from a story, retell a story, and relate what they read to their lives. The State of Connecticut uses the Developmental Reading Assessment as a part of their state accountability system in grades 1-3. Grade 1 students who perform at or below level 10 and grade 2 students who perform at or below level 16 at the end of the year are identified as substantially deficient. Such students then receive a personal or individual reading plan that outlines additional instructional support and monitors student progresssimilar to the Districts Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP). Although Connecticut does not identify grade-level proficiency levels, they have established the literacy standard for LEP students to exist the bilingual program: at kindergarten the student must perform at level 2\nat grade 1 level 16\nand at grade 2 level 28. Vermont, likewise, uses the DRA in their state assessment program and has established similar levels of proficiency. 7- 9 5 I Vi 9 I \u0026gt; i Joetta Beaver, the developer of the Developmental Reading Assessment (published by Celebration Press in 1997), suggests that districts should define proficiency levels so that students performing below those levels receive necessary interventions and remediation. Her recommended proficiency levels are levels 1-2 for kindergarten\nlevels 16-18 at grade 1\nand levels 24-28 at grade 2. All these efforts to define proficiency are either exactly aligned with the decisions made by LRSD sUff or are very close. 18 55 pi y\nr 9 C P 9 9 \u0026lt;Given, however, the difficulty of establishing with confidence an equivalent defimtion of proficiency that would predict achievement on the grade 4 Benchmark examination. District staff members have made the decision to use what in their best judgment are the appropriate cut scores (based on all the research cited), but to use the term Readiness to define the desired perfonnance. VA/MAM T\\a\u0026gt;A_^A 1_____1x* Ma When the District has multiple years of data and when the 1999-2000 kindergarten students take the Grade 4 Benchmark examination in spring 2004 then the staff can do some stotistical calculations that will enable the District set cut scores that reliably predict Proficient performance on the grade 4 Benchmark. to I 1 I I Reliability and Validity: National Study The development of the Developmental Reading Assessment began in 1988 by a team of teacher-researchers. According to the national validation study, the purpose of the assessment was to guide teachers ongoing observations of student progress over time withm a hterature-based reading program (p. 2). Over the next six years ere were numerous revisions in response to teacher feedback. In spnng 1996 the first formal validation study was conducted. Seventy-eight teachers fi-om various parts of the United States and Canada participated, (p. 3) The results of the study were very positive, and where the correlations were not as strong as they possibly could be, revisions to the instrument were made to strengthen validity. In summary, the I Iz A W M TAI Am. t* M M  . _ 1 - J ..._________ * M - * DRA was found to be a valid assessment. Teachers found it very helpful in  deterluirung individual students instructional text reading level\n describing his/her performance as a reader\nselecting appropriate interventions and/or focus for instruction\nand identifying students who may be reading below proficiency (11). A reliability study of the Developmental Reading Assessment was conducted in spring 1999 by Dr. E. Jane Williams. In this study eighty-seven teachers from ten states participated. All had prior experience in administering the DRA. The findings were at both the inter-rater reliability and the internal consistency of the test were strong to very strong (6). The construct validity of the DRA was also established through an additional study. Construct vahdity ensures that the test measures what was intended that it measure. The statistics for this study were done using DRA individual student scores compared to individual scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. They correlated positively, and for the ITBS Total Readmg subscale, very positively. The conclusion, then, was that the DRA validly measures a childs ability to decode and understand/comprehend what he/she has read (6). Of importance to the LRSD was another conclusion to this study: It should be noted that a major purpose of the DRA is to help guide instruction. Ninety-eight percent of the teachers and raters agreed or strongly agreed to the 4 s a 19 56I-I I .\u0026lt; I statement that the information gained about the reader during the DRA conference helped them better identify things that the child needed to do or learn next ( 9). 5 3 \u0026lt; d It was the intent of the design committee and is the intent of the curriculum staff that the multiple assessments selected for grades K-2 be used to drive instructionfor the data gathered from those assessments to be used to assist teachers in deciding what to do next for each individual child. LRSD embraces the joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Yoimg Children that was adopted in 1998: [ Throughout these critical years accurate assessment of childrens knowledge, skills, and dispositions in reading and writing will help teachers better match instruction with how and what children are learning. However, early reading and writing cannot be measured as a set of narrowly defined skills on standardized tests. These measures often are not rehable or valid indicators of what children can do in typical practice, nor are they sensitive to language variation, culture, or the experience of young children. Rather, a sound assessment should be anchored in real-life writing and reading tasks... and should support individualized diagnosis needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (20). i Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study The following correlational matrix constructed by the Districts statistician in spring 2001 displays the relationships between the scores on the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) and the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment scores. 9 3 I ?! ?! CorrelatioBal Matrix* Spring 2001 ALT Reading RTF, ALT Reading Goal RTTi, Olmrvation Survey, and DRA Scores e I\u0026gt; Goal 1: Word Meaniog Goal 2: Literal Comprebeu SMB Goal 3: Goal 4: Interpretive Evaluative Compreheo Coapreben Observation Survey: Word Test SIM sion Observation Survey: Writing Vocabulary Observation Survey: Dictation DRA Reading RTF Skore Goal 1: Word Meaning Goal 2: Literal Comprehension 0.937 0.940 0.839 0.922 0.805 0.823 0.917 0.815 0.822 0.280 0.255 0.223 0.467 0.438 0.418 0.638 0.602 0.577 0.788 0.733 0.12A Goal 3: Interpretive Comprehension Goal 4: Evaluative Comprehension Observation Survey: Word Test Observation Survey: Writing Vocabulary ObMrvatiM Survey: Dictation__________ 0.795 0.199 0.207 0.410 0.413 0.276 0.535 0.574 0.351 0.442 0.696 0.719 0.360 0.478 0.683 P c p 9 9 AU conclahons arc significant at the .05 level \u0026lt; N's range from 1577 to 1684 While all the relationships are significant at the .05 level, some relationships are stronger than others. All of the ALT scores relate strongly to the DRA, with values of .696 to 20 57 .788. Only Hearing and Recording Sounds (Dictation) on the Observation Survey has value above .50-.683. Also, within the Observation Survey correlational values are a lower. The staff anticipated this result since the Observation Survey measures leaming- how-to-read skills, and the Developmental Reading Assessment measures more difficult comprehension skills. The large sample size gives power to this matrix and contributes to significance at apparent low correlational values. 1 The statistician subsequently ran a statistical test called Cronbachs Alpha, which is a reliability test for internal consistency of an assessment. Reliability is a measure of a tests stability\nthat is, if one gives the same test more than once, a reliable test would produce a similar or same result. A test with an acceptable Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of the test taker, while a low Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of a poorly designed or inconsistent test. A test with an Alpha of .60 and greater is usually considered to be internally consistent. The Alpha coefficients for the Observation Survey and the DevelopmenUl Reading Assessment for both fall and spring administrations are as follows: 1 Fall K Grade 1 Grade 2 .63 .66 .74 Spring .85 .62 .65 Therefore, both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment appear to have stability and are internally consistent. The Alpha for the spring grade 2 Achievement Level Test is .97. What these data are indicating is that the Developmental Reading Assessment is a valid and reliable test The lower correlation values of the Observation Survey are more likely a product of these tests measuring pre-reading knowledge and skills, as opposed to the reading comprehension skills measured on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments Both the sub-tests on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment are admimstered one-on-one by the classroom teacher to the student. The teacher scores the students performance, based upon rubrics and scoring instructions provided to the teacher in a mandated training session and in writing. The teacher then bubbles in on each childs answer sheet his/her level of performance and sends those answer sheets to the Director of Early Literacy for processing and the compilation of scoring reports. One caution, therefore, in interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his/her own students performance, and bias may be possible. The District has conducted a procedure to verify the accuracy of the spring scoresthose most likely to be influenced by bias. Students spring scores are matched with their fall scores the following year, and then if there is a wide discrepancy, that score can be flagged. When there is a pattern of significantly higher spring scores from one teacher than the next years fall scores, then an investigation must be conducted. One school with suspiciously high spring scores was flagged for review in fall 2000. However, when 21 58* 5 the match of scores was run, the staff found absolutely no evidence of cheating. The fall 2000 scores were closely in line with those of the previous spring, even though the children in the fall were in several different schools, and there were more than seven teachers administering the fall tests. The steff also has collected some anecdotal evidence that a few teachers may, in fact, be under-reporting student achievement rather than overreporting, due to their own low expectations. I a 3  To avoid even the appearance of bias, some would recommend that the District use a standardized examination with individual students writing their own answers and then the answer sheets scored by machine. The problem with this approach is that the results would likely be even more questionable than the ones produced through one-on-one testing. Experts in early literacy and in early education have developed strongly stated positions against the use of standardized tests for young children, ages 3 through 8. For example, a position statement, Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, was issued in 1998 by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The section on assessment follows: 1  Group-administered, multiple-choice standardized achievement tests in reading and wnting skills should not be used before third grade or preferably even before fourth grade. The younger the child, the more difhcult it is to obtain valid and reliable indices of his or her development and learning using one-time test administrations. Standardized testing has a legitimate function, but on its own it tends to lead to standardized teachingone approach fits allthe opposite of the kind of individualized diagnosis and teaching that is needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (11). A 1987 position paper by NAEYC, Standardized Testing of Young Children 3 Through 8 Years of Age, is even more explicit: Young children are not good test takers. The younger the child, the more inappropriate paper-and-pencil, large group test administrations become. Standards for administration of tests require that reasonable comfort be provided to the test taker (AERA, APA, \u0026amp; NCME, 1985). Such a standard must be broadly interpreted when applied to young children. Too often, standardized tests are administered to children in large groups, in unfamiliar environments, by strange people, perhaps during the first few days of school or under other stressful conditions. During such test administrations, children are asked to perform unfamiliar tasks, for no reason that they can understand. For test results to be valid, tests are best administered to children individually in familiar, comfortable circumstances by adults whom the child has come to know and trust and who are also qualified to administer the tests (5). In conclusion, therefore, the staff made the determination that the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment met all the criteria for selecting good assessment instruments for the children in K-2 classrooms. They were closely aligned 22 59 c 3 I fl 3 cz: fl flI\u0026gt; Z j* C c p e 0 4 }| with the curriculum and teaching strategies that were to be used by teachers\nthey measured the leaming-to-read skills that were essential for children becoming independent readers\nthey provided teachers with necessary diagnostic and sununative dau\nthey were developmentally appropriate\ntheir administration procedures met test administration standards for young children\nand their results were much likely to be valid and reliable than if a standardized test was used. The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Readmg and Language Usage The Achievement Level Test (ALT) at grade 2 in reading and language usage was first administered in spring 2000. The ALTs are a series of tests that are aligned with the Little Rock School District curriculum and the Arkansas state standards. Because the scores are along one continuum over the grade levels, they allow staff and others who are interested to calculate the amount of growth for individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District as a whole fi-om year to year. With the ALTs, students take tests at a level that matches their current achievement level. The test should be challenging, but neither too difficult nor too easy. Because the tests match the achievement level of the student, teachers receive accurate information that helps them to monitor each students academic growth. ALTs are not timed, and they take about one hour per subject for most students. The District scores the ALTs, and the results are returned to the schools as quickly as possible, sometimes within 48 hours. Any retesting that is necessary is completed, so school reports carmot be printed until all testing is finished, and district reports cannot be completed until all schools finish their testing. Reports are also produced for parents, teachers, and administrators. Once a student has been through two administrations of the ALTs, a trend report is produced for parents that allows them to monitor the growth of their child compared to the growth of the District and the growth of the national group that takes the test. Student progress is reported in a scale score called the Rasch Unit (RTT). It is an equal interval measure. It can be compared to measuring a childs physical growth in inches and then comparing it to an expected growth chart. The test measures achievement growth with a RIT scale and compares the growth to an expected national growth chart. By monitoring the growth of students, staff can pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra help or attention. District staff and Campus Leadership Teams use the information to make data-driven decisions about school improvement plans, curriculum and instructional changes, and professional development needs. The scores are also used in program evaluations. There are four goals/standards that are measured on the reading sub-test: 1. Word Meaning A. Phonetic skills B. Context clues C. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms D. Component structure (prefix, suffix, origin, roots) E. Multiple meanings 23 604 I 2. 3. I I 4. Literal Comprehension A. Recall/identify significant details B. Identify main idea C. Locate information D. Follow directions E. Sequence details Interpretive Comprehension A. Inference B. Identify cause and effect C. Authors purpose D. Prediction E. Summarize F. Identify literacy elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) Evaluative Comprehension I A. B. C. D. E. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) Identify fact and opinion Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) Distinguish text forms Identify bias, stereotypes. 1 Three goals/standards are tested on the Language Usage sub-test: 1. Writing Process A. B. C. D. E. F. Prewriting skills Drafting and revising- Editing/proofreading Choosing appropnate format Sentence choice appropriate to purpose Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) z 93 fl W! fl 9 I \u0026gt;s 2 2. 3. Grammar and Usage A. Sentence patterns B. Phrases and clauses C. Noun forms D. Verb usage: tenses, irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement E. Adjective forms F. Adverb forms G. Pronoun forms H. Pronoun-antecedent agreement I. Negative forms Mechanics A. End punctuation B. Commas C. Apostrophes D. Enclosing punctuation E. Titles F. Beginning capitalization G. Proper nouns and adjectives pi r p c p 90 24 61 H. Capital I The staff made a deliberate decision to delay the use of this formal, group-administered test until the end of second grade. Even then, many teachers, principals, central office staff, and parents question its usefulness in measuring leaming-to-read skills and knowledge. The data are included in this program evaluation because they exist and because they provide another measurement of student achievement that may be used to inform decision-making about the program. I 25 62I IV. Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy Background on the Context: National Research on Early Literacy A publication of the National Research Council (1998), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, is nationally recognized, and it was used to a high degree in the design of the LRSD PreK-2 literacy program. Below is a short summary of the reports recommendations for early learners: Prekindergarten: Preschool programs ... should be designed to provide optimal support for cognitive, language, and social development, within this broad focus. However, ample attention should be paid to skills that are known to predict future reading achievement, especially those for which a causal role has been demonstrated. 1 Kindergarten: Kindergarten instruction should be designed to stimulate verbal interaction\nto enrich childrens vocabularies\nto encourage talk about books\nto provide practice with the sound structure of words\nto develop knowledge about print, including the production and recognition of letters\nand to generate familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading. Beginning readers need explicit instruction and practice that lead to an appreciation that spoken words are made up of smaller units of sounds, familiarity with spelling-sound correspondences and common spelling conventions and their use in identifying printed words, sight recognition of fi'equent words, and independent reading, including reading aloud. Fluency should be promoted through practice with a wide variety of well- written and engaging tests at the childs own comfortable reading level. ^5 2 I pl (/) pl \u0026gt; 2 Children who have started to read independently, typically second graders and above, should be encouraged to sound out and confirm the identities of visually unfamiliar words they encounter in the course of reading meaningful texts, recognizing words primarily through attention to their letter-sound relationships. Although context and pictures can be used as a tool to monitor word recognition, children should not be taught to use them to substitute for information provided by the letters in the word. z r p p e a  Because the ability to obtain meaning from print depends so strongly on the development of word recognition accuracy and reading fluency, both of the latter should be regularly assessed in the classroom, permitting timely and effective instructional response when difficulty or delay is apparent. Beginning in the earliest grades, instruction should promote comprehension by actively building linguistic and conceptual knowledge fl 26 63in a rich variety of domains, as well as through direct instruction about comprehension strategies such as summarizing the main idea, predicting events and outcomes of upcoming texts, drawing inferences, and monitoring for coherence and misunderstandings. This instruction can take place while adults read to students or when students read themselves. Once children learn some letters, they should be encouraged to write them, to use them to begin writing words or parts of words, and to use words to begin writing sentences. Instruction should be designed with the und\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_551","title":"Program evaluations, Volume II","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":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume II"],"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/551"],"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\nB s n 5C \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 5 z m I VOLUME 2 II 2 p5 z RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGfl fl Appendix G Academic Comparison Data by Area, Magnet, and Incentive Schools \u0026gt; n 5 s z m 2 fl I I I i I I 67 471 2 Z 9 s z wI d d Number of Students by Grade Level d d d d d d d d nn d d n PK Area Magnet Incentive Kindergarten Area Magnet Incentive 1 Grade Area Magnet Incentive 2* Grade Area Magnet Incentive 3'' Grade LEP 26 0 3 51 3 2 42 14 43 4 1 NAEP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 FEP FEPE 6 0 3 0 0 0 14 4 5 19 2 1 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Area Magnet Incentive 4'* Grade Area Magnet Incentive 5*^ Grade Area Magnet Incentive 6'* Grade Area Magnet 7* Grade 8\"^ Grade Area Magnet Area Magnet 9 Grade Area Magnet 42 4 2 38 0 0 25 2 2 20 0 36 6 31 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 5 2 2 15 7 1 17 4 1 25 5 1 25 3 17 3 22 2 10 5 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 J 0 68 472 c \u0026gt; S S\u0026gt; Pl \u0026gt; 04o z nI 2 z UI \"I. n rr F d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 10*^ Grade Area Magnet 11^ Grade [Tep Area Magnet 12^ Grade Area Magnet DRA Scores LEP - Kindergarten FEP- Kindergarten FEPE - Kindergarten NAEP- Kindergarten LEP - 1 Grade FEP -1 Grade FEPE -1TT Grade NAEP - 1 Grade LEP - 2\"^ Grade FEP - 2\" Grade FEPE - 2^ Grade I NAEP- 2'* Grade NAEP FEP FEPE 20 0 18 0 12 0 Area W 1 3 3.5 7.4 1 15.5 34.5 19.5 2 3 6 9 0 6 17 0 12 0 9 0 Spring Growth 4 9.3 3.1 56.3 13.2 19.3 6 24.2 37.5 34 0 0 1 0 0 I Magnet Fall 9 8 Spring 13.3 10.5 Growth 7 2.5 '.as\n-' 11.2 11.9 5 13 8 14.5 6 21 34 42 28 21 17.5 35.3 33 42.6 15.5 7.3 69 Incentive Fall 0 5.8 2.5 3 Spring 1 9.6 14 14 XL -O' Growth i 3.8 11 11 N 1 ff 2 \u0026gt;99 C\u0026gt; \u0026lt;m 3 5 zn \u0026gt; 2 Z C F z n cr ^13 d d SAT-9 Complete Battery: National Curve Equivalent Scores Area 1 Magnet d d d d d d II II II n n n n \u0026lt; LEP-5^ Grade FEP - 5*^ Grade FEPE-5^ Grade NAEP - 5^ Grade 1 LEP - 7^ Grade FEP-7*^ Grade FEPE - 7^ Grade\" NAEP -1'^' LEP -10*^ Grade FEP-10*^ Grade FEPE - lO^* Grade NAEP -10'^ Grade 4\" 15.7 39 \\1 l^.'i Incentive 85 d \u0026gt; CO O X \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Q 5 z n I 26.3 74.3 33 30 54.8 21 49 11.5 11.5 52 if 'fSi  2 5 -2. C cz: s z ri w Grade State Benchmark Exam for current 5* Grade Students Math LEP-4*'Grade NAEP- 4* Grade FEP- 4*^ Grade Area \"IT 184 Magnet 266 Incentive TIT or FEPE-4^Grade j 180 Literacy LEP - 4*^ Grade NAEP- 4*^ Grade FEP- 4^ Grade I FEPE- 4*^ Grade Area 126 i 199 171 Magnet IST 228 -j: 200 Incentive 202 70 474d d ALT RIT Scores: Elementary Math dLEP - 2\"** Gride T?T?n -\u0026gt;ntl riJo FEP - 2 Grade 1 Area I 166 Magnet | Incentive d d d d d d d II n n n n  FEPE - 2\"^ Grade NAEP- 2\"'^ Gradl LEP - 3\"* Grade FEP - 3'^* Grade \" FEPE - 3'^Grade~~ NAEP-S'** Grade LEP - 4* Grade FEP - 4*^ Grade FEPE-4*^ Grade\" NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5* Grade FEP-5^ Grade FEPE - 5*^ Grade NAEP - 5* Grade 198 193 188 198 170 d M \u0026gt; s 5 \u0026gt;  5 z P5 \u0026gt; 2 185 206 211 207 195 213 211 209 189 220 221 206 212 183 210 2 \u0026gt; 229 198 224 3 220 210 222 *  ALT RIT Scores: Reading Elementary Level LEP - 2\"'* Grade FEP - 2' Grade FEPE-2'^ Grade I NAEP- 2\"^* Grid? LEP - 3 j Grade FEP - 3\"^ Grade FEPE - 3\"^Grade i NAEP - 3\"^ Grade I i LEP - 4*^ Grade I FEP - 4*^ Grade FEPE - 4* Grade~ NAEP - 4th Grade LEP-5*^ Grade FEP - 5*Grade ~ FEPE - 5*^ Grade\" NAEP - 5* Grade \u0026gt; z o {5 z n Area ~iS7~ 179 189 .ti' 171 198 205 201 184 210 203 191 Magnet Incentive 183 198 188 a 187 205 178 202 - 223 3* tn 208~ tri* 187 213 212 193 223 188 214 71 475d alt RTT Scores: Language Elementary Level Area Magnet Incentive d d d d d d d n n II n n n  n LEP - 2\"*' Grade  FEP-2\" Grade FEPE-2' Grade NAEP- 2\"** Grad^ LEP - 3^^ Grade ~ FEP - 3^Grade FEPE - 3'^Grade~ NAEP - 3'*' Grade LEP - 4* Grade FEP - 4'^ Grade FEPE -4*\" Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5*^ Grade FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5^ Grade NAEP - 5*^ Grade 171 186 194 192 208 189 2 \u0026gt; S X \u0026gt;  5 2 n I 182 204 212 207 192 214 211 200 191 218 215 193 212 184 213 227 218 z O CZ5 ?5 z rj w 197 226 192 210 ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Math LEP - 6* Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- 6* Grade LEP - 7*^ Grade FEP - 7*^ Grade FEPE - 7'*' Grade NAEP - 7*^ Grade LEP - S'* Grade rrn FEP - 8 Grade FEPE - 8* Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 1 Area I 199 221 223 Magnet 218 234 203 243 210 222 237 230 202 233 233 253 260 72 476d Id ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Reading Area Magnet d d Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id II II II LEP - 6^^' Grade ~ FEP-6'^ Grade FEPE - 6\"^ Grade NAEP- 6*^ Grade LEP - 7*^ Grade FEP - 7**^ Grade FEPE - 7**' Grade NAEP - 7'*' Grade LEP-8*^ Grade FEP - 8*^ Grade FEPE - 8*^ Grade NAEP - 8*** Grade 192 215 216 217 228 204 223 205 202 226 221 210 221 227 225 236 ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Language LEP - 6*^ Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- 6'* Grade LEP-7*^'Grade FEP - 7*^Grade I FEPE - 7** Grade I NAEP -Grade LEP - 8* Grade FEP - 8* Grade FEPE - 8'* Grade NAEP - 8^ Grade\" Area W 219 217 207 227 214 2Q1 230 226 Magnet 226 ^30~ 218 230 227 234 239 2 \u0026gt; s \u0026gt; P3 \u0026gt; 4 5 z m 2 2 \u0026gt; 2. O r S z Pl 13 ^11M [fl ALT RIT Scores: High School Level Reading [fl [fl n M [fl [fl n [fl II n II n n  n LEP - 9* Grade  FEP - 9*** Grade FEPE - 9* Grad? NAEP-9^ Grade' I Area Magnet LEP-10^ Grade \" FEP - 10*^ Grade FEPE -10^ Grade\" NAEP -10^^ Grad'e LEP- ll^' Grade ~ FEP - 11*'Grade ~ FEPE - 11'^ Grade NAEP -11*^ Grade 201 230 222 174 225 224 208 211 213 232 205 225 S w C z \u0026gt; d  s z \u0026gt; 2 1 229 218 ALT RIT Scores: High School Level Language LEP - 9* GradT\" FEP - 9* Grade FEPE - 9* Grade NAEP-9* Grade LEP -10*^ Grade FEP - lO\"^ Grade FEPE -10* Grade NAEP -10* Grade LEP - 11\"^ Grade FEP-11* Grade FEPE-ll*^ Grade NAEP -11'^ Grade 2 5 Z c t/i W 2. Area ~2i2' 236 231 210 208 214 214 220 233 213 Magnet 211 2T1 Ssi:\n' '240 K 217 74 478ri ri Appendix H ri Achievement Data by School ri  w s \u0026gt; 5 5 z n 2 ri 2 ri H 2. C uc F 2. P5 fl fl fl n n n n n  75 479i 2 M ri Badgett I I 1 ri ri ri ri ri ri H [fl n iri n n n Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General ISt-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 'i DRA Fall i DRA Spring? i SAT-9 j Benchmark ! ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language } (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) j DRA Growth i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing)} (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) (N/Missing) J:'_________ _ .u~ -i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 I I i Benchmark i ALT Reading ALT Math i ALT Language \u0026gt; ee C ?: \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Pl \u0026gt; Q 5 z -J pj \u0026gt; 2 1 I I i 1st General 1 i I _i_7 1 I t I I 3!^ 2 1 I i Ei^ 5M? 1 1 J \"  .........ibas^ hi^B\u0026lt;M*r1rr* JJtM I i :2nd LEP I I I 480 Z P5 z P5 ! Bale ! o I Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring ) i I (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I DRA Growth j i Benchmark I ALT Reading i ALT Math\nALT Language I SAT-9 1 BencnmarK . ali Keaumy nti i-.aui  ou. L^uyuoy. i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) 1 ! I 1 I i \u0026gt; S 55 \u0026gt;  s z n I fl\nK-LEP K-NAEP [k-fep K-FEPE iK-General i .00 (2g) i 1.5 (2g) I I I I i I is^ vA-. H fl fl fl fl I Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE i 1st General ! 2nd LEP 12nd NAEP 12nd FEP , 2nd FEPE 2nd General , 3rd-LEP i3rd-NAEP prd-FEP |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General i4th-LEP |4th-NAEP |4th-FEP ~ |4th-FEPE 14th-General 5th-LEP jSth-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE 6.0 (3/1)\n26.0(3/1) i 20.0(3/1) 1 ! I I I J. T ^WSO Z C CZ) 2 2. ri ff xv5i-,P=::i- ss^l!saaa*s^\u0026lt;. lAk. Ai  .*\u0026gt; -I. 1 I t I i I 1 utjR5asEfr,Bsy7?S535*\" I 2it5i, T I 176.0 (2/0) 33ST5S55g^' 165.5 (2/0)\n170.5 {2JQ} ' B !fSiSS^--'-^V 55iS! F I (0/1) y=*^V ui^Jwv.w  -i.- 1 fe 207.0(1/0) j 208.0(1/0)  214.0 (1/0) I I i ISO a2s I T I (0/1)\nS 3^-3: (0/1) (Og) ?^4 -l\u0026gt;-. I 1 (0/1) 71.0 {2J0) 1 5th-General g ____________ *N=Number of students tested S\n207.0 (1/0) 219.0(1/0)- 218.0(1/0) (1/0) I I (1/0) T (1/0) 221.0 (2A)) 231.0(2/0)\n229.0(2/0) I I 1 481Grades Baseline I DRA Fall I DRA Spring i ! SAT-9 j Benchmark ! ALT Reading\nALT Math ? ALT Language j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) 7 7 i j ( i ! 2 \u0026gt; B3 o X \u0026gt; n \u0026gt; Oz -j Pl S ri ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I T7I i IX i ri ri Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General i (0/1) ' (0/1) i (0/1) I 1T i7 1 r SSTJ^S I ^171.0(1/0) '179.0(1/0) 1180.0 (1/0) 8^' 1. 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP i5th-NAEP 5th-FEP 5th-FEPE 5th-General 10.0(1/0) , 20.0(1/0) 10.0 (1/0) I V52: ! +I SSs^ T I ^5 (0/1) I I I7 T TIT (0/1) (0/1) (0/1) IT T I 1 T (0/1) !l7.0 (1/0) ,  196.0 (1/0) ' 207.0 (1/0) i 208.0 (1/0) 4------------------------------------------- 1--------------------- J I N=Number of students tested 482 ri c ri ri ri Grades 1 1 j DRA Fall ! DRA Spring j Booker SAT-9 ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth |(N/Missing) (N/Missing i ------------ i S J ____ _ I Benchmark I ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language ............ i ! .(..N.../.M.. iss in g ) 1 j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl K-1LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K:--FEPE !T K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I I .50(S/3) ! I I T T1 1.0 (1/4) i I 1 iI i7 1 I SS\nT I \u0026gt; :b C\u0026gt; m  z5 n I i 44.0(2/0) i 44.0(2/0) .00 (2/0) I 1 JI I i7 (0/1) ''-T'^T-T- ~\n..eTA'.-':^2WBflx\u0026gt;.7.14\u0026lt;.5-^ fSSSEil sass 1 ^205.0 (2/0) 198.0(2/0) 211.5(2/0) I I i 191.0 (1/0) ! 186.0 (1/0) ! 196.0 (1/6) i i I T 1 25 \u0026gt; \"I. O CZ) n 2. n [fl TT I {om 17.0 (1/0) wr~- =7r.-*  J iriT'jr-itiiA'-ajiV.x-' I 1 Lai  '3^535S^  187.0 (1/0) ' 205.0 (1/0) ' ----------------------------1 T 189.0 (1/0) N=Number of students testeo *iM**i. T I I 483 Iri c Iri S Iri r- Brady I I 1 I Iri ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring ( i Benchmark i ALT Reading ! ALT Math j ALT Language Grades ' SAj.g i s ALi Keaaing { mui  lau- , r^u. I MMisig) 1 WMi^i drag#. I Iri 1 i ri K-LEP Ic?iAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I .50 (2/3) i 1.0 (V4) I. 1 I T ri i  i T _L i T ri Ist-LEP ist-N^ Ist-FEP lstFEPE~~ 1st General i 4.0 (3/1) I 9.7 (3/1) i I i i A.OjMQ) I 8.0 (1/0) ! 1 I X i T I ri ri i2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2ndFEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General i 16.0(1/0)  28.0(1/0)\ni t I _L I ri 01 3rd-LEP ^-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3i^^FEPr~ 3rd-Genera? ri ri 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP WvFEP 4t)vFEPr~ 4th-General H Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sfr^^FEP 5th-FEPl~ 5th-General I Q 5 z H n \u0026gt; i I I i\n5.7 (3/1) 4.0 (1/0) r.--. -t:\n ^iaS^ Ss I- J I_______-----------__ ______J_______-------------. .. .Z: I z ni- z\u0026gt; in\\ AQA O /A ICW -------------------''^-^rS7^SiS#?1sri?53LtT7^ i185.0(1/0) 184.0(1/0) 12.0 (I/O) !-------------------1------------------------ (0/4) I ! 167.3 (4/0) i 189.3(4/0)\n179.3(4/0) T 2 5 \u0026gt; z (Zi n z n n  wV r^=' (0/5) (0/1) I A\"-* i i r ^^1951W) ' 205.8 (4/1) 2^0 (4/1) i 219.0 (1/0) 209.0 (1/0) I 212.0 (1/0) I^SWBO oA qpu i*/? (0/5) I i I 36.0 (1/4) .ll C'St (0/1) (0/2) '5.0 (1/0)\n39.0 (210) Trt4^'iaR^ '*N=Number of students tested ^3.6 (5/0) 206.0(5/0)' 191.0(5/0) I V84.0 (1/0)~ 'l92-0 W 181.0 (1/0) 2^A.5 C^Q) 223.0 (2/0) 219.0 (210) 484iri ri \u0026gt; SX \u0026gt; -i ri Carver I I 1 I ri i DRA Fall i DRA Spring | 1 SAT-9 Grades I u/1'/' I o 11 I I     I i i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\nDRA Growth j (N/Missing) Benchmark j ALT Reading | ALT Math\nALT Language (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! I 1 I PI 5 52 n I ri ri M ri ri ri ri ri  K- :-LEP K-NAEP K-lFEP (-FEPE (-General K-K-ist- LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 12nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP Sth-NAEP 5th-FEP 5th-FEPE Sth-General I 2.0 (1/0) I 4.0 (1/0) i 2.0 (1/0) I I 10.7(3/0) i 14.0(3/0) 1 3.3 (3/0) !T I I I 6.0 (1/0) I 34.0(1/0) 1 28.0 (1/0) I i i 8.0 (1/0) ! 40.0(1/0) I 32.0 (1/0) a I i i 1 i 16.0(2/0) i 32.0(2/0) T T i 18.0(1/0) ' 40.0(1/0)\ni g ! iSSl 1 193.5(2/0) '193.0(2/0) I ^\"\"  16-0 (2/0) jgagSffw 22.0 (1/0) E 184.0(1/0) !197.O(1/O) 1202.0(1/0) T i 1 2 \u0026gt; 1. ff {012) (0/2) I 1 I S'- I 1 (0/2) Ah. *- w I (0/1) 187.0(2/0) 205.5(2/0) i 193.5(2/0) 202.5 (2/0) i 213.0(2/0) I 213.5(2/0) 1 T I I 223.5 (2/0) 226.0(2/0) 228.5(2/0) T 1 79.0(1/0) - - - \u0026gt; i 227.0(1/0) 226.0(1/0) 225.0 (1/0) I 1 !N=Number of students tested 485 ri 2 ri ri Chicot 1 I I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri I ri ri ri Grades iK-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ! DRA Fall I DRA Spring j SAT-9 I Benchmark ALT Reading ' ALT Math ! UKA rail opuuy\n: \u0026lt; /M/kj-  \\ i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\n----------------------- -- ------------------------------ : \" i ' T I ! ALT Language (N/Missing) I I I 1 9.1 (11/0) i .91(11/0) ! .82(11/0) 1 I 1 i .00(1/0) 2.0 (1/0) I 2.0 (1/0) I \u0026gt; co C \u0026gt; 5 sz P5 \u0026gt; 2: 1 1 1 I 1 i .33 (3/8) 4.33 (6/5)\n.50 (2/9)  I fS. I 2.5 {2JQ} I 13.0(2/0) i 10.5 (2/0) r*\nI (K ----------------------  WP*^H '^?3!W i 18 0(1/13) 12.5(11/3) i 26.0(1/13) 1 i I T W-S 25 --af^ j*.j i o *4 * ! 1 113.1(10/4)' 141.2(10/4) i 136.2.(10/4) T .00(1/1) I 182.0(1/1) i .00 (1/1) z o zn n M Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General (012) (012) I I I I :yy2 i I 1 - ..^^4eiiSSiia3^SSfis i 10.0(2/0) I (0/13) 172.5(10/3) '5^ (0/1) r\u0026gt;s\" v.'-c' I 144.4 (8/2) _____________ _ 193.0(1^ 178.6 (8/2) ! 166.6 (8/2) 204.0 (1/0) ' 203.0 (1/0) 1t\n185.3(10/3) , 184.0(10/3) I 210.0(1/0)\n211.0 (1/6r~[^ 214.0 (1/0) T I I ^2?\n^3^ (015) i (0/6) 176.2(5/1)  148.0(5/1)7 180.2 (5/1) (0/2) i 18.5(2/0) 1 Q9.5(2/0) i 207.0(2/0) ' 210.5(2/0) '*N=Number of students tested i I 486 c a5 \u0026gt; I Cloverdale 1 Grades ! DRA Fall ! DRA Spring ' 1 SAT-9 I Benchmark ALT Reading\nALT Math i ALT Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) | DRA Growth j (N/Missing) { (NZk/i Missing) /M(N/M/Micisesininng\\ ) i i (N/Missing) fN(N/M/Miciscsininng^) Q5 z n 2 fl :-LEP (-NAEP K-K- 00(2/0) I 2.0 {210} ! 2.0 (2/0) K:--FEP K:--FEPE I I K-:-General I I 1 I I I I I I jtjj a?? T TS-pTt- SRlth,\n?\n,T 2S\n\u0026gt;3 - i-~ 2 \u0026gt; I I I 2. S Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP ist FEPE 1st General 2.0 (2/0) i 2.5 (.210} I j 2.5(210} i 23.0(2/0) j 1 I 1.5 (2/0) !7 19-5(2/0) i ft ______ ..... 0^- w-2. ri 2nd LEP |2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 44.0(1/0) i 44.0(1/0) i .00 (1/0) Jaisg^s?^ i 1 r (01^} Si: 185.0(1/0) : 183.0 (1/0) i 190.0(1/0) T I 182.8(4/0) 1 187.3(4/0) ' 192.3(4/0) - ----------- --------*------------------'I--------------------- *.9^' T 1 (0/1) ga^S^ ilW sis *llM'V^'yS\u0026lt;.3K^75.2,T n-r i 196.0(1/0) : 201.0 (1/0) : 198.0(1/0) I I T (0/1) 113.0(1/0) r^- '.*i (0/1) i71.0(1/0) i*N=Number of students tested T I ! t 197.0(1/0) i 205.0 (1/0) ! T I 206.0 (1/0) 215.0(1/0) i 215.0(1/0)\n213.0(1/0) T I I 487 fl c fl ec \u0026gt;S fl Dodd I 1 1 I I 1 fl Grades i Benchmark 1 ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language i ---- \\ 1 Zkl/u\n,.-\n.,.,! ! rW/Miccinnl j (N/MISSing) ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring! I SAT-9 j | al i matn , ' (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)! (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing)\nf ___! ____ I ____ n 5 5 z -i Pl 2 1 fl fl fl fl fl fl fl n fl fl H K-:-LEP K-NAEP K-lFEP K-:-FEPE K-^-General Ist-LEP ISt-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-l-EP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i I I IT I I i I 8S I T 1 1\n18.0(1/0)\n30.0(1/0) ! 12.0 (1/0) 1 I I !  I i 1 I I I (0/1) 1 T I I '*N=Number of students tested I ml. I ri-riK-Trt i I I 2 z 5/5 -z rr r i I I t I TI I _____________ ____________ 170.0(1/0) 1 172.0(1/0)! 172.0(1/0) ------------ ------------------------------ ---------------------- isfeTSF': 1 1 I I T I t i T ! T I 1 I I I 488 Il  rt s s IM - Fair Park I 1 I I ! i Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring j i (N/Misstng) 1 (N/Missing) j DRA Growth Benchmark j ALT Reading , ALT Math j ALT Language i fN/Missina^! (N/Missinq) m  z5 m I Ifl 1 Ifl K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General 1 i n II ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ilst-FEP [IFfe^ 1st Genera? ! i I Ifl Ifl 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE ^nd General Ifl Ifl |3rd-LEP ^-NAEP~ [^-FEP~ ,3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ------- n Ifl l4th-LEP |4th-NAEP |4th-FEP |4th-FEPE MtivGen^ H Sth-LEP IStMiAEP 5th-FEP \" Sth-FEPE Sth-General i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I j 20.0 (1/0) i 40.0 (1/0) ! 20.0 (1/0) I I I 1 I i T i I i SAT-9 I 199.0 (1/0) T 1. T I 'N=Number of students tested T i I 1 25 z CZ5 z trri 183.0(1/0) 183.0(1/0) ! 489 o d \u0026gt; \u0026gt; d I Forest Park i I ! I n d Grades DRA Fall DRA Spring i DRA Growth  SAT-9 Benchmark\nALT Reading j AALLTT MMaathth , (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) j ALT Language (N/Missing) d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-reP^ _ K-General I I .1 i I I 1 I i ) I i t I T 1.,.___ X.. -,4 zO m 2 d d J.st-LEP Ist-NAEP Tst-FEP \" ]^f^pe2 1st General I 1 I i 1 I d d 2ndLP _ 2nd NAEP _ M F^P \" ZndFE^E _ 2nd General 20.0(1/0) i 40.0(1/0) 120.0(1/0) I I 20.0 (1/0) I 44.0 (1/0) 124.0 (1/0) I I I II II 3r^LEP ^d-NAEP 3rd-FEP ^rd-FE^ 3rd-General  i II Il 4th\u0026lt;EP 4th-NAEP ^-FEP 4th-FEE 4th-General 5, .K. 4 -9^ e II II Sm-LEP Sth-NAEP ^-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General II fr fejCL? - , J=- r^t-.rf - . - I -r^ - JT  Si* * e '* \u0026gt; H 1 L -J 1 5 \u0026gt;*3 aft \" 4 - I ' te-sX'- '\"7 ~ - 7\"- z  i 'CTAtT 4^A7i 1. CZ) zn n 1 \u0026gt; -'* tt.1^ 1 sT\n7 198.0(1/0) ' 199.0 (1/0)7 205.0 (1/0) i -fi, ler I I 214.0(1/0)\n203.0 (1/0) 223.0 (1/0) I i is\"- BOI I I I I (0/1) (0/1) (0/2) I 1 I S^5VT 1 89.5 (2/0) !*N=Number of students tested '*6. A-it I 177.0 Q/O) i 209 0 (1^0) 179.0 (1/0) 224.0 (1/0) 722Z0(1/0)  223.0 (VQ) 224.U(1 ' : 227.5(210} ' 238.5 (210} 227.5 (2/0) !T I I 490 d d \u0026gt; CB d Franklin m T 1 I d Grades HR A Fall j DDRRAA SSoprriinnqg j 1 bSAATi-y9 DBeennccnhimiidainrk. i ! nAuLiT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i DRA Growth i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) 5z w d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I .00(1/0) .00 (1/0) i .00 (1/0) Ij 3.0 (1/0) 7.0 (1/0) i 4.0 (1/0) I i I 1 i I 1 d d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP Ist FEPE 1st General f~3.0(1/0)\n26.0(1/0) j 23.0(1/0) T I 1. I I aWwSK, 5^- z d d 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General d d 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General d d 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General d d 5th-LEP i5th-NAEr~ StivFEP Sth-FEPE 5th-General i _t_ I i !7 I T 1 I i }T I i (0/1) i\u0026gt;r' I I I I I ! i I 1 .^ I ! I Bs 202.0 (1/0) I 210.0(1/0) I 213.0(1/0) 1 1T I I I 5? 1 1 i 'i-. N=Number of students tested 204.0 (1/0) 220.0(1/0) i 214.0(1/0) I t I t I I d 491 d c d B9 Cse \u0026gt; -i d d d d d d d d d d d d d t Fulbright I ____ I n Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ' DRA Fall i DRA Spring 1 i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth I TI (0/1) ! (0/1) 1 I ! 3.0 (1/0) I 12.0(1/0) I ! I (0/1) 9.0 (1/0) I 1 i : 5.0 (1/0) 38.0(1/0) ! 33.0 (1/0) i !  IT i 1 Benchmark j ALT Reading i ALT Math I ALT Language (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) SAT9 I I I I 44.0(2/0)\n44.0(2/0) I .00 [210) I i I T I (0/1) zO -i m\u0026gt; 2 Sth-LEP Sth-NAE^ 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General (0/3) .  * i 190.0(2/0) : 194.5(2/0) 197.5(2/0) II (0/1) (0/1) I.-wsix': i 2 \u0026gt; 2. 9 (/: n n [012} ' 70.0(1/0) (0/1) N=Nuinber of students tested I I T g 223.0(1/0) 224.0(1/0) i I i i ! i 228.0 (1/0) 221.0 (1/0) ' 221.0(1/0)  223.0 (1/0) i I t it' I ,r_ 196.0(1/2) . 214.0(1/2) I 197.0(1/2) I I 222.0(1/0) ' 215.0(1/0) i 229.0(1/0) 207.0(1/0) : 218.0(1/0) : 208.0 (1/0) 1 492 d 2 ri 05 ri Geyer Springs 1 I ri Grades I DRA Fall i DRA Spring i i SAT-9 j Benchmark ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) I 1 d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I I 1 ! T i t ri 11 ri ri ri ri ri ri ri M I I Q 5 z m 2 Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP i5th-NAEF^ Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General\n1.5(270) i 8.5(270) , 7.0 (270) I I i T I i T 1 I KS? 2 ii TltT- 20.0 (1/1) i 40.0 (1/1)\n20.0 (1/1) g ! ! fi .3\nX I T S-iSss I 184.0 (2/0) 185.5(270) ] 189.0 (2/0) ! i /\n175.0(1/0) i 183.0(1/0) ! 188.0 (1/0) HUr.iu\n*'\"-!-.-  ' -'w^T-v.- ' ' SiiTS3S\u0026amp;seK-^^-\u0026amp;Sss=iis5s\nEiffi\u0026amp;?Ss5K3rXj=?^2S^^ -------- i3. I I 3^ 'Sii\n3K Ki'.t \" ______ * \u0026lt; \u0026gt; r ..... . -. t... -\n5p~ i 4. i T I 4- J___ I I -A** M' ,rT.f P *N=Number of students tested I } I I 493 z c V3 zd c ri a C ? ri Gibbs P3 1 j I ri Grades\nDRA Fall I DRA Spring  SAT-9 Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math\nALT Language DRA Fall I DRAbpnng i i Dcmjuuaiis  .xs,...3 ,    == =\u0026gt; i fN/Missing)i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) S (N/Missing) I I I ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General (0/1) j 8.0 (1/0) I (0/1) T ! J. I I Q 5 z -J pl 2 .. ri ri Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General i I ri n 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General\n19.0(2/0) M DI |3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ri ri 4th-LEP ?th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ri 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE 5th-General I i i I I 1 I I I T I fia 5 T 1 z 9 If. I Pl Z Pl I 34.0(2/0) i 184.5(2/0) 183.0(2/0) i 191.0(2/0) 1-------------------i I i T I I K'. I T rX-  I I -r I (0/1) a. 203 0 (VO) ! 213.0(1/0) ! 217.0(1/0) ^ -.2Trt*,\ni\u0026lt;SSfe\u0026lt;5ii 1 1 i I T 'i'jS-i\u0026amp;i -3^. *T-5r^)55W7=^*T?.jrsr __________ aWTA iiv C.' .H?5*''!9'  ' (0/1) .-sr t T 3^ i 17.0(1/0) SSfe! I Z' 199.0(1/0) ' 190.0(1/0) i 205.0(1/0) '.y BV.' I 1 *N=Number of students tested I i I 494d d d  Jefferson ! 1 \u0026gt; S X H \u0026lt;w d d d d d d d d d d d ( Grades K-LEP [K-NAEP K-FEP |k-fepe K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ,lSt-FEP list FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP [2nd NAEP 12nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP [srd-NAEP [srd-FEP |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General [4th-LEP [ahi-naep [Ath-FEP ~ lAth-FEPE I4th-General Sth-LEP [ Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP I Sth-FEPE Sth-GeneraT J___________ i-----------------------i-------------------------------------------------------------- r i DRA Fall 1 DRA Spring i i SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j DRA Growth | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I i i I I IT i 1 nH Sz \u0026gt;m 2 III 1 T i t T t i7 I I 5.^ ? w\\* *5, Sf\" S'-? 2 \u0026gt; -} ITT I I i 1 I 1 1 -I. Sr ^5 S5W cSg^^'A * S' 75 ^^^1=2\n! i i T i*4'S S^ \"^1 TI 5^ irtK ffriiwlfyiri I + 1 !T nz w 'iij g^j\u0026amp;fis I ! i I I i^- i I I W* ! I U^J i*N=Number of students tested I I I I 1 495 d d \u0026gt; S  d M. L, King ! I i ri d Grades ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring j ! SAT-9 j Benchmark , ALT Reading i ALT Math\nALT Language I (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing)! DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 d d d d d nd d d d d K-K- :-LEP :-NAEP . 1 I 1 K- :-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I 1 1.0 (2/0) ! 10.0(2/0) i 9.0 (2/0) I ! I ^5.5(2J0) \\ 28.0(2/0) i 12.5(2/0) I I I I I (0/1) I t I 55.0(1/0) IT I 1 (0/1) I'KWW! ^^5 i I I 5 zB \u0026gt; 2 \"r-., A xi'^  2 \u0026gt; H M 1 I 1 I .1 6iC^j'E*:2xt'r^  I g iSz^ ^s?5s .^AoiX-fct'n* \"A., e it:i WuT. 175.0(1/0) j 176.0(1/0) 182.0(1/0) T 1 *j\u0026gt; la I g \u0026lt;fraqtq^By4. I I (0/1 ^3t5fLruftSt I 205.0 (1/0)  212.0 (1/0) }N=Numbe^ of students tested -^2fS' SSfe T7 T I T 1 i I I t ! I 217.0 (1/0) 496 7!. C cz: 2 t*5 2 n CT A 2 4 d I I Mabelvale I I i i a Grades I DRA Fall i DRA Spring j i SAT-9 j Benchmark ' ALT Reading [ ALT Math [ ALT Language 1 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)' DRA Growth ! (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) [ (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) SAT9 a n K-LEP [K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I 1T I I I 1 I I I i I ! I aa Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP I Ist-FEP 11st FEPE 1st General 1i i +I IT I i\" aaci*i*S8Sti nn 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP i2nd FEP 12nd FEPE 2nd General I n n 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP |3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General nn |4th-LEP [4th-NAEP |4th-FEP |4th-FEPE ~ 4tti-General Sth-LEP I Sth-NAEP } Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE I Sth-General I L 'N=Number of students tested I T T i 7 } 201.0(1/0)\n207.0(1/0)' 207.0 (1/0) X i i I I I I I TI 1 I 497 \u0026gt; S 5 \u0026lt;m 3 sz P-Ji \u0026gt; 2 \u0026gt;2 2. a cz: 2 pj 2 d d 2 w S d d d d d d d d d d d n K-Grades :-LEP K-:-NAEP :-FEP :-FEPE K-K-K-:- General Ist-LEP ISt-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General I McDermott I i 1 r^^^T^^DRASDringl 1 SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading ALT Math i Language '\n(N/Missing)  (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) , (N/Missing)\n: ' ________!_______ _ . ..I |,JI-.IIII I DRA Fall j 1.0 (4/0) ,4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General i DRA Spring j I 9.8 (4/0) 1 8.8 (4/0) I I .00(1/0) i 4.0 {MO) i 4.0 (1/0) I SAT-9 mu 1 1 I i I t 9.0 {210) 33.0 (2/0) i 24.0(2/0) I I I I I IT i 7 T I '*^SS'iS?S^fr'  i : 7.5 (2/0) j 24.0 (2/0) i 16.5 (2/0) | I 73 : 24.0(1/0) ! 44.0(1/0) 1 20.0(1/0) | I 10.0(2/0) 26.0(2/0) ! 16.0(2/0) | I 1 1 I 5555*?^^ I L '*1 g 175.5(2/0), 179.5(2/0)1 181.0(2/0) T ! 204.0 {MO) I 213.0 {VO) j 213.0 (1/0) g 185.5 (2A))i 187.0(2/0) ! 190.5(2/0) 5\n! i 1 t (0/2) ( 171.0 {210)  177.5 {2J0) i 172.5 (2/0) (0/3)  (0/2) (0/2) ^iF- 198.5 (2/1) i 204.0(2/1) 1 204.5(2/1) I i-7ah.TLi, 188.5(2/0)1 191.0(2/0) * 194.5(2/0? 1 205.0(2/0)'' 216.0(2/0) 216.0(2/0) Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 1 (0/1) 1 '\n16.0 (1/0) '*N=Nuniber of students tested  ^4' i'-ir t t 202.0 (1/0) 1 203.0 (1/0) i 195.0 (1/0) I T I I T I I7 498 m \u0026gt; 3 5 z H Pl \u0026gt; 2 2 2 sz ri iri d Meadowcliff d Grades d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General d d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General d d 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General d d 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General d d 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General d ce S\u0026gt; n 5z n ! i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ !- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - -1----------------\n-------------------------------- ! DRA Fall\nDRA Spring i I SAT-9 i Benchmark ! ALT Reading J ALT Math i ALT Language ! (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ii 1 1 I I 1 1 SAT-9 .J.. K.g.\u0026gt;yy?gi=tnEr*j^^gEgx?*gy\n-v-.f3\n^^-\u0026gt;.- te i .i' I i I IT te?s ! I 1 i i e^^.SX-''T -A\" a Jt****^^.^*^'*^^ . \u0026gt; -H I I i T T  V ?*\u0026gt;. - 2.0 (1/0)\n10.0(1/0)\n8.0 (1/0) Sg 4B^ss. eS3^::-vA^t-\niBiA.er*^ss I I I 170.0(1/0) i 174.0(1/0)1 162.0(1/0) I I I w (0/1) 3^ I 1 L (0/1) (0/1) a-' ' i I g 177.0(1/0) 173.0(1/0) T i T I 187.0 (1/0) I T T i 7^. C C2Z5 n 7 !P*I^ ,5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 1 .kvCsCV\n' 188.0 (1/0) 197.0(1/0) 198.0(1/0) I i*N=Number of students tested I I 499 d d \u0026gt; X \u0026gt; -i d d d d d d d d d d d d d I Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ! DRA Fall DRA Spring ! 1 (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) | DRA Growth I 7 i 1 I i I T i i T Mitchell B \u0026gt; I I SAT-9 i Benchmark ALT Reading J ALT Math ' ALT Language (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i M I I 7 TI J_ I I 7 i 4. T T I i ! I I I 1 I I ?gS T O z n \u0026gt; 2 Z 9 (Z5 B Z n B 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 '*N=Number of students tested i I T + i I I I I I T i! I + I T I IT I 500 II c n II Otter Creek i I Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring I .1 .......... . X SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading 1 ALT Math : ALT Language j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) \"i i 1 !___ 1 n n II II n I I n n n n  K- :-LEP K-NAEP 1 I 1 ?2 - K- :-FEP K-FEPE K-General ISt-LEP Ist-NAEP , Ist-FEP 15t FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FP 4th-FEPE 4th-General |5th-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1.5 (2/0) ! ^.5(2J0) I .00(2/0) I I T I T \u0026gt;5 I T ! I I I I I ! T i I i 1 I (0/1) (0/1) (0/2) I I g I I I I (0/1) I I t ^4^ (0/1)  32.0 {-ilO) I X I t N=Number of students test^ T a m \u0026gt; q 5 2 n I * \u0026gt; z 8 Vi (St z I 1 I t 195.0(1/0) M95^(1/0)\n203.0(1/0) I 207.0 (1/0) i 215.0 (1/0) i 205.0 (1/0) I I T 186.5(2/0) ! 191.0 (2^r 190.5 (2/0) i 214.0 (1/0) I 203.0 (1/0) i 207.0 (1/0) I ! T T t I T I 206.0(1/0) 212.0(1/0)\n208.0(1/0) I I 501o IM IM Pulaski Heights I I ( IM Grades DRA Fall i DRA Spring j I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j I SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading j ALT Math  ALT Language DRA Growth 1 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) a c\u0026gt; \u0026gt; Q sz I I IM IM IM IM n I [M IM n I n Ml K-\n-LEP K-K- :-NAEP :-FEP :-FEPE :-General K-K- ! i i 1 I -W I P5 I i I 1 i Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General ,3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i I 1 I 193.5(2/0) I 204.5(2/0) : 201.0(2/0) 19.0(2/0) j 30.0(1/1) 10.0(1/1) T I I 7 \u0026amp; i i i 1I , 1 fl . xr, I I (0/1) 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt;2. J!. Pl 3 I 221.0(1/0) '220.0(1/0)' 215.0(1/0) 7^^_______________________:----------------------------------- --------------------- ---------------- ! I 1 (0/1)\n77.0(1/0) - 'N=Number of students tested T T I TT T I i + 224.0 (1/0) I 223.0 (1/0) 221.Q (VQ) I r 502 d 2 d d [ Rightsell I I t d Grades I DRA Fall ! DRA Spring i ' /MZMiccina'i (N/Missing)  DRA Growth I DRA rSil UKMOpnny ' (N/Missing)} (N/Missing) SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading , ALT Math ALT language i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) d d K-LEP I K-NAEP I K-FEP ~ K-FEPE K-Generai I 17 I I T I I 1 I i i SSt?ov)^n I I I I 9\u0026gt;3 S n n Sz n2 \u0026gt;*v zSSs^ !nSM\u0026gt;5u\u0026gt;5\u0026lt;-'?r--^*55! vT d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FE^ 1st General iT 1 3\n* 2. O CZ5 I 1 t d fl  _l_ I I t KW ?!r^ P5 i't. z 1 t 1 I )) |4th-LEP [4th-NAEP 4ttvFEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP 5th.-NAEP ~ SttvFEP 5tivFEPr~ Sth-General 3rd-LEP [^-NAEP ,3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE l3rd-General ,2nd LEP Iznd NAEP' jindFEP ,2nd FEPE 2nd General 'i 1 i 2^*\" 'Wi N=Number of students tested .L Is\n/\u0026gt;- 1 j i1 T i I 1 T I 1 I T i i T T ! 503  ri (J  ri \u0026gt; CD c 3S ri Rockefeller n \u0026gt; I i ri\nDRA Fall ! DRA Spring i I 7 SAT-9 4 Grades I UtSrt rail\nII ly j j -. .. -\nI (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i. DRA Growth\n(N/Missing)\n! Benchmark ! ALT Reading i ALT Math ALT Language i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) I 1 I I ri ri ri fl K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General I ,00(1/0) I 2.0 (1/0) I I 8.3 (3/0) ! 13.7(3/0) I I i 1 I 1 2.0 (1/0) 5.3 (3/0) I Oz n \u0026gt; 2 , 3.0 (1/0) i 14.0(1/0) ! 11.0(1/0) I i7 X i I i I (0/1) i T i I t I + I I I g 188.0(1/0) 1170.0(1/0)\n189.0(1/0) fS 2^4 fife (0/1) 1 (0/1) T I I T ________I i i T 2 \u0026gt; z CZ5 z i I I 1 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 504 Iri {J Iri 5 S\u0026gt; Iri Romine I Iri Iri Iri Iri iri Iri iri Iri 01 M Mn Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring j j SAT-9 ' (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing)' DRA Growth j (N/Missing) T-------------------1 K:--LEP K-NAEP K-:-FEP I .00(5/1) ! 1.80(5/1) 1 1.8 (5/1) I 1 K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP ~ 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4tivFEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I t IT I , 23.0(210} I 15.0(2/0)  1.0 (1/0) : 6.0 (1/0) i 5.0 (1/0) I 22.3 (6/0) } T 1 I 1 DdlUHIIiail^ 1 nui 5 , (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) go Benchmark i ALT Reading i ALT Math\nALT Language I 179.5(6/0) i 179.5(6/0)\n187.7(6/0) 34.0 (6/0) i 11.7(6/0) T 44.0(1/0) 44.0(1/0) ! .00 (1/0) I I I 1 I T B 175.0(1/0) ! 190 0 (VO) i 183.0(1/0) i i ! I 181.0 (4/Oy ' 189.5 (AIO) ' ---------- i r 190.5(4/0) T I I I 1 50/^5 I I I I 190.0(4/0) i 203.8 (4/0) 193.8 (4/0) 13.0 (3/1) g75.0 (MQ} _______ ____ i*N=Number of students tested t T ! T X i 'tnj 197.0 (4/0) 198.0(4/0)^ 224.0 (1/0) 224.0(1/0) i I T i 199.5(4/0) 223.0 (1/0) 505 \u0026gt; sz m S \u0026gt; z 9 (/! tzn nw ri ri ri Stephens i 1 I i I I I 1 I 7 ri Grades Benchmark 1 ALT Reading i ALT Math ! Language /II \\ I { /Kl/Miccinn\\ ' rN/Miccinn i DRA Fall I DRA Spring i SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading 1 ALT Math i Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! ! _____1_____________1________ 9 s d n \u0026gt; q 5 z W 2 ri ri |K-LEP I K-NAEP |k-fep iK-FEPE I 1 I T ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl ! 1.0 (1/0) I .00(1/0) [(-1.0) (VO) 1 ! K-General\nIst-LEP Ist-NAEP Ilst-FEP 1st FEPE I I i 2.33(3/0)\n10.0(3/0) ! I i:j (3/0) 1 1 1st General * I T i2nd LEP 1 -U I 2^^ 2 \u0026gt; z F5 z n ,2nd NAEP |2nd FEP I 2nd FEPE 2nd Generali i3rd-LEP Isrd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE i I I I I 1 I + i i 7 3rd-Gener3l 4th-LEP 1 1 (0/2) 177.5 (2/0) I 183.0 (2/0) j 183.5 (2/0) I i i i T i ^-NAEP ------------------------- |4th-FEP fe-FEPE + t T feh-General^^^ i stL + 1 -k 1 1 I + ,5th-LEP [sth-NAEP' 5th-FEP  I I kL {om I 8.5 (2/0) \u0026gt; ,5th-FEPE (0/1) I (0/1) ^E^^^n87.5 (2/0) i 209.5 (2/0) 192.0 (2/0) '^^SB'^4.0 (1/0)\n222.0 (1/0)1 210.0(1/0) 'few |N=Number of students tested I 506ri ri \u0026gt; CD o X ri Terry PJ I I 1 I ri ri ri ri ri  fl fl fl fl fl H Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-Generai Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General\nDRA Fall '\nDRA Spring j (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th^P ~ 4th-FEPE 4th-General 1 i ! 3.2 (6/0) I 7-8 (6/0) I 1 SAT-9 ii BBeenncchhmmaarrkk iS AALLTT RReeaaddiinngg Ii AaLlTi nMaamth ,\nAaLlTi LLaanngguuaaggee DRA Growth (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) I I 4.5 (610) I fJ i 9.0(270)\n24.0(270) j 15.0(2/0) 85?^ I I i 2.0 (2/2) 14.0 (2Z2) i ^2.Q (212) I 1 i 20.0(170)\n40.0(1/0) I 20.0(1/0) g I I I  19.2(5/3) ' 33.0(8/0) i 18.8(5/3) 1 1 I I ..........\"  K! ir:^-'.a!X-^3QR2s\u0026lt; ss .au^.**'SW 1 I I K 148.1 (8/0) i 139.3(8/0) j 180.3 (8/0) I 207.0(1/0) 222.0(1/0)\n209.0 (1/0) o H 5 2 P5 2 2 z o pi z ri 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP ^FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 38.0(1/0) ! 44.0(1/0) ! I I i i 6.0 (1/0) T fl I* ie' 54.3 (31^) 1^___________ ! i 167.5(2/1) i 177.0(2/1) j 175.0(2/1) T 204.5 (2/0) i 208.0 (2/0) ! 209.5 (2/0) ^^g^bi^(2/0) ' T 206.0(2/0) 210.5(2/0) 191.0(2/0) 209.0(2/0)\n200.0(2/0) 2i7?7(3/0) 221.0(3/0)- 223.0(3/0) 199.0(1/0) 202.0(1/0)1 201.0(1/0) 216.3 (410) ' 219.5(4/0) f 217.8 (4/0) ! I !*N=Number of students tested 507 ri  .c ri c ri Wakefield ! i ri Grades I i DRA Fall i DRA Spring i SAT-9 j (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i DRA Growth (N/Missing) i Benchmark ALT Reading j ALT Math\nALT Language (N/Missing) (N/Missin_g)/ j M(N/Missin' g) ^1 N/M(Ni/cMciinsnsiing) 5 5 zn ri K-LEP K-NAEP I TI I .00(4/1) ! 1.0 (4/1) I 1.0 (4/1) 1 I I i  K-FEP K-FEPE K-:-General I i I I 1 I I 1 I I ri ri ISt-LEP I Ist-NAEP ~ Ist-FEP TstFEPT^\" 1st General I .00 (1/1) i 6.0 (2/0) ' i .50 (2/0) ' 3.5 (2/0) i 1 I I I 4.0 (1/1) 3.0 (2/0) T Bilifesill ri ri 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP IndVEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP ri 3rd-FEPE 3 rd-General ri 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP i4th-FEP I \u0026gt;2 -J M 4th-Fi i44tthh--FFEi PE 4th-General ri Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-GeneraT z9 75 T T It 4.8 (4/0) ! 18.0(4/0) i 13.3(4/0)  182.2(5/0) 202.0 (1/0) 1 ? 71.0 (1/0) 1^ z ri PI 167.8 (4/0) I 179.5 (4/0) I }75.3(^IQ) T I I 1 I t I 188.4 (5/0) i 189.6(5/0) I + 176.7 (3/0) ! 185.3(3/0) + I T 182.3 (3/0) 206.0 (1/0)1 205.0(1/0) T I i T 222.0 (1/0) 234.0 (VO) j 226.0 (1/0) '*N=Number of students tested I I 508 ri ri (.  S 3\u0026gt;5 ri r I Washington 1 1 I 1 n ri I Benchmark i ALT Reading 1 ALT Math j ALT Language Grades I I I K-LEP i 2.8 (4/1) ' ^2.22 {212) \\ 10.7(3/2) ri K-NAEP _ K-FEP K-FEPE iGGen^ I I I 8.2 (s/oTT^s^o^ I I H ri ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP ,15t FEPE 1st General i .00(2/5) 1 6.9 (7/1) I 6.0 (2/5 i 6.0 (2/5) i 19.4(7/1) i 12.6(7/1) i 171.1 (8/0) I ^rw?(8rarnzii(?^ -------- ---------------- .w I I ri ri 2nd LEP 12nd NAEP ijnd?^ 2nd FEPE 12nd General I 19.4(8/0) j 8.4 (8/0) 1 195.0 (6/0) I 200.3(6/0) ! 201.0(6/0) ri ri ri ri ri 32.8(5/1) 40.8 (5/1) ! 8.0 (5/1) i3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 13rd-General |4th-LEP 4th-NAEP |4th-FEP i_4th-FEPE i4th-General Sth-LEP [Sth-NAEP SUvFEP Sth^FEPE^ Isth-Gen^ I 180.0 {21^) I 77RT(4^r? 190.5 ('^^0) T 186.5 (4/0) 190.0 (6/0) i 205.5(6/0) I 200.5 (6/0) 212.0 (2/0) ! 217.0(2/0) ' 220.0 (2/0) I 1\n192.3(3/0) 2Q7.Q{3IO)\n204.0(6/0) \"tiP --- I 197.7 (3/0) 208.8 (6/0) 1 207.5 (6/0) 1\ni98.o(2/1) 1183.5(2/1) 0(6/0)  2^7.2(610) 1 i 509 zo -Pi) \u0026gt; 2 2 \u0026gt; 2 S (/) z n Pl ri (\nC ri ri Watson I I ri Grades 1 Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math 'i ALT Language , nRA Fall ! DRA Spring I SAT-9 Benchmark j ALT Reading | ALT Math\nALl Languag I fN/Missing) i (N/Missing) j DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing)  (N/Missing^ 1 1 ri K-LEP 1 K-NAEP K-FEP |k-fepe K-General i I 1 1 I 4. ri ri ri ri  ri I ! i i T T 1 T I I siiWM'ws? \u0026gt; co O J5 \u0026gt; m Q 5 z Pl 2 Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ilst-FEP list FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP i2nd NAEP 2nd FEP |2ndFEPE 2nd General ,3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP [3rd-F~EP~ |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General (4th-LEP [4ttvN^ |4th-FEP [4th-FEPE |4th-General Sth-LEP ^h-NAEP ~ feth-FEP ' I Sth-FEPE^ Sth-GeneraT 1 I 1 I I I T I I 1 I i I I I i I I I feifc i:RS5RWiT!AaM. IS \u0026gt; e4\n^Ssssiis5S: z 9 z ri I I t t 1 ^^E\n2S3iBS\u0026gt;a\u0026amp;2^Sdise\u0026lt;M^J 1 I I T i i I -t- I 1 I I T T I ry3: I t\n197.0(1/0) 204.0 (1/0) i 200.0 (1/0) I I ! T I j 's___________________t. 181.0(1/0) 195.0(1/0) 195.0 (1/0) .asi, V I L s' A t- I T I + I N=Nuniber of students tested I i 510ri o ri a C ?3 \u0026gt; -j ri Western Hills I I ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl n fl Grades , K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP ilSt-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General i DRA Fall I DRA Spring SAT-9 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) DRA Growth (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 Benchmark ! AU Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language ....... . X i __ ' \u0026lt;KI/KXlee\nnn^ ' \u0026lt;M/Mieeirtn\\ I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) m \u0026gt; 9 5z \u0026gt; I Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 1 I I X i I I 1 ! r I f u 9KS-I t T L l*N=Number of students tested 1  25 .???* iI I I 1 T t T T I i T -r T I -z m z ri Pl 1 1. i T T! I i T 1 1 1 i I ! 511 [ o ri a C 3C \u0026gt; ri Williams I 4. I I I ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl n fl Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP I Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General |4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i nRA Fall 1 DRA Spring 1 i SAT-9 i Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language  (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) | (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I I I I  I ___ I... ....... .Jin*........................ ................. 3 z5 \u0026gt; 2 1 16.0(1/0) ! 28.0(1/0) I i .00(1/0) I .00(1/0) I I i 1 I 34.0(1/0) i 44.0(1/0) I I i I I 1 I i 12.0 (1/0) .00 [VO} 10.0 (1/0) !W I WJ I T j I7 i $ 'N=Nuniber of students tested i 73.8(4/0) g T I I i \u0026gt;2 -I I z 75 2 S 2. ri I 4- I i 211.7 (3/0) ! 218.7(3/0) I 214.3(3/0) IT 221.5 (2/0) i 232.0 (2/0) I I IT ll 227.0 (2/0) t 222.0 (4/0) i 223.8 (4/0) I 225.8 (4/0) I I 512 ri (\ns ri ri r Wilson ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri n ri ri Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEPE K- (-General ist-LEP I Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP Ind FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General i i3rd-LEP 3rd- NAEP i DRA Fall '1 DRA Spring I SAT-9 I Benchmark I ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language 'i (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) DRA Growth I (N/Missing), j fN/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I ' ^.5(210) 1 .50(270) 1 I i i 7 i 1 1 u'a I T I 1 i T 1 I I T T i 24.0(1/1) ! 19.0(2/0) ! 10.0(1/1) y ! 40.0(1/0) i AA.QjMO) S 4.0 (1/0) 3 i 1 3rd-FEP 3?d^FEPr~ 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4fr^FEP 4th-FEPE~ 4th-General Sth-LEP SttvNAEP Sth'^FEP 5th-FEPE~ Sth-General rz- 2i 1 5 9 o \u0026gt; \u0026lt; PI q 5 z -i pn 2 Tir I t^fs\"..... 2 5 % \"V C ij\u0026gt;w.rr-: \"3 * i*- \u0026gt; z e (fi T. n fl Si\nii*** 1 1 2^5Scs^^, 157.0 (2/0) ! 177.0 (2/0) 167.0(2/0) I 1 R5.0 (1/0) i 189.0(1/0) 192.0 (1/0) I i 196.0(1/0) I 201.0 (1/0) 1 198.0(1/0) 1 I i sseS ' K- ^' i 39-0(1^0) *O. '. l*N=Number of students tested I X i T 219.0 (1/0) 202.0 (1/0)  223.0 {^10) ' Mk/} I I 513ri g ri 93 CX \u0026gt; ri Woodruff 1 I ri Grades 55 z P3 2 ri ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE iGGenei^ ri ri Ist-LEP ist-NAEP IsfFEP l^EPE ~ 1st General ri ri 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2ndFEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General ri fl 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3i5^FEPr~ 3rd-General 4th-LEP fl 4th-NAEP fl 4tti-FEP 4th^FEPE~~ 4th-General fl 5th-LEP '5th-N\"AEr~ Sttv^EP 5th^FEPE~~ ^-GeneraT ! I I t t i I Benchmark ' ALT Reading  ALT Math 'j ALT Language (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Fall 1 DRA Spring ! j SAT-9 i (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)  DRA Growth i (N/Missing) 1 I T I ! 'I 514 \u0026gt; z 9 5Z5 z fl ri 2 ri ri ec 5 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; ffi n ri O z H n 2 ri Central I I t[5RKTall i DRA Spring  Grades 1 DRAI-aii uiv^opHiia I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) | Growth I Benchmark ! 1 ! i . _____ rSCTRiSaingALT Math i ALT Language 1 1 ri ri ri fl fl |9-LEP i9~-NAEP ~ 9-FEP 19-FEPE ~ Ig-General 25 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) \u0026gt; -2. 9 JZ52 w 2 r5 |g 32.9 {\u0026amp;I0) I JaSSiSSsii: iJBL* -1 ---------------- ^'WrjV\" I (0/1) (0/4) (0/1) I ! 10-LEP lO-NAEP ~ llO-FEP [lO^FEPE 110- General 11-LEP 11-NAEP ~ 111- FE~P fe-FEPE~ fll-Gen^ 12-LEP ^iTna^ T^FEP I ^j7:5~(i/o7T256.O (2/0) ' 229.5 (2/0) !2IQ) I 256^2/0) i 230.5 (2/0) 238.6 (5/0) 1 269.4 (5/0)\n246.4 (5/0) r I I I [414} i 258.3 (4/4)\n235.5 (4/4) ? i ' (0/1) t 1 (0/1) (0/4) 1 (0/4) 12-FEPE 112-G^ral N=Number of students tested I T 7 1 T-+ T I (0/1) (0/1) IT iT I 515 ri ri Grades I DRASpnng\n3. A. Fair ! Benchmark : ALT Reading ' ALT Math I i ' (N/Missing)! (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) ALT Language (N/Missing) 2 I I ri 9-LEP 9-NAEP 9-FEP 9-FEPE 9-General I i 1 1 CSljc-Xstft'\n150.0(1/0) , 182.0(1/0) 162.0 (1/0) 09 o X \u0026gt; ri ri ri ri ri I -'-*''7.'A'sw\n'r ''^ '5\u0026lt;t\nV\u0026lt;''''- 't\nw \u0026gt; r! 5 z n 2 4.C 228.5 (2/0) 222Q(2JO) 1 125.0(2/0) | ri C-\n''TS*T 'P-iX 20.0 (4/0) i-ir 1 I I I WWW\u0026lt; \".--T:'A s'?:  iT-rsfe* JST^ 31 -s, -\u0026gt;fc, owwe.\n?' s_3 10-LEP 10-NAEP 10-FEP 10-FEPE___  10-General ^^)^Z2^^Yt2Si5^i2.'a.iJif/2etBS 11-LEP 11-NAEP 11-FEP 11-FEPE Il-General .4\n. 12-LEP |12-NAEP 12-FEP 12-FEPE 12-General ? *\u0026gt;\u0026lt;u: JSa:* '.'Ml' 214.3(3/1) I 162.0(3/1) ' 143.3 {Zm 1 ''J.-.. ' .-r .'..\u0026lt; ys ? I rykttitsirf- I - rW vrxxYj 1 ,a3r\u0026lt;^ A..? (0/2) (0/2) 1 (0/2) 't i .oiSV- -w'5?_'\u0026lt;7li, .\"i rTS\n*r\u0026lt; '._ S?!***^* 2 5 \u0026gt; T. 9 2 n z ri P5 1 t -JT^ S ~-rrj (0/1) -.ti- ?4%a r '5,\u0026lt;5 (0/1) (0/1) _\u0026gt; 1 j~~~~' *N=Number of students tested I 516ri Hall DRA Spring , SST-S\" Benchmark ALT Reading  ALT Math ALT Language ri Grades  1 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missingj  ri ^\u0026lt;45* 30.0 (2/17) I 226.3 (3/0) Il-General , 11-LEP 11-NAEP Ill-FEP 11-FEPE 19-LEP |9-NAEP I9-FEP 9-FEPE l9-General 10-LEP 10-NAEP 110-FEP 110-FEPE lO-General 12-LEP 1I2-NAEP 12-FEP 112-FEPE 12-General I I I (0/1) (0/12) ?. (0/6) lox I EC M ' 163.2(9/12) H85.9 (9/12) i 213 6 (9^^^^^^ \u0026gt; s OB\u0026gt;i\n?5Ea.-i.r-______ _ .,. *N=Number of students tested 22^1 ^^12) \\ 2.^2.7(212) 174.2(6/13)\n241.6(5/14)1 210.2(6/13) 252.0 (3/0) 1 227.2 {3IQ) \"f- I 9nR.4(5/11) i 198.6(5/11)1 216.4(5/11) (0/1) (0/1) 107.5 (212) I 253.5 (2/2) i 222.2 {2J2) 213.0 (1/0) ! 257.0 (1/0) j 233.3 (1/0) I I (0/12) I (01^2) i (0/6) (0/6) ri ri ! 517 P5 o z5 Pl \u0026gt; 2 'S. 2 O r P3 2. Grades\nDRA Fall i DRA Spring i i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth I i McClellan i . ^,.. , 'i Benchmark i ALT Reading! ALT Math ALT Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) : (N/Missing) SAT-9 ALT Math I t  \u0026gt; co C  19-LEP I9-NAEP 9-FEP 19-FEPE 9-General AXeTzV^' 0-1 A /o/n\\ SsS? I 21.0(2/0) 208.0(1/0) i 250.0(1/0) , P*: I I 33.0 (2/0) !WjgrSTOSSS^5^^T^ 207.0(1/0) 'jW-P3 o 5z I IQ-LEP 10-NAEP llQ-FEP ~ 10-FEPE~\" tws^ lO-General 11-LEP 11-NAEP jll-FEP 11-FEPE w**** w \u0026gt;2 O o7l) I 253.6(1/1) I 214.0(1/1) T I I S 217.5(2/0) I 246.0(2/0) i 222.5(2/0) S^-x Xj J____ g 206.0(1/0) 231.7(3/2) I i 246.0(1/0) i 250.3 (3/2) , 201.0 (1/0) 212.7 (3/2) 208.0 (Vi) 256:0(1/1) j 215.0(1/1) Il-General I J I 12-FEPE 12-General i 12-LEP 12-NAEP il2-FEP  raw L _ _ *N=Number of students tested ! giA (0/1) I (0/1) 4^,^.Ki i.JTT (0/1) i*44jvqr-. 518 \u0026gt;2 -1 s z 9 CZ5 2 w z r5 75 Grades i-LEP l-NAEP 9- 9- 9-l-FEP (-FEPE 9-(-General 10-LEP 10-NAEP 10-FEP 10- FEPE 10- General 11- LEP 11- NAEP 11- FEP 11-FEPE Il-General 12-_LE^^____ 12-NAEP 12-FEP 12-FEPE 12-General Parkview I DRA Fall  DRA Spnng , DRA  SAT-9 ] Benchmark . ALT Reading j  (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i Growth 1 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I ! I -f I -r^,--... ...._____ . --It T ft k-tXAM* 52^ (3/0) B?'.*- iv, I I 7ji  205.0(1/0) ^.*aS!-=\nSpW n o \u0026lt;3Sii4j 1 ALT Math (N/Missing) 239.0 (1/0) ALT Language (N/Missing) 211.0 (1/0) ? 225.0(2/0)  246.5 {210) . 225.5 {2/0) A M. ' *\u0026gt; * I ,L I i :\nX\u0026lt; \u0026lt; \u0026lt; 229.5 (2/1) i 257.0(2/1) 1 240.0(1/2) '^j.-1^\n.^\n^:^\"/'\" hL j- \u0026lt;?.\u0026gt;. I i X I c^ s'ii 'ii. iSI'' .Aj' i jTT *#W^5Tr, K\", 218.0(1/8) I .00 (1/8) I 217.0(1/8) I \u0026gt;03 o?e \u0026gt; q 5z fHf \u0026gt; 2 1 I i 2 \u0026gt; -1 \u0026gt; 1. O 73 n 2 n M (0/6) (0/6) 1 (0/6) ^Sag^i^ 8\nwLA*\nN=Number of students tested 1 1 I.M^. I 519 Grades rLEP i-NAEP \u0026amp; 0- ,6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General  DRA'F^\nDRA Spring WAT ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j Growth inj I 1 Cloverdale M.S. 5AT^ , ' Be-nc hm a r--k , A-LT Reading ALT Math\n(N/Missing) \u0026lt; (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) ALT Language (N/Missing) ).\u0026lt;r I I 27 183.6 (5/8) i 195.2 (5/8) i S55  7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7- General 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General 5-R=-r-T SkSiT J 190.4 (5/8) 201.0(1/0) ! 204.0(1/0) i 207.0 {^10} 2 \u0026gt; 03 c X H m I *.kd5zZi\nL :vsisB^.5BSSP3^x^y=fr i\"* *Sri''s,' arKSii^fsajS\n1 I 34.8(5/11) I **^ r.k2^Z2kx:\n.i )/11 202.9 (10/6) i 215.6 (10/6) i 205.9 (10/6) -X ^^1 ft 17.0 (1/1) -------- I'll 5r \"1= *N=Number of students tested 200.0(2/0) I 212.0(2/0) j 205.5(2/0) i 199.1 (14/4) I 208.1 (14/4) j 201.5 (14/4) Sifj 'Sctd 238.0 (1/0) -Tsj'ife*.\" 'V -i :n 22?-'* I i I 520 oz PHl 2 2 \u0026gt; -2 O pz5 p Ei DRA Fall I DRA Spring | DRA Grades Dunbar SAT-9 Benchmark . ALT Reading  ALT Math ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j Growth j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) : (N/Missing) . i-i. A,k a \u0026gt;\u0026gt; ri, ALT Language  (N/Missing) 0 Ifl d d d d d d d d (\u0026gt;rLEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General '-13s. ---------i?ii!EaS3^ Hill3 190.8(4/1) I 195.0 (4/1) 200.3(4/1) t 220.5(6/0)\n232.2 {6IQ) 222.2 (\u0026amp;IQ} 216.0(1/0) I 223.0(1/0) I 1 1 217.0 (1/0) 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 1- FEPE 7-General ?\nf* 5a * 12 3 (3/2) 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General ... 27.0 (1/1 i ...1______I. , zi 32.7 (71Q) s^i* 201.7(3/2) I 207.3 (3/2) M 223.3 (JIQ] i 201.0 (3/2) ce X\u0026gt; m s 5z n S . X' -a. 0*-\u0026lt;T z. '2ss'.ie.uisi.Esr 27.0(1/0) \u0026gt;'.*1  Ml m o~i I  \"rc it/\"'. Jt T I 256.4(7/0)\n230.4(7/0) 209.3 (3IQ) tJ.-.T-\" 222266..66 ((1100//00))1 i 225522..22 ((1100//00\n) I 230.0 (10/0) 210 0(1/0) ! 211.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) 2 \"4 X \u0026gt; 2 9 75 2 S 2 D n MI- -raw. . , .. .. - - . *N=Number of students tested I i T 521 Dl Forest Heights M.S. Iri I 2 s Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Hi Iri Bl Grades rLEP i-NAEP 6- 6- 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General (J 2  DRA Fall ' DRA Spnng CRA\" . _S.A..T -9. -B--e--n--c-h--m---a--r-k- , ALT Re- ading, , ALT Math ALT Lang- uag- e ' (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) ! Growth 1 (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) - (N/Missing) DRA Spnng I 1 1 I ! t T--j,5b3 SJ' if S^S. T-T-y t /Af - .iJ'-! 'a\u0026amp;SLi'* t T' .-ai-. i1^kC~-.i'-'\u0026lt;^'-T-4t.:\nka/^,-^-jj(i~'ifn}ai ~ltT^ - niT*-r--^- I 216.0(2/0) i 215.5(2/0) i 212.0 (2/0) 212.8(5/0) , 218.2(5/0) ! 215.8(5/0) Ai.*\u0026gt;r! I \u0026gt; ' t4Ls:**c^ t'ii r^'Lil S\n(/( 75.5 (2!^) I 39.0(1/0) n O 5S \u0026gt; II g 209.3(3/0) i 216.7(3/0) | 212.0 (3/0) P3 \u0026gt; Q z5 n 2 rt 'gi 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General :-KSAh- r V- 1 724.^ (21Q} i 226.0(2/0) i 231.5(2/0) 205.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) i 214.0 (1/0) iS \u0026gt;.1 i-.ai . \" 5SsS\u0026gt;rJSgT.^^\u0026amp;f^/^a5^4?fe\u0026lt;-2LKT-\u0026gt; 217-0(1/1) ! 214.0(1/1) 1 215.0(1/1)  ------\" yiJJ ^^ 228 3(3/0) i 225.0(3/0)  231.3(3/0) \u0026gt;z 2 Sz (-5 221.5(2/0) I 236.0(2/0) i 228.5(2/0) ff ____ .!.. MI.M eMBSS?:a*-?Yr.'WI^MWXnmJWW('JLJW *N=Number of students tested I I I 522 I ii Ifl Ifl Ifl I Itf iri Ifl Ifl Ifl Ifl Ifl Efl HI  DRA Pair DRA Spring j Grades i (N/Missing) . (N/Missing) j I ! 1 Henderson 6-LEP 6-NAEP rFEP i-FEPE 6- 6- (-General 6- '-LEP 7- 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General I Ar 22^ '4= * DRA Growth s\n- .'Si'SSi ------- Benchmark , ALT Reaaing ALTMaUT j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) i 1 Benchmark  ALl Reading ALT Language (N/Missing) 2114(5/0) i 217.0(5/0) j 222.4 (5/0) :i ^Ts  ''is 1 I JSSaStSfr\"' -\n!^ I t c * * y:S:t^-ii7i*.?xi5uaxsc^ 199 0(6/0) 1 167.8(6/0)  205.5 ^6/02^ 7\"' e?. ..r^sa^ 65.0(410) t' ^T*fc\n,V V* iS: t .u*-^ 1.^ I ! 1 __ 22) 5(410) 1 229.5 4/0) 226.5 (410) X4e\u0026gt;*.i= ***r 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General 2 \u0026gt; n O \u0026gt; \u0026lt; P5 5 5 z m \u0026gt; 2 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 2 O 7) l 200.0(2/0) ! 204.0^(2/0) *N=Number of students tested T 219 8 (610) i 224.7 (6/0) I 226.7 (610) 230.0(1/0) i 250.0(1/0) 240.0 (1/0) '2. P5 I I I 523Bri d I u d iri m iri ni iri d d d d 6- Grades i rLEP i-NAEP 6- 6- i-FEP i-FEPE (\u0026gt; 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General Mabelvale M.S. 2 DRA Fall j DRA Spring i DRA SAT-9 i Benchmark i ALT Reading j ALT Math , ALT Language i (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j Growth (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)  '-^'rS^* -.'^ir.-. -,r*^- \u0026lt; * i-'r- 3 J '4^ 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General \u0026gt; 5 \u0026gt; i I I - *2*/^'^ Vs.v.^ * 1  T5 I i 19.0 (1/0) J I 212.3(3/0) j 206.3(3/0)  .ihBBiChi. r 4 *- I 1 213.0 (3/0) P5 \u0026gt; s z -j n \u0026gt; 2 211.0(1/0) I 212.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) iy'-i 221.0(1/0)1251.0(1/0)1 224.0(1/0) --r .r -s-t.fiP' ----------------------------------bm 85.0(1/0) i 4 wi * *N=Number of students tested ^S'j 1 1 I r sf - - i.2urM\u0026gt;?lu. w\nI 212-2(5/0) I 20S.6(5rt)) 1 219.0(5/0) S? feafe 1 524  \u0026gt; -J \u0026gt; 2. v\u0026gt; 2 n 2 O WMann Magnet II Grades PftA Fall------DRA S^ng , DRA 5AT^5 Benchmark ALT Reading ALT Matii ATT Language 1 (N/MissIng): (N/Missing)\nGrowth , (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)' (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! I o id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id 6-LEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General SS V I s? jB-1 \u0026gt; 09 c X \u0026gt; H n 229.5 {2/0} 225.7 {310} wirs.5i t (210) 234.0 {210} f irA5^c-\n,f'^x KK*t .t 11^.5 '^pO-S''- 5?. 217.3(3/0) ^218.0(3/0) n -j z5 PJ \u0026gt;2\n4.-i:v-?\u0026gt;a*'vv4y i 1 7-LEP 7-NAEP ___ , . _ _ 7-FEP J____J 7-FEPE____ 7-General ^asc:'?. \u0026lt;'..' I I I ./'** Vi \\^L- Vt. 49.0(1/0) j^a'^ 4 f^T*^-S74SSSLA \u0026gt;\u0026gt;_. n.o {2J0} f/-i y 77.3(3/0) iS ssassss ' ' e 1 \\ 210.0 (1/0) i 222.0 (1/0)  - 226.5 (2/0)\n230.0 {210} 218.0 (1/0) 227.0 (2J0} 221.3(3/0) i 236.7 (3/0)\n229.7 (3/0) ffi T- 8-LEP____ 8-NAEP__ 8-FEP 8-FEPE__ 8-General i I I 1 :b!^: I r? th' 235.8 (5/0) i 259.6 (5/0) : 239.4 (5/0) N=Number of students tested 225.0(2/0) ' 252.5 {2IQ) I 234.0 (2/0) \u0026gt;2 SH \u0026gt;z 793 Q pz5 n .'5.\ni\nI I 525 I Pulaski Heights M.S. \u0026lt;1\ni I HI M l ni nl ni M d d d d DRA Fall I I i DRA Spring i 1 DRA Grades 1 (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ! Growth i i i ! SAT-9 1 Benchmark , ALT Reading i ALT Math , ALT Language ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) . (N/Missing) 1 I T 2 6-LEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General\n\u0026gt;T**  ~ \"i\n' r?L^ T,5J.V^.^Sf^Tai '-is I t.- i\u0026gt; *  3.^ * . - 41 0 f2/oi jr O 98.0(1/0) i s\u0026lt; \u0026gt; SB \u0026gt; H ! Hi Wsi^' 2210(4/0) I 227.0(4/0) I 221.8(4/0) ! I_______ !_______\n220.5(270) 1 215.5(2/0) I 218.0(2/0) I n n\u0026gt; z5 PHJ \u0026gt; 2 SI I **V- 240.0(1/0) I 295.0(1/0) [ 249.0(1/0) 1 2\u0026gt;'. =i I I I iliBSS cz !/l hS5? L?fr -4X^ ^idPJh-ftj^ac:X^\u0026gt;4\u0026lt;\u0026amp;a^bi r^W.- 4 250.5 (2/0) j 230.0 (2/0) PJ z PJ i2^itA.d!SJ.aur-5^ j: *N=Number of students tested II 526 irii Southwest WSp^g iri Dri [ri iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri d 01 d grades ' (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) i6-LEP 6-NAEP 6^fEP 6-FEPE 6-General '-LEP 1'--NAEP 7--FEP 7-FEPE 7-General 8-LEP S^NAE^ mp 8^FEPr~ 8-General 3K' h* t ik ------ DRASAT-9  Benchmark~ArrReading Growth , (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) t ( --------  ALT MatFi ALT Language (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) (N/Missing) 2 i I ( TJ aX \u0026gt; I v I I 16 0(2/1) A (J  218'0(1/0) i 223.0(1/0) .. ___  kT: 221.0 (1/0) 7 1 \u0026gt;R7SfI-IeWeo  *O, *w\u0026gt; H I r 199.3 (3/0) : aoi 3 (3/01 1 210.7 (3/0) 1 I I________ !-------------------- - .w.wi5tT^\u0026lt;Fnre5saiS((i^!^ 218 0 n/O) i 220.0 (1/0)_i 222.0(1/0) - If \u0026lt; \u0026gt;f6(\u0026gt; i. 'N=Number of students tested *_ ^i_e!47 \\-^ 1! ! 1 I 1 527 n \u0026gt; Q 25 n \u0026gt; 2\nS \u0026gt;S \u0026gt;2 0 (/I 2 S 2. fnt COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM MATH AND SCIENCE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: November 21,2002 SUBJECT: Approval of SEDLs Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Z c Vi 2 Sz fnt Background The Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL) in Austin began their Collaborative Action Team Project in 1996 by selecting schools or districts for participation within their five-state region. The focus was on districts with concentrations of students as follows: rural, urban, the Delta, the Border, and the American Indian Nations. The Little Rock School District was selected for inclusion, representing urban children, as a part of Cohort 3 in fall 1999, the last year of the project. We participated only that one year (1999-2000) in the project, but the Collaborative Action Team that was established continues to meet and most recently fulfilled the charge we gave them to provide leadership in the development of the Districts Strategic Plan for Parent Involvement. Dr. Ed Williams, the PRE statistician, and Debbie Milam, Director of the ViPS program and the person assigned as liaison to SEDL for this project, both provided data to SEDL for their project evaluation. Members of the Collaborative Action Team responded to surveys as requested. Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSDs short-term (one year) participation in the project would not predict that the involvement of this relatively small group of parents and community volunteers would result in improved student performance. The purpose of the SEDL project is described on pp. 2- 3 of the report. On pp. 25-33 can be found a description of the \"Research Design and Methodology.\" 528 I*. I wL Board of Education - Memo November 21, 2002 Page Three Section 10 of the evaluation, Implications and Recommendations, discusses the research findings. Specific recommendations are given on page 147. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve SEDLs Collaborative Action Team Process: Final Research Report as the program evaluation of the LRSD Collaborative Action Team project of 1999-2000. BAL/adg Attachment 529 ir il t t I 2 \u0026gt;z o c/) 2 S z D w g S1'1 - J? Collaborative Action Team Process: Bringing home, school, community, and students together to improve results for children and famihes I Final Research Report ] I I I a 11 Ti T  .U.'. J M iniaiaiiinil IIII Ml IIII Ml \u0026gt;2 \u0026gt; 1. o pz5 rwi Co-Authors: Zena H. Rudo Michelle Achacoso Delia Perez Contributors: Catherine Jordan Jerry Elder Amy Averett Evangelina Orozco Program for Refining Educational Partnerships Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh Street Austin, TX 78701-3281 (512) 476-6861 November 2000 530 I I I i\"* r a List of Tables List of Figures Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: Section 4: Section 5: Section 6: Section 7: Section 8: Table of Contents Collaborative Action Team Project Background Participants in the Collaborative Action Team Project Characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team Process Implementation of the Collaborative Action Team Process Research Design and Methodology Site Characteristics Collaborative Action Team Sustainability Student Outcomes iii-iv v-vii 1 4 12 16 25 34 46 80 s. \u0026gt; 2 C V) 2 S z r) Section 9: Results in the Rural Collaborative Action Team Sites I I I 111 Section 10\nImplications and Conclusions 143 References 150-152 Appendices Appendix A. Collaborative Action Team Application Forms Memorandum of Understanding 153 154-172 173-175 i 531 IAppendix B. Start-Up Training Agenda Collaborative Action Team Training Institute Agenda Facilitator Training Agenda 176 177-178 179-182 183-185 Appendix C. CAT Meeting Checklist Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #1 Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #2 CAT Self-Assessment Instrument and Handbook Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey Resource Guide Feedback Form 186 187-188 189 190 191-223 224-225 226-227 Appendix D. Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Time Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Cohorts Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Representative Groups Significance and Probability Values for RD-CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Time 228 229-234 235-240 241-246 247-250 Appendix E. Percent Student Attendance for Individual CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Individual CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Individual CAT Sites 251 252-253 254-255 256-257 i ii 532LIST OF TABLES I Table 1. Table 2. aa I Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Collaborative Action Team Site Demographics Timeline I: Assessing the Implementation and Sustainability of the CAT Process Timeline 11\nAssessing the Impact of the CAT Process on Student Outcomes Total Population and Poverty in CAT Surrounding Area CAT Members Completing the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 2 CAT Sites 7- 9 31 32 35 47 - 50 81 I 82 Table 8. Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 3 CAT Sites 82 ,1 a aI I Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17. Percent Student Attendance for CAT Sites Across Cohorts Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 2 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 3 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for CAT Sites Across Cohorts Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 2 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 3 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for CAT Sites Across Cohorts iii 83 88 89 89 90 95 96 96 97 533 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 55 t/i 2 S z n P5 Table 18. SAT-9 Scores Below the 25\" Percentile for Arkansas CAT Sites 101 Table 19. Percentile Rankings on CAT/5 and ITBS for Louisiana CAT Sites 102 Table 20. Percent Passing CTBS5/Terra Nova Plus for New Mexico CAT Sites 103 Table 21. Percent Scoring Satisfactory on OCCT for Oklahoma CAT Sites 105 Table 22. Percent Passing the TAAS in Texas CAT Sites 108 Table 23. Free/Reduced Lunch for RD-CAT Sites 112 Table 24. RD-CAT Members Completing the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey 117 Table 25. Comparison of RD-CAT Site and State Student Dropout 136 Table 26. Comparison of RD-CAT Site and State Student Graduation 137 Table 27. CTBS5/Terra Nova Test Scores for Mora ISD and State 138 Table 28. Percent Passing New Mexico High School Competency Exam for Mora ISD and State 139 Table 29. SAT-9 Percent Passing for Marshall School District and State 139 Table 30. SAT-9 Percentile Scores for Marshall School District and State 140 Table 31. Percent Passing OCCT for Clayton School District and State 140 iv 534 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. CAT Site Start-Up and CAT Self-Assessment Data Collection 29 Figure 2. Type of School(s) Collaborative Action Teams Serve 36 Bl Figure 3. Special School Programs in CAT Sites 37 Figure 4a \u0026amp; b Team Confidence Level for Activity Accomplishment 39 rl Figure 5. Type of School Community Challenges in CAT Sites 40 Figure 6a \u0026amp; b Existence of Community Factors in CAT Sites 42 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 9 X 2 S z rt pj Figure 7a. PI Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 1 Sites 43 Figure 7b. Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 2 Sites 44 Figure 7c. Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 3 Sites 44 Figure 8. Level of Support form School Administration for Future CAT Sustainability 58 El Figure 9. Level of Support from Campus Staff for Future CAT Sustainability 58 p 4! 1 Figure 10. Level of Support from Community-at-Large for Future CAT Sustainability 59 Figure 11. II Level of Support from Parents/Other Family Members for Future CAT Sustainability 59 Figure 12. Level of Support from Students for Future CAT Sustainability 60 . Figure 13. Future Goal Accomplishment Across Cohorts 66 V 535I tv Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Perceived Changes in CAT Recognition/Importance in the Community by Representative Groups Importance of Taking Action on Planned Goals for CAT Sustainability Annual Percent Student Attendance Across Cohorts Site, District, and State Student Attendance Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Louisiana CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Site, District, and State Student Dropout Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Louisiana CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Site, District, and State Student Graduation Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation vi 70 72 83 84 85 85 86 86 87 90 91 92 92 93 94 97 98 98 3 i K B B B 536Section 1: Collaborative Action Team Project Background Recognizing that childrens problems are increasingly horizontal, but government is organized vertically (Kirst, 1991, p. 617), those concerned with the well-being of children and families have sought ways to overcome the compartmentalization and fragmentation characterizing traditional delivery systems. Efforts to integrate and coordinate services for children and families across multiple agencies have been promulgated since the mid-1970s, however often than not at the behest of local social service agencies (Kagan \u0026amp; I I more Pritchard, 1996). It has only been in the past decade that federal support has influenced and hastened the development of collaborative partnerships. The result has been a broad variety of approaches to collaborative work. Models, strategies, and pilot programs accompanied by an abundant literature of opinion, guidelines, theory, survey and case study research, and anecdotal experience have p' erated. The role of public education in these collaborative efforts has also varied and, in some circles, schools are deliberately avoided. For example. Heath and McLaughlin (1996) note that partnership with community organizations seldom extends to education (p. 70), because many individuals working in youth organizations find schools the most difficult partner among the many social agencies with which they have contact (p. 85). Schools, on the other hand, have attributed the lack of collaboration with community organizations to the inflexible schedules and frequent turnover of agency staff, as well as to what schools perceive as competitive attitudes (Kagel \u0026amp; Routh, 1993). ( \u0026gt;  t I ) 2 \u0026gt; S \u0026gt; z o p5 z PI In addition to the difficulties schools encounter developing successful collaborative partnerships with community agencies, their relationship with the families of students is also a source of conflict. The development and perpetuation of a stereotypical view that many families are uncaring of their children and their childrens success in school has been seen in educational practice (Corbett, Wilson, \u0026amp; Webb, 1996). As families experience this attitude, a self-fulfilling prophecy is set into motion in which families feel uncomfortable coming to the school and as a result, professionals continue to see parents as the problem. Additional reasons for why collaborative partnerships have not necessarily been successful, or even initiated, may include:  Family and school schedules are often difficult to mesh  Security issues sometimes take precedence over visitors on school grounds  Parents past experiences as students themselves may have been negative and they lack trust in the educational system. 1 537Figure 32. Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation 99 Figure 33. Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation 99 Figure 34. Level of Support form School Administration for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 121 Figure 35. Level of Support from Campus Staff for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 121 Figure 36. Level of Support from Community at Large for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 122 Figure 37. Level of Support from Parents/Other Family Members for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 122 Figure 38. Level of Support from Students for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 123 Figure 39. RD-CAT Site Student Attendance Comparisons Across Time 134 Figure 40. RD-CAT Site Student Dropout Comparisons Across Time 135 Figure 41. RD-CAT Site Student Graduation Comparisons Across Time 137 vii 538. iW, ii!* Although these barriers exist, it is believed that strengthening the involvement of families and communities in education is critical for enablinq schools to function more effectively and respond to the complex needs of students and their families. Fulfilling the needs that affect a students development takes a system of interrelated, interdependent parts, of which the school is just one. The students home and family life, and the community and society in which the student lives, are other necessary parts of the system. Yet, it is understood that schools play a particularly crucial role for several  Students spend many hours of their day at school reasons: 1 a  School s explicit mission is to guide student development  Important relationships develop between students, their peers, their teachers, and other adults in the school environment. As a result of this systemic shift in thinking, connections between schools, families, and communities are more prevalent today than ever. Increasingly, schools have taken the lead in establishing collaborative links (Kritek, 1996\nPayzant, 1992). Often these efforts are part of an overall plan for systemic school reform in an attempt to improve educational outcomes for children (Fox \u0026amp; Williams, 1991\nLourie, 1994). For example, increased academic achievement, motivaUon and interest in school, and behavioral and adaptive functioning are only just beginning to be assessed in relation to the impact of these collaborative partnerships (Eber \u0026amp; Rolf, 1998). Although on the increase, the establishment of collaborative partnerships among the school, home, and community has been slow in achieving wide spread adoption in the field. This is due, in part, to the existing limited and largely non-empirical knowledge base on school-based collaboration and the absence of a clear specification of the needed skills that promote such an intervention model (Pryor \u0026amp; Church, 1995\nU.S. Department of Education, 1996). Purpose of Current Project to 2 S \u0026gt; 2. 3 (fi 2 S 2 rj P5 As part of a federal grant initiated in December 1995, the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) developed and implemented a school-based Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process to address the need t enhance family and community involvement in education. The intervention was designed to be self-sustaining over time and improve results for students and their families. This research project, based in communities across a five state Southwestern region of the United States, tested the sustainability of the collaborative partnerships developed among families, community members, 2 539h I  I school personnel, and students and the efficacy of this intervention to improve student success. Training for Collaborative Action Team participants was developed and implemented. The training consisted of activities to improve their knowledge of, skills in, and attitudes toward collaboration and shared leadership. These activities were used to enhance the partners abilities to collaborate on plans and take action to address issues and concerns facing their school community. Quantitative and qualitative measures were used to evaluate and continually refine the Collaborative Action Team process and capture a holistic picture of student success. Data collected in each site provided information on site characteristics, the implementation and sustainability of the process, and student outcomes. The research also provided CAT sites with descriptive and empirical data on their successes and areas of continued need while increasing their general knowledge base on the use of collaborative efforts within school settings and their impact on student success. Purpose of this Report This report serves two functions: first, as a technical manual detailing the methods and procedures of the study\nsecond, as a final, summative report, describing the activities accomplished and the research results obtained from this project. The Collaborative Action Team project was first implemented in the Fall of 1996 in five sites (Cohort 1), then expanded to another ten sites in the Fall of 1998 (Cohort 2), and to another eight sites in the Fall of 1999 (Cohort 3). Of these 23 sites, four were designated as Rural Development Collaborative Action Team (RD-CAT) sites to connect school improvement with community development through the implementation of the collaborative process linked to service learning and school entrepreneurship activities. This report will discuss individual and across site results from the research conducted in all 23 CAT sites as well as results specific to the RD-CAT sites.  This report contains sections describing the characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team process and the CAT sites, the implementation of the partnership process at the sites, the project research methodology, the sustainability of team collaboration, and student outcomes over time. Implications from the research results and what lies ahead for collaboration among schools, families, communities, and students are also discussed in this report. I 3 540J I Section 2: Participants in the Collaborative Action I Team Project The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory's emphasis is on ensuring educational equality for children and youth in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas who live in poverty\nwho are Hispanic, African-American, or other minorities\nor who have mental or physical exceptionalities. Within these states, SEDL identified the following five critical concentrations on which to focus its research and development projects\nrural, urban, the Delta, the Border, and the American Indian Nations. Site Selection I I Recognizing the need for the research demonstration sites to be representative of the five state Southwestern region SEDL serves and the critical concentration areas established by the Board of Directors, SEDL project staff solicited applications in 1996 (Year 1), 1998 (Year 3), and 1999 (Year 4). Each Collaborative Action Team (CAT) site is independent and serves one or more schools or an entire school district. 2 \u0026gt;X \u0026gt; z o s z n PI Five sites, one in each state in SEDLs region, were selected in 1996 to comprise Cohort 1. These sites are:  L. R. Jackson Elementary School (West Memphis, Arkansas)  P.G.T. Beauregard Middle School (St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana)  Rio Grande High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico)  Jackson Middle School (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)  Fabens Independent School District (Fabens, Texas). I In 1998, ten sites throughout the region were selected for Cohort 2. These sites are:  Dollarway School District (Pine Bluff, Arkansas)  Barbara Jordan Elementary School (New Orleans, Louisiana)  Albuquerque High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico)  Highland High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico)  Ann Parish Elementary School (Los Lunas, New Mexico)  Mora Independent Schools (Mora, New Mexico)  Ponca City East Middle School (Ponca City, Oklahoma)  Balmorhea Independent School District (Balmorhea, Texas)  Del Valle High School (Del Valle, Texas)  Rio Hondo Independent School District (Rio Hondo, Texas). 4 \u0026gt; 541 I In 1999, eight sites were selected from four of the five states in SEDLs region for Cohort 3. These sites are:  Little Rock School District (Little Rock, Arkansas)  Lee County School District (Marianna, Arkansas)  Marshall School District (Marshall, Arkansas)  Polk Elementary School (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)  Clayton Independent School District (Clayton, Oklahoma)  Clinton Independent School District (Clinton, Oklahoma)  Geraldine Palmer Elementary (Pharr, Texas)  Terrell Independent School District (Terrell, Texas). Four of the 23 sites selected were designated Rural Development CAT (RD-CAT) sites. These sites were required to have a community population below 3,000 persons and be geographically isolated from larger cities or towns in the surrounding region. Additionally, these sites had to be committed to connecting school improvement with economic and community development. Although a number of Collaborative Action Team sites are geographically rural, they did not meet the qualifications to be designated as RD-CAT sites. All sites, including the Rural Development sites, were selected to be Collaborative Action Team sites based on the following criteria:  Fits within SEDLs critical concentration areas  Evidence of low academic performance in student population  High percentage of low-income students (i.e.. Title 1 programs: free/reduced lunch)  History of ongoing and under-served needs in school community  Willingness to engage home, school, and community partners in collaboration  Willingness to commit to long-term project efforts.  SEDL project staff developed and implemented a process to finalize Collaborative Action Team site selections. First, all potential sites were required to submit a Collaborative Action Team Application Form (see Appendix A for a copy of the CAT applications used). Once the application was received, project staff reviewed it for completeness and, if incomplete, provided one opportunity for the site to resubmit. Project staff then reviewed all of the applications to determine if the potential site met the criteria established to become a CAT. To further determine site appropriateness, project staff conducted discussions, onsite and/or by phone, with members of each school community applying. All information obtained about the potential sites was then discussed among the 5 I  542 project staff and, as a final step, all sites were notified as to whether they had or had not been selected as a CAT site. In Year 1, sites that received SEDL services from 1990-1995 through the Home, School, and Community Partnerships (HSCP) project were first contacted to see if they were interested in continuing with SEDL to implement the Collaborative Action Team process. Four of the HSCP sites (West Memphis, AR\nAlbuquerque, NM\nOklahoma City, OK\nand Fabens, TX) submitted applications to become CAT sites. The fifth Cohort 1 site in St. Bernard, LA learned about the project through a community member previously involved with another of SEDLs projects. The five Cohort 1 Collaborative Action Team sites represent three individual schools, one cluster of feeder schools, and one school district, i.e., serving a total of 20 schools (see Table 1). None of the Cohort 1 sites were designated as Rural Development CAT sites.  2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 0 75 2 55 z n PI In Year 3, SEDL project staff used several mechanisms to solicit Collaborative Action Team site applications. These included conference presentations, phone contacts, third-person referrals, and visits to SEDLs website. Cohort 1 CAT sites were also asked to recommend potential sites. Additionally, applicants who were not selected for Cohort 1, but met the eligibility requirements were also encouraged to reapply. The second cohort of 10 sites represents four individual schools, two clusters of feeder schools, and four school districts, i.e., serving a total of 42 schools (see Table 1). Two of these 10 sites were designated Rural Development CAT sites: Mora, NM, and Balmorhea, TX. r In Year 4, the Collaborative Action Team site solicitation methods used were similar to those used in the year prior\nhowever, one particular venue was the primary source for applications. This was a presentation by SEDL project staff at a federal Department of Education 21  Century Community Learning Center Bidders Conference held in the Southwestern region. For Cohort 3, project staff selected eight sites in four of the five SEDL region states (no new site was established in New Mexico). The Cohort 3 Collaborative Action Team sites represent two individual schools and six school districts, i.e., serving a total of 70 schools (see Table 1). Two of these eight sites were designated Rural Development CAT sites: Marshall, AR, and Clayton, OK. I 6 543I Table 1 Collaborative Action Team Site Demographics CAT site Cohort 1 West Memphis, AR St. Bernard Parish, LA Rio Grande Cluster, NM Oklahoma City, OK Fabens, TX Cohort 2 Pine Bluff, AR New Orleans, LA Albuquerque Cluster, NM Established Region 08/14/96 10/19/96 09/05/96 10/04/96 09/11/96 09/16/98 08/17/98 10/29/98 Schools served by CAT Free/reduced lunch Student ethnicity UI lU Delta/ Rural Rural Urban Urban Border/ Rural Rural Urban Urban 1 elementary school 1 middle school 1 high\n4 middle and 7 elementary schools 1 middle school 1 high\n1 junior high\n1 elementary\n1 primary school\nand 1 early childhood center 1 high\n1 junior high and 3 elementary schools 1 elementary school 1 high\n2 middle and 10 elementary schools 7 100% 88% 76% 100% 95% 66% 100% 69% 99% African-American\n1% other 63% White\n33% African-American\n4% other 83% Hispanic\n11% White\n6% other 65% Hispanic\n18% White\n10% African-American\n7% Native American 97% Hispanic\n3% other 80% African-American\n20% White 100% African-American 66% Hispanic\n22% White\n12% other_____ (continued on next page)fit li. KA Tabic 1 (continued) CAT site Established Region Schools served by CAT Free/reduced lunch Student ethnic ity Highland Cluster, NM 10/29/98 Urban 1 high\n2 middle and 8 elementary schools 62% 40% Hispanic\n36% White\n10% Native American\n14% other Los Lunas, NM 10/21/98 Rural 1 elementary school 100% 63% Hispanic\n31% White\n6% other I Mora, NM 11/14/98 Rural 1 high\n1 middle and 2 elementary schools 89% 78% Hispanic\n21% White\n1% other Ponca City, OK 09/12/98 Rural 1 mid-high school 44% 82% White\n12% Native American\n6% other Balmorhea, TX 06/30/98 Border/ Rural 1 school all grades (K - 12) 71% 80% Hispanic\n19% White\n1 % other Del Valle, TX 10/03/98 Urban I high school 48% 53% Hispanic\n32% White\n14% African-American\n1% other i Rio Hondo, TX 10/24/98 Border/ Rural I high\n1 middle and 2 elementary schools 81% 94% Hispanic\n6% White (continued on next page) 8 cn \u0026gt;i UI aoNaios ONV iiiviv I I I UI 4k 9) Table 1 (continued) CAT site Cohort 3 Little Rock, AR Marianna, AR Marshall, AR East Baton Rouge, LA Clayton, OK Clinton, OK Pharr, TX Terrell, TX Established Region 09/23/99 09/01/99 08/17/99 08/18/99 08/30/99 09/09/99 10/14/99 08/26/99 Urban Delta/ Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Border/ Rural Rural Schools served by CAT 5 high\n8 junior high and 35 elementary schools 1 high\n1 middle and 2 elementary schools 1 junior/senior high and 1 elementary school 1 elementary school 1 high and 1 elementary school 1 high\n1 middle and 3 elementary schools 1 elementary school 1 high\n1 middle and 4 elementary schools\nand 1 pre- K to K center 9 Free/reduced lunch Student ethnicity 50% 89% 60% 98% 73% 73% 88% 51% 68% African-American\n28% White\n4% other 91% African-American\n8% White\n1% other 98% White\n2% other 99% African-American\n1% White 75% White\n25% Native American 55% White\n23% Hispanic\n11% Native American\n10% African-American\n1% other 2% White\n98% Hispanic 49% White\n34% African-American\n16% Hispanic\n1% other Team Composition The entire school community, consisting of all the people and organizations that either affect or are affected by the school, are the pool from which Collaborative Action Team members were initially identified in site applications. A school community goes beyond those who work and study inside the school. School communities include families, businesses, agencies, organizations, and individuals in the immediate neighborhood. A school community might include residents who have no children attending the school but whose property values are affected by the quality of education the school provides. A human service, health, or mental health agency that serves students families may be part of a school community even if it is not located in direct proximity to the school. The school board and district or state administrators that affect a schools work are also a part of the school community. 2 \u0026gt; X \u0026gt; 2. 9 V) 2 w z ri P3 I jA The initial composition of the Collaborative Action Teams in Cohort 1 included school, home, and community representatives. As the PGT Beauregard CAT in St. Bernard, LA developed, they were the first team to include students as equal members on their team. The SEDL project staff and the other Cohort 1 CAT sites recognized the benefit of including students. As a result, students were incorporated into the CAT process as a fourth representative group needed to comprise team membership and many sites include students on their teams. School representatives include superintendents, assistant superintendents, and other district/central office staff, principals, assistant principals, teachers, teacher aides, librarians, support staff, maintenance personnel, and other school campus staff. Family members such as parents, grandparents, foster parents, other caretakers, and siblings comprise the home representative group. Neighborhood associations, businesses, government offices, human service agencies, religious institutions, and volunteers represent the community. Students, generally from secondary schools, also serve on the CAT\nhowever, student representation is open to all age groups. Collaborative Action Teams range in size from smaller groups of 8-10 members to much larger groups of 40-50 members, with an average of approximately 15 active members per team. Additionally, although representative membership is a core principle of the Collaborative Action Team process, it should be noted that membership on the team is not static. The teams have an open door policy\", often resulting in variation in team 10 547 I i I membership at any given time. However, each team has established a group of core members that, at the least, represent the home, school, and community. Summary SEDL project staff used a variety of mechanisms to solicit potential Collaborative Action Team sites and a formal selection process was implemented. Twenty-three sites were selected to participate in the project, of which four were designated as Rural Development CAT sites. All of the sitesmet established selection criteria related to geographic location, student demographics, school and community needs, an ability and willingness to commit to implementing collaborative partnerships. Participants varied in the Collaborative Action Teams but generally consisted of home, school, community, and student representatives. t   11 548I Section 3: Characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team Process IS \u0026gt; ( I The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) designed the school-based Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process to be developed, tested, and refined over a five-year period ending in December 2000. After reviewing the literature on collaboration with an emphasis on its links to educational settings, SEDL project staff identified current collaborative practices, dimensions of successful team partnership development and maintenance, and barriers to effective collaboration upon which the CAT process was initially based. The process was continually developed over the five years to bring together local partners representing the communitys diverse points of view to increase the productive involvement of families and communities in the educational achievement and well-being of students. I 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 9 75 2 5 z ft Defining Collaboration I I Collaboration brings separate individuals or organizations into a new relationship with a joint commitment to a common purpose. As described by Mattesich and Monsey (1992), the relationship includes a commitment to: a definition of mutual relationships and goals, mutual authority and accountability for success, and sharing of resources and rewards (p. 7). Such a relationship requires comprehensive planning and well-defined communication. Risk is greater because team members reputations are at stake. Participants pool their resources and share the products of their work. Collaboration is a more formal and long-term arrangement than networking, cooperation and coordination. It differs in the extent to which people share resources and use power and authority to achieve goals they cannot achieve independently (Kagan, 1991). fc- People in collaborative relationships view each other as partners, enhancing each others capacity to define excellence, set mutual goals, and use their own personal and institutional power to achieve them (Himmelman, 1992). Collaboration is a style of work and a sense of community in which members knowingly make decisions as a whole. They see themselves as complementary and mutually supportive contributors to the entire community. In other words, collaboration involves the following:  Developing win-win situations  Creating a total greater than the sum of its parts  Sharing responsibility  Sharing success. 12 549Core Principles The Collaborative Action Team process is a set of concepts, activities, and resources that individuals, school districts, and other organizations can use to develop a partnership between school, home, community, and students at the local level. It was initially based on a set of core principles and included four stages of team development. The core principles identified were representative membership, shared leadership, consensus decision-making, and networking. As the Collaborative Action Teams developed, it was seen that networking was a natural consequence of collaboration\nhowever, teams having an action focus was integral to team development. Action focus was incorporated into the CAT process as a core principle to embody the characteristics of collaboration. Based on these core principles, the Collaborative Action Team moves through a series of activities within the four stages of team development intended to support effective team partnerships that can be self-sustaining over time.  I Representative membership is when a team consists of participants from a cross-section of the school community that consistently attend meetings and are actively involved in making decisions. This includes family members, community representatives, school personnel, and students and should mirror the diversity of the community. Representative membership can help the team develop a more comprehensive response to school community needs and reinforce local control and self-reliance. Shared leadership exists when leadership roles and responsibilities are equally distributed among all team members. Team members see themselves as partners working to benefit students and their families and are equally included in representing the team, making decisions, carrying responsibilities, and sharing success. Shared leadership can enhance a teams commitment and willingness to work together and help to sustain individual energy, minimize burnouf, and expand the school communitys leadership pool. Consensus decision-making occurs when decisions are made that best reflect the viewpoints of all involved and that all members agree to support. This requires that team members develop the ability to discuss issues, listen to one another, address their differences, work to resolve them, and reach decisions based on general agreement. Consensus decisions can help to minimize conflict and maximize commitment and willingness in order for the team to take action as a whole. 13 55041 Action focus serves as the underlying purpose of a Collaborative Action Team, i.e., to improve results for students and the school community. Establishing a team vision and mission, and setting goals and forming strategies can help to prepare a team for action. As members take on roles and responsibilities and follow through on mutual decisions, they can generate momentum for further action. Stages of Team Development The four stages of team development are: Team Identification, Team Mobilization, Project Development, and Project Implementation. These stages are intended to lead the team to maturity and success in their overall goal to improve results for children and families. Team Identification includes determining who will be on the team and how members will work together to represent the whole community, including developing a vision and mission. Team Mobilization encompasses identifying and utilizing shared leadership, broadening communication and networking opportunities, and structuring the CAT meeting. Project Development is based on creating action plans and Project Implementation on carrying out those plans and maintaining the teams focus while accomplishing its goals. Each of the four stages of team development is comprised of team building and team planning elements created to generate momentum and develop team strength relative to the core Collaborative Action Team principles. 2 \u0026gt; z 0 7) 2 n -2. W Elements of the CAT Process JI Team building elements show team members how to work together as equal partners, respect individual diversity, and build trust to help the team solve problems and create new opportunities. Getting to know one another, talking constructively from differing vantage points, and undertaking projects together help build relationships among team members. The team building activities enable mutual respect and trust to grow as personal relationships and shared experiences evolve. I Team planning elements address tools and techniques for developing a vision, mission, goals and objectives, priorities, and action steps. Finding common ground, participating in dialogues about school community issues, and reaching consensus on what needs to be accomplished are all part of planning 14 551 for collaborative action. Team planning helps to keep everyone focused and provides the structure for moving the team forward. Generating momentum produces visible results quickly by taking easily accomplished steps toward change. Teams can generate momentum by working on manageable size projects often resulting in early success. This success generates the energy and enthusiasm needed for long-term development and increasingly more complicated efforts. Momentum is the product of the effort it takes to improve schools and communities. Summary SEDL developed and implemented a collaborative, school-based process partnering family members, school personnel, community representatives, and students to improve results for students and their families. The Collaborative Action Team process is based on a set a core principles and is organized into stages of team development. The core principles of the Collaborative Action Team process are: Representative Membership, Shared Leadership, Consensus Decision-Making, and Action Focus. Based on these core principles, the CAT process moves teams through four stages of development: Team identification. Team Mobiiization, Project Deveiopment, and Project Impiementation. Within each of these stages, teams go through a series of elements and activities that support a balance between team building and team planning, based on the core principles. Mechanisms are incorporated throughout the process to maintain the momentum of the team as it moves through the stages. 15 552Section 4: Implementation of the Collaborative Action Team Process I I The Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process implemented across the 23 sites included several essential components. First, it was important to have the support and participation of home, school, community, and student members at each site. Second, the team members were trained in the skills, concepts, and principles of the CAT process. Third, CAT meetings were held so that a plan of action could be developed. And last, the on-going needs of the Collaborative Action Team process were assessed and technical assistance was provided. The implementation of the CAT process was continually refined over the five years of the project, reflecting Collaborative Action Team member ideas and suggestions, SEDL project staff observations, and new data that emerged. I 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 9 2 5 2. O P3 Initiating the Collaborative Action Team Process I I I 'iJ I I I SEDL project staff contacted school administrators from each site, at the local and/or district level, to discuss the mission, methodology, and goals of the project and to obtain administrative support. Although not standard practice with all Cohort 1 sites, as it was for the Cohort 2 and 3 sites, SEDL project staff met on-site with school administrators. The Cohort 1 CAT sites were not required to give SEDL written approval from their school administrators, but verbal support was attained. Over time, however, the administrative support wavered and resulted in a variety of barriers to the continuation of the Collaborative Action Team in at least one of the Cohort 1 sites. SEDL project staff recognized the need for a more formal system to obtain approval and support from school administrators in potential CAT sites. As a result, they developed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining the required commitments to become a CAT site and the joint responsibilities of the site and SEDL (see Appendix A for a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding). The Collaborative Action Team process was not initiated in the Cohort 2 and 3 sites until project staff received this Memorandum of Understanding with the signature of a school administrator, i.e., the school principal or assistant principal, the district superintendent, assistant superintendent, or director of curriculum, or another designated district administrator. Local school and district administration in each of the Cohort 2 and Cohort 3 CAT sites endorsed the project both verbally and by completing the Memorandum of Understanding. * In addition to school administrative support, other members of the school community spoke with SEDL project staff to discuss the implementation of the 16 I 553CAT process in their site. Many of these conversations took place at an initial on-site visit conducted by SEDL project staff during the application process. At this time, the participants representing the four core groups (home, school, community, and students) talked with project staff as a whole and separately, by representative group. This provided the participants an opportunity to experience initial collaborative dialogue and to discuss any past partnering difficulties among the groups. They were also provided brochures about the CAT project and other resource materials. Those in attendance indicated their support for the development of a CAT in their school community and their interest in participating: however, the number and diversity of representatives present at the initial visit was often greater than the core group that comprised the on-going Collaborative Action Team. General CAT Member Training Once support from the school administration and school community members in each site was evident and initial information was exchanged, the next step in implementing the Collaborative Action Team process was to train site members. A one and one-half day intensive Start-Up Training was scheduled with each site to occur shortly after they were selected. For the Cohort 1 and 2 sites, the training was conducted for home, school, and community representatives. Students from secondary schools were included as participants in the training for Cohort 3 sites. The Collaborative Action Team Start-Up Training was designed to foster shared leadership and collaboration skills to enable team members with diverse backgrounds and a wide range of skill levels and experience to participate as full partners with school leaders.  During the Start-Up Training, SEDL project staff introduced the team development activities comprising the CAT process. Project staff developed a structured agenda and provided a written copy to all participants (see Appendix B for an example of a Start-Up Training agenda). The training included an orientation session focused on a variety of factors that impact partnership development. Participants developed a site facilitation plan, designated local facilitators, and established a plan for the first full CAT meeting during the training. The experiential, interactive activities used in the training focused on increasing team members awareness and understanding of their differences and similarities while helping them become more comfortable with one another and learn the strengths and contributions each could bring to the team. For example, one activity asked each person to list things at which they are good and then posted the responses on flip charts for everyone to see. These skills 17  554 and strengths of team members were then matched with tasks needing to be completed during an action planning activity later in the training. The planning activity encouraged members to share their knowledge and skills to accomplish identified goals which demonstrated to them the value of shared responsibility and leadership. r s ) 3 I I SEDL project staff also provided training for team members through annual Collaborative Action Team Training Institutes held each fall of the five- year project (see Appendix B for an example of an Institute agenda). A representative group of team members from each CAT site were brought together for three days to share ideas, network with one another, and gain new knowledge and skills to assist them in their collaborative efforts. The specific agenda varied at each Institute\nhowever, a number of topics were pervasive throughout ali five. These included, but were not limited to:  Shared leadership  Action planning  Resource development  Assessment and evaluation  Use of technology in collaboration. The Training Institutes provided participants with information, skills, and materials for the team members at their sites who were not able to attend the training. This new knowledge was used to further the collaborative efforts of each team. 2 \u0026gt; S \u0026gt; 2 (/) 2 S 2. n P5 CAT Facilitator Training r j In relation to school change, Hord (1992) described the importance of facilitative leaders who are not necessarily positional leaders, such as superintendents or principals, but rather people who demonstrate functional leadership, help create an atmosphere and culture for change, and nurture both the vision and tangible supports necessary for effective follow through. This was the type of leadership sought to facilitate the Collaborative Action Teams. During the first few years of the project, SEDL project staff functioned in this role for the Cohort 1 sites, while informally encouraging team members to assume this role. As the CAT project developed, project staff spent less time with the Collaborative Action Teams and, as a result, team members recognized the need for local facilitation. Training local team members to act in the facilitator role and maintain their neutrality while serving in this role was seen as essential to the sustainability and expansion of the CAT process. 18 555In 1998, SEDL project staff developed a two-day curriculum to train members from each site to become facilitators and equip them to train others on their team to assume facilitation responsibilities (see Appendix B for an example of a Facilitator Training agenda). The first Facilitator Training was conducted in January 1999 at the SEDL offices at which at least two members from each Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 site attended. These trained facilitators also attended a refresher workshop in October 1999 to help them improve their skills and assess their progress. A second Facilitator Training was held in September 1999 for another 2-3 members in the Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 sites who had not been previously trained and an equal amount of members from the Cohort 3 sites. The trained CAT facilitators from all three of the cohorts participated in follow-up trainings in March 2000 and September 2000. SEDLs training for CAT facilitators had several goals. First, to thoroughly familiarize the participants taking on the facilitator role with the Collaborative Action Team process. For example, participants were asked to identify major elements of the process for a case study activity that required them to determine the most appropriate CAT process element to address typical issues and situations teams face. Second, to teach various group process techniques such as brainstorming, consensus building, force field analysis, use of affinity diagrams, and the use of T-charts. Each participant had an opportunity to facilitate either a group process technique or one of the training exercises under the observation and guidance of SEDL project staff. And last, to provide facilitators with the knowledge and skills necessary to train fellow team members in the use of the techniques taught in the training. Participants were provided a knowledge base and basic tools at the training to help them share the facilitation and team development responsibilities seen as necessary to effect change in their school community.  CAT Meetings An integral part of the project was the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team meetings at which home, school, community, and student representatives focused on issues important to their school community and action for improving results for students and their families. Collaborative Action Team members at the individual sites, especially the trained facilitators, were responsible for assuring meetings occurred. The steps needed to implement the team meetings included: 1) arranging the logistics for the meeting, 2) contacting team members and attending the meetings, 3) conducting the meeting, 4) following through on tasks and responsibilities, and 19 5565) evaluating the meetings. SEDL project staff provided CAT sites with assistance to help them implement team meetings, i.e., through on-site and telephone consultation, by providing written materials and other resources, and by encouraging networking among the CAT sites. Most of the Collaborative Action Teams met regularly, i.e., once a month. One or two of the 23 teams met more frequently, while a few met irregularly and less frequently. Some of the teams maintained a formal structure, i.e., met at the same time and place, provided an agenda, and kept within timeframes designated on the agenda. Other teams used their meetings as an open forum to discuss their needs and exchange information. Yet others focused directly on activities, events, and actions specific to a written plan they developed. A variety of techniques were used at the meetings to enhance team dialogue, some of which were modeled in the myriad of training SEDL project staff provided. The trained facilitators played a key role in ensuring diverse viewpoints were heard at the meeting and that all members participated. They also, along with other members of the team, were responsible for following through on assigned tasks and monitoring that others did as well. The team meetings were the primary setting in which collaboration took place. I I I I I I  2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z o Vi 2 S z Pl The Collaborative Action Team meetings were primarily evaluated in four ways\n Feedback provided by team members during team meetings  Informal discussions with team members outside of the team meetings  Contacts between the SEDL project staff and CAT members  Responses on evaluation tools developed by the SEDL project staff to assess the process. Several tools developed specifically to evaluate individual meetings were the CAT Meeting Checklist and the Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form ^1 and Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #2 (see Appendix C for copies of these instruments). These evaluation tools helped teams self-evaluate after each meeting regarding how the meeting progressed and how they did, or did not, use the Collaborative Action Team process. Other evaluation tools developed for the project included the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey (see Appendix C for copies of these instruments). These tools, although created to collect data regarding overall CAT process implementation and sustainability, also provided information on meeting progress. A detailed description of the evaluation process for which these tools were used and the results are provided in a later section of this report. 20 557Collaborative Action Team Materials Crowson and Boyd (1996), noting the proliferation of guides to collaboration and service coordination conclude, what the handbooks and guidelines and experiential evidence to date do not adequately provide are insights into deep structure issues in cooperating institutions (p. 139). Such issues include institutional inertia, a lack of sufficient knowledge and skills, and perceived differences in power, perspective, and belief. These issues serve as barriers to collaborative work and can lead to tensions, miscommunication, and competing agendas among members of a collaborative group as well as between the group and the community it seeks to serve (Delpit, 1995\nSchorr, 1997). SEDL project staff recognized the need for team members to have written materials to guide them in their implementation of the CAT process. T In 1998, SEDL project staff developed A Guide to Building Collaborative Action Teams in Schools and Communities, detailing the CAT process to assist sites in the development of their teams. The guide included multiple small group activities mirroring the elements of the Collaborative Action Team process. Background information on each of the elements, timelines for accomplishing the activities, and audio-visual aides were also provided. This design was used to help members build their team, plan action, and generate momentum, as well as to deal with many of the barriers known to impact collaboration. Team members at the Facilitator Training in January 1999 and those at the September 1999 training were given a copy of the guide. SEDL project staff found the use of the guide was spurious\nhowever, team members acknowledged a need for guidance materials. Some of the difficulties team members described with the material included\n Terminology that was not fully understood  An academic textbook content  Too lengthy and not user friendly. Project staff sought feedback from teams to make the materials more practical and user friendly. As a result, many changes were made and a new set of resource materials was developed and provided to teams at the 2000 CAT Institute. The new materials include the Creating Collaborative Action Teams Guide (Guide), Toolkit, and Toolkit Masters. All of these materials are, or will soon be, available on CD-ROM and in Spanish. The Guide provides information specifically on how to start-up, facilitate, and coordinate the Collaborative 21 558r I hr I Action Team and explains the CAT process, core concepts, and terms used in the process. Much of the Guide is organized around the stages of the process and provides background information and a general overview of the different steps of the process. The Toolkit serves as a companion to the Guide and contains a variety of activities and additional resources that can be used at team meetings to help members progress through the stages and steps of the process as well as additional resources. The activities each include:  Preparation and room set-up instructions  Goals and key introductory points for the session  Step-by-step instructions and estimated time  Wrap-up points  Follow-up reminders. The Toolkit Masters contains forms, handouts, transparencies, worksheets, and ideas for presentations. 2 5 X \u0026gt;z c g S 2 P5 A companion to the Creating Collaborative Action Teams Guide was also developed for rural communities, and even more specifically for the Rural Development CAT sites. Entitled, Thriving Together: Connecting Rural School Improvement and Community Development, this guide provides practical information about how to connect school and community development through such strategies as service and work-based learning. The material describes characteristics and resources important to these and other joint efforts and incorporates activities of the Collaborative Action Team process that can be used to sustain them. 1 Consultation and Technical Assistance I In addition to the initial CAT training, SEDL project staff provided ongoing consultation and technical assistance to each site with an emphasis on basic and advanced skill development to enhance the teams use of the collaborative process. Project staff observed team meetings and provided feedback, particularly to team facilitators. They visited each site at least quarterly and had additional contact more frequently with team members (most often the trained CAT facilitators) via the telephone, postal mailings, electronic mail, and videoconferences. ) \u0026gt; Several sites specifically requested SEDL project staff assist them with additional training regarding shared leadership. A one to two hour booster training was provided individually to those sites. The training focused on the strengths, needs, and barriers of the particular team and included specific 12 559 activities they could accomplish to help them fulfill their needs. A few other sites received a recharge training after they lost much of their membership and momentum and feared they might cease to exist. This training included a four to eight hour saturation on the CAT process, use of CAT materials and resources, and discussions of strategies to sustain their team and move toward accomplishing goals. As initial research findings were obtained, SEDL project staff provided each team with verbal and written data reports on their progress and areas of need in relation to their implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process. These reports included an analysis of the data, specific suggestions for team building and action planning activities, and recommendations for areas upon which their team could focus in the future. Sites in Cohorts 1 and 2 received three of these reports while Cohort 3 sites received two. A detailed description of the findings is provided later in this report. r Project-Related Activities The implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process also involved additional activities to provide information to team participants, other members of school community in which the teams are located, professionals in education and other fields of practice, and to a broader audience of persons interested in school reform. The activities included:  Presentations - given by SEDL project staff as well as by CAT members about the Collaborative Action Team process to professionals, paraprofessionals, and family and community members  Videoconferences - three events sponsored by SEDL project staff on facilitator leadership skills, resources and training topics for 21 Century Community Learning Centers, and a resource guide for rural communities  Newsletters and articles - the CAT Connections Newsletter \\Nt\\\\ch was provided to CAT sites during the first several years of the project\nthe FaCilitATor News monthly update provided to CAT facilitators on upcoming CAT events and resources available: articles in newspapers, magazines, and professional journals written by and/or about the Collaborative Action Teams  Web-based networking and information - CAT project web pages on SEDLs website\na bulletin-board and listserves for CAT members and SEDL project staff to converse: regular e-mails to CAT members including the monthly FaCilitATor News updates\nand individual CAT site web pages available to the general public 23  560. liSi : -a**  Community involvement - attendance at school board meetings and local events and provision of training for educators in the communities in which a CAT site exists  Grant writing assistance - reading potential grants being submitted by CAT sites and providing guidance\nalerting CAT sites to grant opportunities. Summary I I I I 1 Members of the school community, including family, school personnel at the local and district level, community representatives, and students, showed broad support for the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process, verbally, in documentation, and through their participation. As has been seen in the literature, part of the empowerment of collaborative group members takes place during training (Kagan, 1991). SEDL project staff provided intensive training to team members on the CAT process and team facilitation. CAT meetings were conducted in 23 sites across the Southwestern region in which home, school, community, and student partners collaborated on issues and actions to improve results for students and their families in their school communities. CAT sites were provided on-going technical assistance and other resource assistance. SEDL project staff furnished printed and electronic materials about the Collaborative Action Team project and team development process, as well as about community development and school improvement in rural areas. Additionally, other informational activities were provided to a broader audience of persons interested in bringing about school change through the involvement of the entire school community. r I 1 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 0 oi 2 S z pi 24 561I I I I Section 5: Research Design and Methodology SEDL conducted an applied research project using descriptive and empirical approaches to assess the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process to improve outcomes for students. Purpose I The purpose of the research was twofold: 1) to determine if collaborative partnerships between the home, school, community, and students can be sustained in the demonstration sites as a result of the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process and 2) to assess the impact of the process on student success. Sustainability of the CAT process was defined as Collaborative Action Teams meeting and working as a team throughout the CAT project and reporting they will continue to operate in the future for at least one year. The study gathered data about each team's activities in developing and sustaining their team as well as measures of student success, including standardized assessment scores and attendance, graduation, and dropout rates. Comparisons across CAT sites were explored. I I I I I I I I  \u0026gt; I t t ) The research also assisted the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) sites in identifying effective practices, training, and resources useful in goal attainment as well as those in need of refinement. Further, the study served to build on the limited empirical knowledge base pertaining to the use of collaborative efforts within school settings and the impact of this partnering on student success. Research Questions The objective of the CAT process was to develop and sustain meaningful partnerships between diverse participants from a school community who would take action to improve results for students and families. In order to assess the achievement of this objective, the research answered the following questions\n1) Are collaborative partnerships between the school, home and community developed and sustained as a result of the implementation of the CAT process, i.e., as measured by team progress through elements of the four stages of the CAT process and use of shared leadership and facilitator skills taught in the CAT trainings? 25 I 1 562 t) 0 d 2} Did the Collaborative Action Team process have an impact on student success, i.e., goal accomplishment, changes in student outcomes including standardized assessment scores and attendance, graduation, and dropout rates? I'J C] Cl ft 11 Instruments SEDL project staff developed a Collaborative Action Team Application Form with questions on the demographics of the site (see Appendix A). The application sought information on the: 1) critical concentration area\n2) percentage of students in the school district according to ethnicity, socioeconomic status, head of household\n3) location within an Enterprise Zone or Empowerment Community\n4) school, district, and state standardized test score averages and designation as low performing by the State Education Agency: and 5) existence of special programs and school improvement and/or previous partnership/collaborative efforts in the school/district. Further, the application asked for a response to how confident the site was that a Collaborative Action Team in their community would accomplish eight team development activities and the extent to which nine cultural climate factors exist within their community. The responses to\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_647","title":"Program evaluations, Volume III","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":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational statistics","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume III"],"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/647"],"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\nB VOLUME III Bl received 1 4 2003 office of desegregation monitoringt. .i4 ii l.iii.i: 'U --IH' -H\n I ii i.'i ! J r 1 11 iiii Uli ii \"!: It! -:!!! ..\"Illi UI ...\"ii .....^i pii SI la 5 r fe'V  . \\ H .V ,rt' ?,?A : li* A' ,.K  1S=V * !? V 111 ill IJ-j iri ii H I'! I diii iii i lil I ' I ii I 'll' fl II I 'ilii DI ill Til II\" IN\n1 ix I I 71 J t J. * 1 i\u0026lt; PS 1 i o  I if .1  .!l i\u0026lt; P J II 'fL. E Li., P F_ - i'Ll iiiiilff E  ! o W X o w w 2 !LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: December 19, 2002 SUBJECT: Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program (ALP), 2001-2002 Background The Board of Education reviewed in fall 2000 and in fall 2001 the evaluations of the Alternative Language Program (ALP) for limited-English proficient (LEP) students for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. These were brought back to the Board for formal approval, in compliance with Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy \" in November 2002. s Officials at the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas had high praise for the 2000-2001 program evaluation and requested our permission to share it with other districts in the five-state region. They also requested that the LRSD team be available to conduct workshops for other districts in how to develop a qualitv program evaluation. The 2001-2002 program evaluation was developed, for the most part, according to the procedural guidelines outlined in Administrative Regulations IL-R adopted by the Board of Education in October 2002. The background information required by Judge Wilson in his Compliance Remedy can be found as follows\n1. Steps that have been taken to implement the recommendations for improvement from prior program evaluationssee pp. 49-53. 2. Names of administrators involved in the program evaluationsee cover page for the names of team members\nalso see p. 19. I 1006 I J Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Two h IT 3. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation teamsee pp. 18-19. 4. Grade-level descriptions of teaphers who were involved in the assessment processsee p. 19. The ALP is not, of course, relevant to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan since it does not address the academic achievement of African American students. It is required annually, nevertheless, as a part of the District's voluntary Commitment to Resolve with the Office for Civil Rights (signed in September 1999). An outline of the eight sections of the report follows: Section I: Introduction The first section includes the introduction, an outline of the Districts program goals and objectives, a delineation of the research questions for the study, a description of methodologies, the evaluation focus, a list of assessments used to gather academic data, and an outline of the sections in the study. It also includes demographic data for PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs, including languages spoken, enrollment by grade level, and enrollment by school. Section II\nPolicies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Section II includes evidence of the Districts implementation of numerous new policies, procedures, and programs to ensure compliance and quality, including cost data, all aligned with the twelve program objectives. Section III\nStudents English Language Acquisition Performance of LEP and FEPE This section includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs that develop students English language arts skills. Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students progress in attaining content area knowledge and skills. 1007 1 z o z i 9 O X SThird Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Three ri Section V\nPerformance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses This section evaluates LEP and FEPE student performance in high school Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses. Section VI: Monitoring the Progress of Fluent English Proficient Exited Students (FEPEs) This section is a cohort study of the academic achievement of students who exited the ALP in 1999-2000 with an analysis of all the available assessment data on those specific students through 2001-2002. Section VII: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and PEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students performance in relation to attendance, retention, discipline and suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Section VIII: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations This section summarizes the key findings for each of the research questions, draws general conclusions on the academic and behavioral performance of LEP and FEPE students, and makes recommendations for program improvement in 2002-2003. s S 5- I This evaluation includes two important new sections. Section V provides data on those LEP students and students exited from the Alternative Language Program (FEPEs) enrolled in advanced high school courses (Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies). Section VI provides a three-year analysis of the academic progress of students who exited the Alternative Language Program in 1999-2000. In order to meet the requirements of federal, state, and local expectations, the evaluation addresses seven research questions, as follows: Program Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with OCR, the Arkansas Department of Education, and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementing this program? (See Section 11.) o z oo WX I 1008 .w I Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Four 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special education, gifted/talented programs, and 504 programs? (See Section II.) 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL-endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? (See Section II.) Academic Progress 4. 5. 6. 7. rs Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in acquiring reading and English language arts skills? How does their performance compare with that of the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section III.) Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning content knowledge and skills? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section IV.) Are there LEP and FEPE students participating in the Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses at the secondary level? Are they being successful in those courses? (See Section V.) Are FEPE students successful in the mainstream curriculum? (See Section VI.) Behavioral Indicators 8. What are the attendance rates, retention rates, discipline/suspension rates, dropout rates, and graduation rates of identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section VII.) zO o -J o pn X z X 1009 {] Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Five Section I includes several sets of demographic data so that the reader can understand who the children are who are served in the ALP and which schools they attend. The final chapter. Section VIII, is a summary of all previous sections, including key findings, conclusions, and recommendations for program improvement. Intermediate chapters include descriptions of the available data that address the various research questions. Upon the Boards approval of this study, it will be forwarded to the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas for their review, and it will be submitted to Judge Wilson as a part of the District's compliance report for Section 2.7.1. Fiscal Impact None. Recommendation That the Board of Education review and formally approve the 2001-2002 evaluation of the Alternative Language Program. z BAL/adg .K oz o O X z 1010 ft r The Third Annual Program Evaluation Alternative Language Program (ALP) Little Rock School District 2001-2002 December 2002 rjL. i X Prepared by Dr. Eddie Williams-McCoy Dr. Ed Williams Karen Broadnax Ken Sa /age Anita Gilliam Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mark Vasquez, Consultant Division of Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3320 www.lrsd.orq oz 5e o Pl X If n z w I 1011 Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction and Background Background 1 Alternative Language Program (ALP) Goals and Objectives 1-2 Demographic Data 3 Background Information on the PHLOTE Students in the District 3 Top Ten Languages of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Students PHLOTE Students by Language Table 1\nTop Ten Languages, PHLOTE Comparison LEP Students by Language Table 2: Top Ten Languages, LEP Comparison FEPE Students by Language Table 3: Top Four Languages, FEPE Comparison 3 3-4 4 4-6 6 6-7 7 Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Table 4: Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Comparison 7-8 8 z Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students Table 5: Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students Comparison 8-9 9 Elementary School Enrollments by PHLOTE. LEP. and FEPE Changes in Former Newcomer Center Enrollments Magnet School Enrollments Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Elementary School Table 6: Elementary Schools Enrollment by PHLOTE. LEP, and FEPE Comparison 9-10 9-10 10 10 11 11 11-12 Secondary School Enrollments by PHLOTE, LEP. and FEPE Changes in Secondary Newcomer Center Enrollments Magnet School Enrollment Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Secondary School Table 7: Secondary Enrollment by PHLOTE, LEP. and FEPE Comparison 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 zO S8 o o Xm nz 1 1012 Highest Enrollment by LEP and FEPE Table 8: School Enrollment by LEP and FEPE Schools Identified for Improvement under No Child Left Behind\" Exiting the School Improvement Designation Table 9\nSchools Identified for Improvement Methodology Interpretation of Assessment Results Evaluation Design and Focus Assessments Research Questions Program Evaluation Outline 14-15 15 15-17 16-17 17 17-18 18 18-19 20 n 20-21 21-22 Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Policy, Procedural, and Program Changes ESL Program Administrative Handbook Program Objective 1: To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. Program Objective 2: To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. Assessment Timelines Program Objective 3: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. Student Assignment Program Objective 4: To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable instruction in other content areas, and for positive self-concept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. Definition of the LRSD ALP Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks 23 24 n 24-25 25-26 26 26-29 27 29-35 29 30-31 ii nr K K 101Assessments ESL InstructionElementary Schools ESL InstructionMiddle Schools Middle School Newcomer Centers ESL InstructionHigh Schools High School Newcomer Center No Child Left Behind Requirements Program Objective 5: To hire, train, and continually develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-to-one with the identified students and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community. Program Objective 6\nTo provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. Program Objective 7: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. Program Objective 8: To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. Program Objective 9\nTo provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/ talented education and all procedural safeguards. Special Education Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels Table 1: Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Level Comparison 504 LEP and FEPE Students Table 2\nLEP and FEPE Students Receiving 504 Services Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Students Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels Table 3: Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Comparison Program Objective 10: To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. Students Who Exited the ALP Prior to the 2001-2002 School Year 31 31-32 32-33 33 33-34 34 34 35-37 38 38-39 39-40 40-46 40 40-41 41-42 42-43 42 43-44 44-45 45 46-48 47 III z 1014 t Table 4: All Students Exited Prior to the 2001-2002 School Year Comparison k 48 Program Objective 11: To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. 49-53 Program Objective 12: To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards. 53-54 Program Costs 55 Section III: English Acquisition by LEP and FEPE Students k Developmental Reading Assessment, Grades K-2 56-57 Performance of Kindergarten LEP Students Overall Performance of Kindergarten LEP Students Table 1: Overall Performance of Kindergarten LEP Students Kindergarten LEP Students, Spring 2001 and Spring 2002 Comparison Table 2: Kindergarten LEP Students 57-59 57-58 58 58-59 59 Performance of First Grade LEP Students Overall Performance of First Grade LEP Students Table 3: Overall Performance of First Grade LEP Students First Grade LEP Students, Spring 2001 and Spring 2002 Comparison Table 4: First Grade LEP Students 59-60 59-60 60 60 60 Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students Overall Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 5: Overall Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students 61-62 61 61 61 62 Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, Spring 2001 and Spring 2002 Comparison Performance of LEP Students Performance of FEPE Students Table 6: Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students 62 62 62 63 k iv 101Achievement Level Test 63 Achievement Level Test Data Interpretation for LEP and FEPE Students 63 Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 7: Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 64 64 64 64 Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Third Grade LEP Students Performance of Third Grade FEPE Students Table 8: Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 65-66 65 65 66 Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Fourth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fourth Grade FEPE Students Table 9: Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 66-67 66 67 67 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 10: Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 67-69 68 68-69 69 Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Sixth Grade LEP Students Performance of Sixth Grade FEPE Students Table 11: Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 69-70 69 70 70 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students fable 12: Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 70-72 71 71 72 V z 1016 Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Eighth Grade LEP Students 72-73 72 k Performance of Eighth Grade FEPE Students Table 13: Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 72-73 73 Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Ninth Grade LEP Students Performance of Ninth Grade FEPE Students Table 14: Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 73-74 73 74 74 Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 15: Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 74-75 75 75 75 Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Third Grade LEP Students Performance of Third Grade FEPE Students Table 16\nPerformance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 75-76 75-76 76 76 Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Fourth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fourth Grade FEPE Students Table 17\nPerformance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 76-78 77 77-78 78 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 18\nPerformance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 78-79 78-79 79 79 k Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language 79-81 R vi R 101Performance of Sixth Grade LEP Students Performance of Sixth Grade FEPE Students Table 19: Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 80 80 81 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 20: Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 81-82 81 81-82 82 Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Eighth Grade LEP Students Performance of Eighth Grade FEPE Students Table 21: Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 82-83 82-83 83 83 Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Ninth Grade LEP Students Performance of Ninth Grade FEPE Students Table 22: Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students. ALT Language 83-85 84 84 85 Stanford Achievement Test SeriesNinth Edition (SAT9) Report by Scaled and NCE Scores 85-86 SAT9Total ReadingGrade 5 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 23: SAT9 Total Reading, Grade 5 86-87 86-87 87 87 SATOTotal ReadingGrade 7 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 24\nSAT9 Total Reading, Grade 7 88-89 88 88-89 89 SAT9Total ReadingGrade 10 Performance of Tenth Grade LEP Students Performance of Tenth Grade FEPE Students Table 25: SAT9 Total Reading, Grade 10 89-90 89-90 90 90 SAT9Total LanguageGrade 5 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students 90-91 90-91 vii 1018 zo OO pr X 5 X Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 26: SAT9 Total Language, Grade 5 91 91 k k SAT9Total LanguageGrade 7 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 27: SAT9 Total Language, Grade 7 92-93 92 92 93 k SAT9Total LanguageGrade 10 Performance of Tenth Grade LEP Students Performance of Tenth Grade FEPE Students Table 28: SAT9 Total Language, Grade 10 93-94 93 93 94 k Arkansas Benchmark Examinations 94-95 k Performance Level Definitions 95 Primary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 29\nPrimary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy 96 96 96 k Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 30\nIntermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy 97 97 97 Middle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 31: Middle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy 97-98 98 98 End-of-Level ExaminationLiteracy (Grade 11) Performance of 11 Grade LEP and FEPE Students Table 32\nEnd-of-Level ExaminationLiteracy (Grade 11) 98-99 98 99 Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students  Achievement Level Tests\nElementary Mathematics (Grades 2-5) 100 R viii 103 i|'i i Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 1\nPerformance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Third Grade LEP Students Performance of Third Grade FEPE Students Table 2: Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Fourth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fourth Grade FEPE Students Table 3: Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 4: Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Achievement Level Test: Middle School Mathematics (Grades 6-8) Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Sixth Grade LEP Students Performance of Sixth Grade FEPE Students Table 5: Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 6\nPerformance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Eighth Grade LEP Students Performance of Eighth Grade FEPE Students Table 7: Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics 100-101 100 100-101 101 101-102 101 102 102 102-104 103 103 104 104-105 104 105 105 105 105-106 105-106 106 106 107-108 107 107-108 108 108-109 108 108-109 109 IX s 1020 Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition, Mathematics 109 SATOTotal MathematicsGrade 5 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 8: SATO Total Mathematics, Grade 5 109-110 109-110 110 110-111 SAT9Total MathematicsGrade 7 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 9\nSAT9 Total Mathematics, Grade 7 111-112 111 111-112 112 SAT9Total MathematicsGrade 10 Performance of Tenth Grade LEP Students Performance of Tenth Grade FEPE Students Table 10\nSAT9 Total Mathematics, Grade 10 112-113 112-113 113 113 Primary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 11\nPrimary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics 113-114 113-114 114 Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 12: Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics 114-115 114-115 115 Middle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 13\nMiddle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics 115-116 115 116 Arkansas End-of-Course Examinations\nAlgebra I and Geometry Performance of LEP and FEPE StudentsAlgebra I Performance of LEP and FEPE StudentsGeometry Table 14: End-of-Course Examinations (Algebra I and Geometry) 116-117 116 116 117 X - 102(i Section V: Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses Pre-Advanced Placement Courses, Grades 9-12 English I Pre-AP Performance of Ninth Grade LEP Students Performance of Ninth Grade FEPE Students Table 1: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English I Pre-AP English I Workshop Pre-AP Table 2: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English I Workshop Pre-AP English II Pre-AP Table 3: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English II Pre-AP English III Pre-AP Performance of Eleventh Grade FEPE Student Table 4\nGrade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English III Pre-AP Algebra I Pre-AP Table 5: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Algebra I Pre-AP Algebra II Pre-AP Table 6\nGrade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Algebra II Pre-AP Geometry Pre-AP Trigonometry/Advanced Algebra Pre-AP Physics I Pre-AP Table 7: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Physics I Pre-AP Biology I Pre-AP Table 8: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Biology I Pre-AP Chemistry I Pre-AP 118-127 118-119 119 119 119 119-120 120 121 121 121-122 122 122 122-123 123 123-124 124 124 124 124-125 125 125-126 126 126 XI 1022 X I zO 5 o o w X P5 z r e*5 Civics Pre-AP Table 9: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Civics Pre-AP 126-127 127 H Advanced Placement Courses English IV AP Performance of LEP Student Table 10: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English IV AP 128-134 128 128 128 Statistics AP 128-129 Calculus BC AP 129 Physics III AP 129  Biology II AP 129 Environmental Science AP 129-130 Economics AP 130 United States History AP 130-131 World History AP 131 Spanish IV AP Table 11: Spanish IV AP 131-132 132 Spanish V AP Table 12: Spanish V AP 132-133 133  Spanish VI AP Table 13: Spanish VI AP 133-134 134 University Studies Courses (Hall High School) English IV U Physics I Pre-AP U 134-135 134 134-135 Section VI: Monitoring the Academic Progress of FEPE Students f Longitudinal Study: Monitoring FEPE Students 136 XU 104 Students Exited from the Table T. Students ALP During 1999-2000 Exited from the ALr 136-137 137 137-138 Cohort 1 Table 2\nsecond Grade FEPE Students' 138 ?fW3  A^ Scores for Second Grade (Spring 2001) and Third Grade (Spring 2002) 138 '^*'\"Table 4\nALT\nThree-Year Analysis 138-139 139 Cohort 3 Table 5\nGrade 4 Benchmark Examination 139-140 140 Cohort 4 Table 6\nGrade 4 Benchmark Examination Table 7- SAT9 Scores Table 8\nALT\nThree-Year Analysis 140-141 140 141 141 ^\\^ble9\nALT: Three-Year Analysis 141-142 142 ^^\\^ble10\nSAT9 Scores jSSn: Z?T: Three-Year Anatysts 142 143 143 '^'''rable 12: ALT\nThree-Year Analysis 143-144 144 Cohort 8 a--Analysis 8 Benchmark Examination 144 144 145 '^Tabl.lS: AET: Three-Year Analysis 145-146 146 Cohort 10 Table 16\nALT\nThree-Year Analysis 146 147 147 Summary xiii z 1024 -I V Section VII: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students Attendance for LEP and FEPE Students for the 2001-2002 School Year LEP Attendance FEPE Attendance Table 1: Attendance for LEP and FEPE Students 148-149 148-149 149 149 I I Discipline and Suspension for LEP and FEPE Students LEP Students FEPE Students Table 2: Discipline and Suspension for LEP and FEPE Students, 2000-2001 Table 3\nDiscipline and Suspension for LEP and FEPE Students, 2001-2002 Retention of LEP and FEPE Students Table 4: Retention for LEP and FEPE Students Dropout Data for LEP and FEPE Students Graduation Rates for LEP and FEPE Students Table 5: Graduation Rates for LEP and FEPE Section VIII: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations Section I Summary: Introduction and Background Enrollment Languages Spoken Grade-Level Distribution Former Newcomer Center School Enrollments Elementary Magnet School Enrollment Elementary School Enrollments Secondary Newcomer Center School Enrollments Secondary Magnet School Enrollments Secondary School Enrollments Schools Identified for School Improvement under No Child Left Behind 150-151 150 150 150 151 151-152 152 152 152-153 153 154-156 154 154 154-155 155 155 155 155 155 155 156 XIV 102 II Section II Summary: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Policies, Procedures, and Programs Compliance Access to Special Opportunity Programs Qualified Teachers for LEP Students 156-158 156-157 157-158 158 o r Section III Summary: English Acquisition by LEP and FEPE Students 158-169 Key Findings and ConclusionsLEPs Grades K-2 LEPs Grades K-2 ConclusionsLEPs Grade 3 LEPs Grade 4 LEPs Grade 5 LEPs Grades 3-5 ConclusionsLEPs Grade 6 LEPs Grade 7 LEPs Grade 8 LEPs Grades 6-8 Conclusions-LEPs Grade 9 LEPs Grade 10 LEPs Grade 11 LEPs Grades 9-12 Conclusions-LEPs 158 158-159 159-160 160-161 161 161 162 162 162-163 163 163-164 164 164 164 164-165 s Key Findings and ConclusionsFEPEs Grades K-2 FEPEs Grade 3 FEPEs Grade 4 FEPEs Grade 5 FEPEs Grades K-5 ConclusionsFEPEs Grade 6 FEPEs Grade 7 FEPEs Grade 8 FEPEs Grades 6-8 ConclusionsFEPEs Grade 9 FEPEs Grade 10 FEPEs Grade 11 FEPEs Grades 9-12 ConclusionsFEPEs 165 165 165 165-166 166 166 167 167 167-168 168 168 168 169 169 Section IV Summary: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students 169-173 o z 90 O O X z XV 1026 JKey Findings and ConclusionsLEPs Grade 2 LEPs Grade 3 LEPs Grade 4 LEPs Grade 5 LEPs Grades 2-5 ConclusionsMathematicsLEPs Grade 6 LEPs Grade 7 LEPs Grade 8 LEPs Grade 6-8 ConclusionsMathematicsLEPs Grade 10 LEPs High School LEPs High School ConclusionsMathematicsLEPs 169 169 169 169-170 170 170 170 170-171 171 171 171 171 172 Key Findings and ConclusionsFEPEs Grade 2 FEPEs Grade 3 FEPEs Grade 4 FEPEs Grade 5 FEPEs Grades 2-5 ConclusionsMathematics-FEPEs Grade 6 FEPEs Grade 7 FEPEs Grade 8 FEPEs Grades 6-8 ConclusionsMathematicsFEPEs Grade 10 FEPEs High School FEPEs High School ConclusionsMathematicsFEPEs 172 172 172 172 172 172-173 173 173 173 173 173 174 174 Section V Summary: Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses 174-175 Pre-Advanced Placement Courses Advanced Placement Courses University Studies Courses Conclusions 174 174-175 175 175 Section Vl Summary: Monitoring the Academic Progress of FEPE Students 175-177 Key Findings and Conclusions by Cohort 176  Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 176 176 176 XVI 102'Cohort 4 Cohort 5 Cohort 6 Cohort 7 Cohort 8 Cohort 9 Cohort 10 Conclusions Section VMSumma^ Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students Key Findings and Conclusions trp\u0026amp;n^ Suspension LEP Retentions LEP Dropouts LEP Graduation Rates ConclusionsLEi^s Key Findings and Conclusion FEPE Attendance jon FEPE Discipline and t\u0026gt;u p FEPE Retentions FEPE Dropouts FEPE Graduation Rates Conclusions-FEPEs Recommendations for Program Improvement 176 176 176 177 177 177 177 177 178-181 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 179 179 179 179 179 179-181 xvii 1028 n r o \"Z. o O n XS rr z. X Third Annual Evaluation of the Little Rock School Districts Alternative Language Program, 2001-2002 Section 1\nIntroduction and Background Backqround This third annual evaluation of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) Alternative Language Program (ALP) builds on the information provided in the two earlier reports that were submitted to the Board of Education in August of 2000 and November 2001 and then to the Dallas office of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). This 2001-2002 study is a part of the LRSDs continuing efforts to meet the requirements outlined in the LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR) agreement with OCR of September 1999, to comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to meet both the expectations of the Arkansas Department of Education and the LRSD Board of Education. As a follow-up to the CTR, the LRSD Board of Education adopted in November 1999 Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language. Among its requirements was an annual program evaluation. Specific procedures were delineated in the administrative regulations (IHBEA-R) also adopted in 1999 and amended in November 2001. r K This report is also in compliance with Board Policy IL: Evaluation of Instructional Programs, adopted in March 2001, that requires program evaluations to include \"valuable insights into how programs are operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost effectiveness, and directions for the future. Alternative Lanquaqe Program (ALP) Goals and Objectives ALP goals and objectives were established in administrative regulations IHBEA-R in 1999 and have not been revised. The two goals are as follows: 1. To enable identified students to master English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension/understanding) and content area concepts and skills so that the students are able to participate effectively in the regular program as quickly as possible. 2. To provide identified students with the cultural literacy necessary for them to feel comfortable in participating in the school, community, and greater community. R To reach those goals, the District also established twelve program objectives in IHBEA-R in 1999-2000. Each one addressed a policy, procedure, or program requirement mandated by federal, state, and/or local governance bodies. They are as follows: R R I 1 102 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/ benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable instruction in other content areas, and for positive self-concept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. To hire, train, and continually develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-to-one with the identified students and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community. To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved learning. 9. To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/talented education and all procedural safeguards. 10. To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. 11 .To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. 12.To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards. 9 z 1030 o Demographic Data Important to an understanding of this program evaluation is an understanding of who the students are whose performance is being analyzedtheir language communities, their enrollment by grade level, and their enrollment by school. The following tables display the demographic data of the umbrella group of students examined in this program evaluation, as well as the two most critical sub-groups. k PHLOTE students are the umbrella group of all students, regardless of English- language fluency, whose primary home language is other than English. (In Arkansas those students are referred to as LMS or Language Minority Students.) Demographic data include the numbers of students classified as PHLOTE, in addition to those in each of two sub-groups, limited-English proficient (LEP) and fluent-English proficientexited (FEPE), as well as the language communities which they represent. Background Information on the PHLOTE Students in the District There were 985 PHLOTE students in the District during the 2001-2002 school year. In 1999-2000 there were 805 PHLOTE students in LRSD. The 2001-2002 enrollment represents a two-year increase of 180 students (or 22 percent).  Of that number, 632 (or 64 percent) were Limited English Proficient (LEP). In 1999-2000 there were 467 LEP students. The 2001-02 enrollment represents an increase of 165 LEP students (or 35 percent) in two years.  Of that number, 94 (or 9.5 percent) were Fluent English Proficient Exited (FEPE). The 1999-2000 FEPE enrollment was 25. The 2001-2002 enrollment represents an increase of 69 FEPE students (or 276 percent) over two years. (The 1999-2000 data are found on page 11 of the Program Evaluation for English as a Second Language, 1999-2000.) Top Ten Languages of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Students PHLOTE Students by Language The total number of PHLOTE students in the Little Rock School District remained approximately the same from 2000-2001 to 2001-2002from 989 to 985, a decrease of four students. The 985 PHLOTE students in the Little Rock School District during 2001-2002 represented 45 different languages. Table I displays a comparison of the top ten largest non-English languages in the District for the 2000 -2001 and 2001-2002 school years among PHLOTE students. The N for each school year is the total enrollment of PHLOTE students in each language group. The %\" column is the calculation of N divided by the total PHLOTE enrollment in the District for that school year. 3  103:The next-to-last row in the table shows the number of students represented in the most common language groups and the percent of the total PHLOTE population that they represent. The last row provides the total PHLOTE enrollment for each year. n According to the table, 631 (or 64 percent) of the PHLOTE students in 2001- 2002 spoke Spanish, the largest non-English speaking group in the District. Chinese-speaking students (6.5 percent) represented the next largest group. The top ten language groups represented 88 percent of the total PHLOTE population. The Spanish-speaking population increased by 37 students from 2000-2001 to 2001-2002. The number of Chinese-speaking students decreased by nine, and the number of Urdu-speaking students increased by six, moving from sixth place to third place in the Top Ten Languages. Table 1 Top Ten Languages, PHLOTE Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 1 ( PHLOTE Student 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year I N N % % 1. Spanish 2. Chinese I 594 60.1 3. Korean 4. Vietnamese 5. Arabic 6. Urdu 7. Telugu 8. Russian 9. Assyrian 10. Hindi Persian ' Total of Top Ten ' t otal PHLOTE Enroll 73 I Ti r 7.4 3.1 29 25 22 20 15 13 12 12 I 846 989 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 86% 100% 1. Spanish 1. Chinese 2. Urdu 3. Vietnamese 4. Telugu 5. Korean 6. Hindi 7. Arabic Russian 8. Persian 9. Assyrian Tagalog Total of Top Ten j 631 64 28 27 18 17 16 14 14 12 11 11 863 64.1 6.5 1 2.8 I 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 88% Total PHLOTE Enroll | 985 100% I I r L I I z + I I I I I I I I I I + I I 1 J LEP Students by Language The total number of LEP students in the Little Rock School District increased by 12 in 2001-2002 over the 2000-2001 school year. There were 632 LEP 4 1032 o z J8 o o X w z n Jstudents in the Little Rock School District during 2001-2002, representing 34 different languages. k Table 2 displays the most commonly spoken languages by LEP students in the Little Rock School District. The N\" for each school year is the total enrollment of LEP students in each language group. The \"% column is the calculation of N divided by the total LEP enrollment in the District forthat school year. The next-to-last row in the table shows the number of students represented in the most common language groups and the percent of the total LEP population that they represent. The last row provides the total LEP enrollment for each year. In this case the percent column is the calculation of what percentage the LEP population is of the total PHLOTE population (see Table 1). k k According to Table 2, approximately 75 percent of the LEP students spoke Spanish, the largest non-English speaking group in the District. Chinesespeaking students (4 percent) represented the next largest LEP group. Twelve (or 1.9 percent) of the LEP population spoke Urdu. The top ten language groups of LEP students represented approximately 95 percent of the total LEP population.  The number of LEP students in the District increased by 12.  The number of Spanish-speaking LEP students increased by 30  The number of Chinese-speaking LEP students declined by eight.  The number of Urdu speaking LEP students increased by four. k  The LEP enrollment has constituted about 64 percent of the PHLOTE enrollment over the past two years.  Approximately 95 percent of all LEP students in the LRSD speak 16 languages. 5 R 1032000-2001 School Year LEP Students r I! Table 2 Top Ten Languages, LEP Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 N _______i 2001-2002 School Year j % I LEP Students N i % 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Arabic Korean 4. Telugu 5. Assyrian Urdu 6. Vietnamese 7. Persian 8. Igbo 9. Russian 10. Greek Gujarati Hindi Laotian Swahili Total of Top Ten LEP Total LEP Enrollment i 441 I i - I 36 17 17 13 8 8 7 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 582 620 71.1 5.8 2.7 2.7 2.1 1.3 1.3 I i 0.8 j 0?6 0.6 0.6 0.6 I 0.6 i ! 0-6 1 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Urdu 4. Korean Telugu 5. Vietnamese 6. Hindi Russian 7. Arabic Persian 8. Assyrian Igbo 9. Japanese 10. Gujarati Laotian Swahili 471  I 74.5 4.4 I iI 12 , 1.9 I 10 I 1.6 I 10 ! 1.6 I 9 1.4 8 j 1.3 i 8 i 1.3 i 1 I 1.1 ! ! 7 i 1.1 6 i 0.9 ! 6 i 5 I I 4 4 4 94% j Total of Top Ten LEP 599 I 63% Ii Total LEP Enrollment , 632 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 95% 64% FEPE Students by Language There were 94 FEPE students in the Little Rock School District during 2001-2002 school year, representing 17 different languages. Sixty-two (or 66 percent) of the FEPE student population spoke Spanish, the largest non-English speaking group in the District. Chinese-speaking students (11.7 percent) represented the next largest FEPE group.  The number of FEPE students increased by 47.  The number of Spanish-speaking FEPE students increased by 48. 6 rj z 1034  The number of Chinese-speaking FEPE students increased by eight.  FEPEs made up 10 percent of the PHLOTE population in 2001-2002.  Approximately 90 percent of the FEPE students came from seven language communities. Table 3 Top Four Languages, FEPE Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year FEPE Students FEPE Students 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Slovak Portuguese Pakistani Arabic Mandarin 14 29.7 6.4 2.1 2.1 2.1 i 2-1 ! 1 2.1 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Arabic Indonesian 4. Assyrian Portuguese Telugu % j 66.0 i i 3.2 j 31 2.1 2.4 2.4 N 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 % N i j I  I 11-7 ! 3 I 3 2 2 2 I Laotian 2.1 FEPE Top Four Total FEPEs 23 49% FEPE Top Four 85 90% I 47 J__ 5% Total FEPEs 94 10% Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Table 4 provides the PHLOTE enrollment by grade level and the percentage of the total PHLOTE enrollment by grade level.  Second-grade and kindergarten had the highest enrollment of PHLOTE students during the 2001-2002 school year, with percentages of 11.1 and 10.2, respectively.  The most one-year growth was in grade 2 (+21) and grade 5 (+21).  The eleventh and twelfth grade had the lowest enrollment of PHLOTE students with percentages of 2.9 and 3.0, respectively.  Overall, the PHLOTE enrollment for the 2001-2002 school year was less than the PHLOTE enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year by four students. 7 103 Table 4 Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 j Grade Ppk j Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 j Grade 3 i Grade 4 ' Grade 5 i Grade 6 ! Grade 7 ! Grade 8 ' Grade 9 ! Grade 10 I Grade 11 I Grade 12 Total PHLOTE 2000-2001 2001-2002 DIF N 47 4.8 [ 38 3.9 -9 106 100 88 96 85 68 66 59 66 72 49 39 48 989 10.7 10.1 8.8 9.7 8.6 6.9 6.7 6.0 6.7 7.3 5.0 3.9 4.9 100% 100 10.2 -6 98 9.9 -2 j 109 j 11.1 I +21 ! 89 85 89 67 63 61 68 1 59 i 30 9.0 8.6 I 9.0 I 6.4 6.2 6.9 6.0 2.9 3.0 -7 i +21 +1 ! +4 -5 [ +10 j j -10 1 985 j 100% i -4 i 1 I I I L I I I I I N I tI I i I i T % N I I I I % I i I I I I I i I 0 I 1 I I I I I I ! I X I Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students According to Table 5, the primary grade levels, kindergarten through the third grade, had the highest enrollment of LEP students, with kindergarten having the highest enrollment (15.5 percent) in 2001-2002. The eleventh and twelfth grades had the lowest enrollment of LEP students with percentages of 1.7 and 1.9, respectively. The fourth and fifth grades had the highest enrollment of FEPE students, both with percentages of 14.9. 8 1036 oz so s -i ow X zn nr Table 5 Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 School Years LEP 2000-2001 ! FEPE 2001-2002 2000-2001 I 2001-2002 N % N % N % N % Grades I' 3 Year-Old 0.02 0 0 1 0 0 i 0 I 0 i 1 PK 44 7.1 38 6.0 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 I Total I______ 94 78 62 66 49 45 29 21 37 39 25 14 17 620 15.2 12.6 10.0 10.6 7.9 7.3 4.7 3.4 6.0 6.3 4.0 2.3 2.7 100% 98 92 86 59 53 46 33 24 20 36 23 11 12 632 15.5 14.6 13.6 9.3 8.4 7.3 5.2 3.8 3.2 5.7 3.6 1.7 1.9 100% 8.3 16.7 16.7 4.2 I 10.4 6.3 10.4 10.4 4.2 6.3 6.3 14 14 10 11 11 NA I NA NA 2.1 8.5 I 14.9 14.9 5.3 9.6 10.6 11.7 11.7 7.4 3.2 47 i 100% j 94 I 100% 0 0 0 4 8 8 2 5 3 5 5 0 0 0 j 0 i 0 2 8 I I J I 2 3 2 I 1 5 9 k I I 7 3 Elementary School Enrollments by PHLOTE. LEP, and FEPE Table 6 provides the enrollment (and percentages of the total) for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students, by school, at the elementary level. Changes in Former Newcomer Center Enrollments In fall 2000 the District began to phase out the formerly designated elementary Newcomer Centers. The impact on enrollment in those five schools is as follows:  Bradys PHLOTE enrollment was down 6 in 2001-2002, the LEPs were down 9, and the FEPEs increased by 2.  Chicots PHLOTE enrollment was down 32 in 2001-2002, the LEPs down by 33, and the FEPEs increased by 7. 9\n-103i(I  Romines PHLOTE enrollment was down by 10 and the LEPs down by 6. Romine had no FEPE students in 2000-2001 or 2001-2002.  Terrys PHLOTE enrollment was down by 13, the LEPs down by 8, and the FEPEs up by 2.  Washingtons PHLOTE enrollment was down by 12, the LEPs down by 2, and the FEPEs up by 3. All five of the former Newcomer Centers lost some PHLOTE and LEP enrollment, Chicot the most. In general, the FEPE enrollment was up. Magnet School Enrollment The District has encouraged LEP students to exercise their option to attend one of the four stipulation elementary magnet schools in LRSD. Three of the four schools increased their enrollment during 2001-2002\n Bookers PHLOTE enrollment was up 5 and the LEPs were up 5. There are no FEPEs at this school.  Carvers PHLOTE enrollment was down 5, and the LEP enrollment was down 1. There are no FEPEs at this school.  Gibbss PHLOTE enrollment was up 3, the LEPs up 1. and the FEPEs were up 2.  Williams PHLOTE enrollment was up 7, LEPs up 5, and FEPEs up 2. Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School Elementary schools with the highest enrollment of PHLOTE students are follows\nas Elementary Schools  Chicot Elementary  Washington Elementary  Wakefield Elementary  Terry Elementary  Cloverdale Elementary  McDermott Elementary  Romine Elementary  Williams Elementary 83 63 55 54 43 42 36 25 10 1038 i z zo 5O8 O Xn r z Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School The following elementary schools had no PHLOTEs in 2001-2002: Badgett, Fair Park, Mitchell, Rightsell, and Woodruff. Badgett was closed at the end of the 2001-2002 school year. 3 Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Elementary School Six elementary schools had no LEP students in 2001-2002: Badgett, Fair Park, Jefferson, Mitchell, Rightsell, and Woodruff. Table 6 Elementary Schools Enrollment by PHLOTE, LEP and FEPE Comparison for the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 School Years Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot I Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King (M) Mabelvale McDermott j Meadowcliff ! Mitchell 2000-2001 School Year PHLOTE N I % I 0 I NA N 0 LEP % NA FEPE 2001-2002 School Year PHLOTE 12 5 4 I 14 1.2 0.5 10 4 I .0.4 j 0 1.4 14 1.6 0.6 NA 2.3 I 21 j 2.1 I I 13 2.1 115 11.6 19 1 1. 4 8 I 100 16.1 1.9 j 14 j 2.3 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.8 I I 1-1 5 4 2 21 1 41 7 i 0 0.5 0.2 2?T i 0-1 5 3 3 0.8 0.5 0.5 3 0.5 8 N 0 2 0 % NA 4.2 NA 0 i NA 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 I I NA NA 4.2 NA NA N 0 16 6 9 8 16 83 43 14 % NA 1.6 0.6 I 0.9 0.8 1.6 I 8.3 4.4 1.4 ) NA 0 i NA NA NA 1.3 I 1 i 2.1 I I ' 8 5 13 I I I 0.5 pry] 3 I 0.5 i 2\n4.2 I 13  1.3 | 3 1 10 T 4.1 i 27 ' I 0.5 t 0 : NA I 7 LEP N I % 0 15 6 NA 2.4 0.9 5 I 0.8 I 5 12 67 39 12 0 7 3 11 11 : 0.7 I 4 0.2 ! 0 i NA I 2 : 0.2 I 0 I 1.6 I 0 , NA 1 19 i 1.9 j 13 NA T 0.8 1.9 10.6 6.2 1.9 NA 1.1 0.5 1.7 I 1-7 j 0.6 i NA FEPE I N 0 1 I % NA 1.1 0 j NA 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 I 2.1 I 1 i 0 , NA I 7 j 0.7 I 5 i 0.8 4.4 I 0\nNA i 42 4.3 ! 31 i 4.9 0.7 I 7 j 1.1 ' 0 i NA i 6 I 0.6 I 5 j NA 0 ! NA I 0 I NA I 0 , NA . ! I J 1 I 4 NA 2.1 NA 9.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 4?3 0.8 0 NA  0 ! NA 0 11 103?I i 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year n ( I I Schools PHLOTE i LEP I FEPE PHLOTE LEP FEPE f otter Creek Pulaski H. Rightsell I 6 i % i 0.6 3 % I N 1^ 0.5 0 N I I NA I 10 I % 1,0 I N7 % , 1.1 N % 0 NA I 12 I 1.2 0 NA Rockefeller | 5 0.5 Romine 46 4.6 5 0 2 40 i 0.8 NA 0.3 2 4.2 0 0 NA NA 12 1.2 1 7 I 1-1 i 3 3.2 0 5 NA I I 0 3 j NA i 0 I 0.5 ! NA I 1 M.1 Stephens | Terry i Wakefield 1 7 jO.7 6 ! 6-5 I 1 1.0 ' 0 0 NA NA I j 67 I 6.8 I 46 I Washington j 75 j 7.6 | i Watson I I 7 51 I 8.2 j 4,6 ) 44 I 6.6 46 7.4 1 I 2.1 3 j 6.3 1 2.1 I 0.7 5 0.8 0 I NA 36 i Z.l I 34 , 5.4 I 0 , NA 11 1.1 I 8 i 1.3 0 i NA\nj Western H. i Williams ' Wilson : Woodruff Totals I 1 0 18 8 0 ! NA 0 i NA ! ^-8 ! 1 1 0.8 t NA 601 I1 61 1 0 4 0 0.3 0.6 I 3 54 I 5.5 j 55 1 5.6 63 10 6.4 43 i 6.8 I 3 i 3.2 i 51 44 i s-i I 3 i 3-2 i I 7.0 j 4 I 4.3 NA I 61' 0 NA I NA I 0 436 I 70 17 5 25 8 NA 35 I 0 611 1.0 0.5 i 10 4 2.5 i 1 0.8 NA 1.6 i 0 I NA i 0.6 i J 0 i NA i 1.1 i 5 ] 5.3 , 4 0 0.6 j 0 j NA z j NA j 0 I NA 62% i 474 ! 75 39 I 42 Enrollment: June 2001: PHLOTE Enrollment (990)\nLEP Enrollment (620)\nFEPE Enrollment (48)\nJune 2002: PHLOTE Enrollment (985)\nLEP Enrollment (632)\nFEPE Enrollment (94) Secondary School Enrollments by PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Table 7 proyides the enrollment (and percentages of the total) for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students by school at the secondary leyel. Changes in Secondary Newcomer Center Enrollments  Cloverdale Middle Schools PHLOTE enrollment went down one student, the number of LEPs remained the same, and the FEPEs increased by four.  Dunbar Middle Schools PHLOTE enrollment increased by one, the LEPs were down by 12, and the FEPEs increased by eight.  Hall High Schools PHLOTE enrollment went down by 15, the LEP enrollment was down by 23, and the FEPEs increased by 11. zo oo X 12 z c\u0026gt; 1040 J Magnet School Enrollment The District has encouraged LEP students to exercise their option to attend one of the two stipulation magnet schools at the secondary level (Mann Middle and Parkview High) or one of the magnet programs in other schools. k  Manns PHLOTE enrollment is down by one, the LEPs are up by one, and the FEPE enrollment stayed the same.  Parkviews PHLOTE enrollment is up by five, the LEPs up by three, and the FEPEs up by two. Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Middle and high schools with the highest enrollment of PHLOTE students are as follows: Secondary Schools  Hall High  Cloverdale Middle  Dunbar Middle  Central High  Parkview High  Henderson Middle  Mann Middle 93 56 52 36 31 25 21 M Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Every secondary school had PHLOTE enrollments in 2001-2002. The two lowest were Southwest Middle School (6) and Pulaski Heights Middle School (8).  Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Secondary School Forest Heights Middle School and Southwest Middle School each had only one LEP student in 2001-2002.  13 104,! Table 7 Secondary (Middle and High School) Enrollment by PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Comparison for the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 School Years 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year Schools______ Middle Schools Cloverdale PHLOTE LEP FEPE PHLOTE LEP FEPE Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Totals Schools High Schools Central J.A Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Totals N 57 51 14 26 8 22 9 3 191 % 5.8 5.2 14 2.6 0.8 2.2 0.9 0.3 19.4 N 44 27 3 9 2 1 3 0 89 % 7.1 4.4 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 NA 14.4 N2 2 3 3 0 1 0 1 12 2000-2001 School Year PHLOTE N % N LEP % N 36 12 108 15 26 197 3.6 1.2 10.9 1.5 2.6 19.9 2 3 84 4 2 95 0.3 0.5 13.5 0.6 0.3 15.3 0 0 % 4.3 4.3 6.4 6.4 NA 2.1 NA 2.1 25.5 FEPE % NA NA 12 0 1 13 25.5 NA 2.1 27.7 N 56 52 12 25 10 21 8 6 190 % 5.7 5.3 1.2 2.5 1.0 2.1 0.8 0.6 19.3 N 44 15 1 10 2 2 2 1 77 % 7.0 2.4 0.2 1.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 12.2 N6 10 2 2 1 1 0 2 24 2001-2002 School Year PHLOTE N % N LEP % 36 12 93 12 31 184 3.7 1.2 9.4 1.2 3.1 18.7 7 2 61 5 5 81 1.1 0.3 9.7 0.8 0.8 12.8 Enrollment: June 2001: PHLOTE Enrollment (990): LEP Enrollment (620)\nFEPE Enrollment (48)\nJune 2002: PHLOTE Enrollment (985)\nLEP Enrollment (632)\nFEPE Enrollment (94) % 6.4 10.6 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 NA 2.1 25.5 FEPE N 0 3 23 2 3 31 Highest Enrollment by LEP and FEPE According to Table 8, of the 632 LEP-identified students in the District, Chicot Elementary School and Hall High School had the highest enrollment of LEP students, with percentages of 11 and 10, respectively. Hall is a Newcomer Center school and Chicot is a former Newcomer Center school. 14 % NA 3.2 24.5 2.1 3.2 33.0 z 1042 o Of the 94 FEPE students in the District, Hall High School and Dunbar Magnet School had the highest enrollment of FEPE students, with percentages of 24.5 and 10.6, respectively. Hall High and Dunbar Magnet are both Newcomer Center Schools. Chicot, a former Newcomer Center school, had the next highest enrollment of FEPE students (9.6 percent).  Four hundred forty-four (or 70 percent) of the LEP students were distributed among eleven schools, and 73 (or 78 percent) of the FEPE students were distributed among eleven schools. Table 8 School Enrollment by LEP and FEPE, 2001-2002 Schools Chicot ES Hall HS Wakefield ES Cloverdale MS Washington ES Terry ES Cloverdale ES Romine ES McDermott ES Dunbar MS Bale ES Total11 schs. Total LEP FEPE 67 61 51 44 44 43 39 34 31 15 15 444 632 10.6 10.0 8.1 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.2 5.4 4.9 2.4 2.4 70% 100% Hall HS Dunbar MS Chicot ES Cloverdale MS Williams ES McDermott ES Washington ES J.A. Fair HS Pulaski Heights ES Terry ES Parkview HS Total11 schs. Total 23 10 73 94 24.5 10.6 9.6 6.4 5.3 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 78% 100% N % N 9 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 % Schools Identified for Improvement under No Child Left Behind\" The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) identified ten LRSD schools for School Improvement in 2002-2003. The list of schools and their PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE enrollment follow in Table 9. This information is important to the ALP evaluation since two of the ten schools (Chicot Elementary and Wakefield Elementary) have substantial numbers of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students in their school population.  15 104Identification of Arkansas schools in compliance with No Child Left Behind was based on SAT9 scores for 1998-1999,1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002. Schools with fewer than 25 percent of their students performing at/above the 50' .th n r percentile were, first, designated as High Priority schools. Using 1998-1999 as the baseline year, then, the state made decisions for identification. In order to avoid being identified for School Improvement, the High Priority schools had to demonstrate growth on the Basic Battery in the percent at/above the 50*' percentile. The also had.to demonstrate improvement in moving students out of the bottom quartile. Ironically, the Arkansas Department of Education had told districts since 1999 in the accountability plan-Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP)that the SAT9 was no longer important. Rather, the only tests mentioned were the state Benchmark examinations at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-course/level examinations at high school. LRSD relied upon that document in providing guidance to its principals and teachers and had been emphasizing improved performance on the Benchmarks since 1999, not the SAT9. Identification based on the SAT9 scores surprised everyone. The impact of these decisions on PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students in the ten identified schools is as follows: X  Of the 985 PHLOTE students in LRSD in 2001-2002, 198 students (or 20 percent) were enrolled the identified schools.  Of the 632 LEP students in 2001-2002,165 (or 26 percent) were enrolled in the identified schools.  Of the 94 FEPE students in 2001-2002,16 (or 17 percent) were enrolled in the identified schools.  Eight percent of the Districts PHLOTE students, 11 percent of the LEP students, and 10 percent of the FEPE students attend Chicot Elementary.  Six percent of the Districts PHLOTE students, eight percent of the LEP students, and three percent of the FEPE students attend Wakefield Elementary. Exiting the School Improvement Desiqnation ADE has determined that the identified schools can exit the designation based upon performance on the Benchmark examinations (not the SAT9), using 2000- 2001 as the baseline year. Five of the ten schools (Bale, Chicot, Dodd, Mitchell, and Stephens) made substantial improvements in both mathematics and literacy in 2001-2002 over their 2000-2001 performances, and if they continue to improve 16 1044 o z \u0026gt; o O 71 X z r Jin 2002-2003, they will exit the School Improvement designation when 2002- 2003 Benchmark scores arrive in the state. Another three schools made substantial improvements in mathematics in 2001- 2002 in comparison to their 2000-2001 performances. Those schools were Baseline, Fair Park, and Wakefield. These schools, then, may be able to exit the designation in 2003-2004. Table 9 Schools Identified for Improvement (NCLB) 2001-2002 Schools PHLOTEs LEPs FEPEs Bale ES 16 15 N % 2 N % 2 N 1 % 1 Baseline ES 0 0 1 6 1 6 Chicot ES Dodd ES 83 14 67 12 11 10 8 1 2 9 0 0 Fair Park ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mabelvale ES 1 1 1 5 1 7 Mitchell ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 Stephens ES Wakefield ES 11 55 51 6 1 0 0 8 3 3 Southwest MS \u0026lt;1 6 1 1 2 2 Total Total District 198 985 20% 100% 165 632 26% 100% 16 94 17% 100% Methodology A team composed of staff from the Division of Instruction, from the department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and from the department of Computer Information Services was selected early in the year to work with a designated external consultant in the design, research, writing, and production of the evaluation of the Alternative Language Program for 2001-2002. Mr. Mark Vasquez, an expert on the requirements for compliance with OCR relating to LEP issues, including program evaluation, served as the team consultant and attended every team meeting. Other team members included Karen Broadnax, the ESL Supervisor, Dr. 17 I - 10Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction\nKen Savage, programmer and data retriever from Computer Information Systems\nDr. Ed Williams, statistician and research specialist\nand Dr. Eddie McCoy, lead writer for the study. This team met initially to review the 2000-2001 study, to discuss changes made or to be made in the 2001-2002 program, to establish the research questions, and to ensure the collection or availability of appropriate data upon which to base findings and conclusions. During all stages of the process, this team relied on findings from best practices in the development and effective implementation of ALPs and effective techniques for monitoring and assessing the performance of LEP students. The evaluation team met monthly to determine the status of the work, to review assignments, and to assign next steps. As the work progressed and drafts were available for review, those were discussed in detail, and all members of the team participated in checking data for accuracy and in proofreading the text. The original plan was to have the study completed for final review no later than September 1 so that final editing and proofing could be done and copies made in time for the October agenda of the Board of Education. The LRSD did not, however, receive the hard copies of the states Benchmark examinations until late September, and the states electronic database was not availabl until mid-October. The final draft was not submitted for review and editing, therefore, until late October 2002. Other participants in this evaluation include all the principals, LPAC members, testing coordinators, and other staff in schools with PHLOTE, LEP, and/or FEPE enrollment. All K-12 teachers of these students also participated, not only in providing instruction, but in assisting with the administration of assessments. This third-year study differs from the two previous ones in that data are compared, to the extent possible, over three years to measure the growth of specific students those exiting the ALP in 1999-2000, rather than just comparing the mean performance of LEP and FEPE students with that of the general population. These cohort studies are useful to staff in determining program effectiveness over time. Interpretation of Assessment Results LRSD now has sufficient numbers of PHLOTE and LEP students at any one grade level for the assessment results to be statistically valid. There are, however, small numbers of FEPEs at any one grade level, and these results, grade level by grade level, should not be generalizedexcept that the study will show that the FEPE students at almost every grade level out-perform the general population. This preponderance of evidence, therefore, may be generalized. Evaluation Design and Focus The general population for this report will consist of all students in the LRSD, including the PHLOTE (Primary Home Language Other Than English) students who took the various assessments. PHLOTE students include the following sub-o \u0026gt; 30 O O X 18 1046 populations: LEP, FEP, FEPE, NALMS, REFUSE, LEPREC, and LEPREF that are designated in the Districts database and in this report by the following acronyms.  LEP (Limited-English Proficient): Students administered the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) upon admission to the LRSD and determined not to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and/or speaking English.  NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students): PHLOTE students whose English language proficiency has not been assessed.  FEP (Fluent-English Proficient): PHLOTE students administered the LAS upon admission to the LRSD and determined to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English.  FEPE (Fluent-English Proficient and Exited from the program): PHLOTE students initially identified as LEP\nreceived LRSD ESL program services\nand then exited the program after the LAS indicated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English.  REFUSE (Parent Refused Initial Assessment): PHLOTE students whose parents refused permission to assess the student's English proficiency.  LEPREC (Limited English Proficient Reclassified): FEPE students whose performance after exiting the ESL program required that the student again be identified as LEP.  LEPREF (Limited English Proficient Refused Services): PHLOTE students who were identified through language assessment to be LEP\nhowever, the parents refused permission to place the student in the ESL program. Although the evaluation includes data for PHLOTE students as a group, the primary focus of the evaluation is the performance (academic and behavioral) of LEP and FEPE students. LEP students are the students receiving Alternative Language Program (ALP) services, and FEPE students are former LEP students who have been exited from the ALP and are no longer receiving direct services. The academic performance of FEPE students must be monitored for two years after exiting the ALP in case reclassification is necessary. Reclassification is the process by which a FEPE student re-enters the ALP because he/she was not successful in the regular school program and is, thus, reclassified as LEP.  19 104Assessments The descriptions of academic performance in the English language arts are based upon student performance on the following national, state, and local assessments:  Developmental Reading Assessment (grades K-2)\n LRSD Achievement Level Tests: Reading and Language Usage (grades 2 through 9).  Stanford Achievement Test Series - Ninth Edition (grades 5, 7, and 10), Total Reading and Total Language  Arkansas Benchmark Literacy Examinations (grades 4, 6, and 8)  Arkansas End-of-Level Literacy Examination (grade 11) The descriptions of academic performance in specific content knowledge and skills are based upon student performance on the following assessments:  Achievement Level Tests: Elementary Mathematics (grades 2-5) and Middle School Mathematics (Grades 6-8)  Stanford Achievement Test SeriesNinth Edition (grades 5, 7, and 10) Total Mathematics  Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics Examinations (grades 4, 6, and 8) z  Arkansas End-of-Course Examinations in Algebra I and Geometry ^^g^2rch Questions To address the requirements of federal, state, and local governance, the following research questions were established to guide the evaluation of the effectiveness o the Districts Alternative Language Program. I Program Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, an programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with ^iv^iaiiio iw kzMiiipij wiui ivuviui \u0026gt;    r O OCR, the Arkansas Department of Education, and local What has been the cost of implementing this program? (See Sec ion and see Program Objectives 1-4, 6-8,11-12.) 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special oz \u0026gt; 9O0 o X wz o 20 1048 education, gifted/talented programs, and 504 programs? (See Section II and see Program Objective 9.) 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL-endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? (See Section II and see Program Objective 5.) Academic Progress 4. 5. 6. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in acquiring reading and English language arts skills? How does their performance compare with that of the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section III and see Goals 1-2.) Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning content knowledge and skills? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section IV and see Goals 1-2.) R Are there LEP and FEPE students participating in the Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses at the secondary level? Are they being successful in those courses? (See Section V and see Program Objective 9.) 7. Are FEPE students successful in the mainstream curriculum? (See Section VI and see Program Objective 10.) Behavioral Indicators 8. What are the attendance rates, retention rates, discipline/suspension rates, dropout rates, and graduation rates of identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English- proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section VII and see Goal 1.)  Program Evaluation Outline This document is divided into eight sections. Each of sections ll-VII addresses specific research questions.   21 104SSection 1: Introduction The first section includes the introduction, an outline of the District's program goals and objectives, a delineation of the research questions for the study, a description of methodologies, the evaluation focus, a list of assessments used to gather academic data, and an outline of the sections in the study. It also includes demographic data for PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs, including languages spoken, enrollment by grade level, and enrollment by school. Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Section II includes evidence of the Districts implementation of numerous new policies, procedures, and programs to ensure compliance and quality, including cost data, all aligned with the twelve program objectives. Section III: English Language Acquisition Performance of LEP and FEPE Students This section includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs that develop students English language arts skills. Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students progress in attaining content area knowledge and skills. Section V: Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses This section evaluates LEP and FEPE student performance in high school Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses. Section VI: Monitoring the Progress of Fluent English Proficient Exited Students (FEPEs) This section is a cohort study of the academic achievement of students who exited the ALP in 1999-2000 with an analysis of all the available assessment data on those specific students through 2001-2002. Section VII: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students performance in relation to attendance, retention, discipline and suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Section VIII: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations X This section summarizes the key findings for each of the research questions, draws general conclusions on the academic and behavioral performance of LEP and FEPE students, and makes recommendations for program improvement in 2002-2003. 22 1050 Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Section II describes the Districts educational program for limited-English proficient students, including the policies, procedures, and programs that have been implemented to ensure compliance, equity, and effectiveness. The research questions answered in this section are as follows: 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementing this program? 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special education, gifted/talented programs, and 504 programs? 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL- endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? k k k k Policy, Procedural, and Program Changes To illustrate the changes that have been implemented during the past three years under the Commitment to Resolve, the ESL Supervisor constructed and has maintained a matrix. The matrix (see relevant components under the discussion of each program objective in this section) includes a list of program features that correspond with the established program objectives and the status of each in 1998- 99, the year of the Compliance Review site visit by the Office of Civil Rights. Subsequent columns for 1999-2001, and 2001-2002 detail the changes in policies, procedures and programs that have been necessary to ensure compliance, equity, and effectiveness in the Little Rock School Districts Alternative Language Program. Matrix components have been broken out to illustrate the progress made toward achievement of each of the twelve program objectives. The first two rows pertain to the adoption of appropriate policies and administrative regulations (procedures), as well as the publication of a procedural handbook for principals and other school-level staff (developed in 2001-2002, but not disseminated until fall 2002). All staff have been provided the policy and regulations annually. The policy, administrative regulations, the administrative directive, and the administrative handbook have all been developed since fall 1999.  23 k 10ESL Program Administrative Handbook The Districts first Administrative Handbook for the ALP was drafted in 2001-2002 and then published and disseminated in fall 2002. Its contents include the following: I. II. Introduction (with copies of Policy IHBEA, Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R, and Administrative Directive IHBEA-AD) ESL Curriculum and Instruction tel III. ESL Procedures and Practices IV. Language Proficiency Assessment Committee V. Professional Development VI. Division of Exceptional Children (with sections on Special Education, 504, and Gifted/Talented Education) VII. Appendix (Glossary of Terms, ESL Parent Coordinator, and Translators and Telephone Numbers) VIII. Forms/Letters s IX. Language Minority Student Reports (Instructions for Generating Reports\nLanguage Codes\nand LAS Scoring, Administration and Interpretation) X. Office for Civil Rights (Commitment to Resolve) Program Feature Policies and Regulations Procedural Handbook 1998-99 None None\noccasional memoranda to explain procedures. 1999-01____________________ Policy and Regulations adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors November 1999 - IHBEA and IHBEA-R. Legal Reference - Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964______________________ This is a work in progress and will be ready for the 2001-2002 school year. Currently in draft form.______________________ 2001-2002_____________ _ Continuation of implementation of policy and regulations. Minor revisions to the regulations were adopted by the Board of Education in November 2001. Administrators' Handbook was written and reviewed and rescheduled for fall 2002 publication. Program Objective 1: To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. A crucial step in meeting the needs of students from language backgrounds other than English is the identification of students who need language-assistance services. This process presumes an operational definition of English-language proficiency. o z\u0026gt; 3o0 o Xn 24 zn M 1052 Prior to the 1978 Education Amendments, the term Limited English Speaking Ability (LESA) vi/as used to define the population served through Title VI funding. This term was broadened in the 1978 Amendments to include not only those students who were limited in their speaking ability but also those who had sufficient difficulty in reading, writing, or understanding the English language\nhence the term limited-English proficient (Anstrom (1996), citing Stewner-Manzanaries (1988). Limited-English proficient students in the Little Rock School District are identified according to a specific process that is established in the Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R: English as a Second Language. The first step is the administration of the Home Language Survey form to every student enrolled in the school, regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. If the student and/or his/her parent/guardian indicate in answers to one or more questions that there is a need for language proficiency assessment, then the student is referred. Other indicators, according to the regulations, that may lead to the administration of the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) include interviews with student/family/guardian, review of previous school records, lack of previous school records, and counselor/teacher concern regarding English language cognitive processes.\" k Program Feature LEP Identification Procedures 1998-99 1999-01 2001-2002 Students identified through Home Language Survey (HLS) and verified through testing\nno LPAC review or placements Students identified through the HLS administered upon initial registration at the school site or Student Registration Office. Level of English proficiency verified through the administration of the LAS by qualified ESL tester. District or school-based LPAC review and recommendations for ESL program services and/or school placement. Continuation of LEP identification procedures from 1999-2001. Also, continuation of the bi-annual training of school office staff in the registration procedures for language minority students (or PHLOTEs). IHBEA-ADwas developed to guide scheduling of LEP students. k Program Objective 2: To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. LRSD primarily utilizes the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) for placement of students into, exit from, and re-entry to the Alternative Language Program (ALP). Specific cut-off scores for placement of students in the ALP program have been established and provide procedures for the Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPACs). Students are classified as Level I (monolingual in home language). Level II (some level of English-language proficiency), or Level III (advanced level of English-language proficiency, but not yet at exit level):  Level I: N (Pre-LAS) LAS 1 (oral proficiency only) LEPa (oral and reading/writing) k 25 R - 105i\nLevel II Level III L (Pre-LAS) LEPb, c (oral and reading/writing) o LEPd, e (oral and reading/writing) Based on the results of the assessment, a program placement recommendation is made by the LPAC for each student to meet language needs and to provide him/her equal access to the curriculum. Assessment Timelines Students enrolled at or near the beginning of the school year must be tested no later than September 20 of each school year. Students enrolled after that date are tested upon referral. Within 20 school days of their initial enrollment in the district, students are identified, assessed, and classified for ESL programs according to the criteria and procedures established by state and local rules. According to the document. Alternative Language Programs for English Language Learners, Little Rock School District, LEP students are initially identified for assessment through the Home Language Survey (HLS), administered upon initial registration at the school site or Student Registration Office, and the level of English proficiency is verified through the administration of the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) by a qualified ESL tester. Program Objective 3: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. z Orqanization and Role of LPACs The District has established Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPACs), according to need. Almost every school has established its own LPAC. Membership on each LPAC includes, as a minimum, the following: one or more appropriate ESL teachers, including one special education teacher as  a counselor, and  a campus administrator. The District LPAC or a school-based LPAC reviews and makes decisions for ALP services and/or program placement (Broadnax, 2000). This procedure was established during the 1999-2000 school year. The most recent revision of the regulations requires Newcomer Centers and other schools to establish their own LPAC if they have five or more identified LEP students. According to LRSD Administrative Regulation IHBEA-R (1999 and amended in 2001), 26 o z 5 o o pl X pl Pl z o pl 1054.. .all members of LPACs must receive at least one-half day of training in LPAC duties\nOCR, state, and LRSD laws, policies, and regulations governing LEP programs and services\ninterpretation of language proficiency assessments\nlaws and rules governing confidentiality of student records\nand identification, placement, and exit procedures for the Districts ESL program. As of February 2000, all counselors in the District were trained, along with identified building administrators and ESL teachers to serve as LPAC members. Two training sessions were held during the 2000-2001 school year. Training was provided for new LPAC members at identified school sites during the 2001-2002 school year (Broadnax, 2001). LPAC training is provided bi-annually. Student Assignment During the 2000-2001 school year, elementary LEP students were assigned to attendance zone schools except where they had been previously assigned to Newcomer Center elementary schools. Newcomer Center LEP students were grandfathered into those schools as long as they remained in the ESL program. This decision to phase out the elementary Newcomer Centers was data-based. First, the Districts enrollment data indicated that LEP students were enrolled in almost every elementary school in the District in 1999-2000, and some neighborhood schools had more LEP students than some of the Newcomer Centers. These data, plus anecdotal data, indicated that parents of LEP students much preferred their children to attend neighborhood schools than to be bused some distance to a Newcomer Center. Second, data from the Districts 1999-2000 ALP evaluation revealed that, in general, elementary LEP students in the neighborhood schools performed as well as or better than those clustered in the Newcomer Centers. Chicot Elementary School, a former Newcomer Center, still has large numbers of LEP students, but most live in that attendance zone. f I Middle and high school LEP students were still encouraged in 2001-2002 to attend Newcomer Center Schools - Cloverdale Middle, Dunbar Middle, and Hall High School. This policy is still in place\nhowever. District staff members are closely examining the demographic trends of where students' parents choose to live\nthe enrollment of LEP students in neighborhood middle and high schools, and the achievement and behavior data for LEP students. All possible information will be used to determine whether the middle and high school Newcomer Centers should also be phased out. Tables 1-8 in Section 1 provide demographic data for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students by language community, grade level, and school. R R 27 1 1051 a u - Program Feature Entry criteria and guidelines Organization and Role of LPACs Student Assignment Scheduling of students 1998-99 1999-01 2001-2002 None fonnally documented or articulated None LMS students strongly encouraged or required to enroll in Newcomer Centers Randomly assigned in all schools, except for LEPs assigned to designated ESL courses at Hall High Entry into ESL Programs Students who are identified as LEP, through the standardized assessment (LAS) are recommended for ESL program services either in the attendance zone elementary schools, which include the Newcomer Center Schools or recommended to attend the NC middle or high school, as is age/grade appropriate.___________ Training began in February 2000, all counselors in district trained along with identified building administrators and ESL teachers. Two training sessions held during the 2000-2001 school year, three held during the previous year. Elementary LEP students are assigned to attendance zone schools except where they were previously assigned outside of their attendance zones to Newcomer Center elementary schools. Those students are grand fathered into those schools as long as they remain in the ESL program. Middle and High School aged LEP students are recommended to attend Newcomer Center Schools - Cloverdale Middle, Dunbar Middle, and Hall High School. LEP students clustered at grade level or in courses/classrooms with endorsed or trained teachers in all schools Continuation of implementation of the Entry criteria and guidelines established during 1999-2001. Monitoring of these processes to ensure compliance with CTR requirements. Continuation of organization and role of LPAC and monitoring committees to ensure compliance with CTR specifications. Schools with at least five LEP students must have a site-based LPAC. New training is provided for new LPAC members at identified school sites bi-annually. Effective fall 2002, elementary LEP students were no longer referred to Newcomer Centers. Out-of-zone LEP students currently attending Newcomer Centers are allowed to remain in those schools until they complete grade 5 or until they exit the ESL program. Middle and high school LEP students are recommended to attend Newcomer Center schoolsCloverdale Middle, Dunbar Middle, and Hall High School. __________ Continuation of the scheduling of LEP students based on an identified need for ESL program services. Scheduling of students aligned with ESL endorsed or trained teachers. During March 2002 the administrative directive on the scheduling of LEP students was distributed to all principals, counselors, and registrars (IHBEA-AD)._________________________ 28 1056 z Program Feature Class-Sizes 1998-99 1999-01 The Class-Size Reduction Grant allowed use of this money to provide additional teachers to 5 elementary NC schools (previously indicated). Funding became available for one teacher at an elementary site with a sizeable LEP population - Wakefield Elementary. The additional teachers have been used between grades K-3 and have allowed those schools to configure their ESL classes in smaller groups, some split-grade groupings, or with a team-teaching model.___________ 2001-2002 Continuation of the implementation of instructional support using the Class-Size Reduction grant. Program Objective 4: To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable Instruction in other content areas, and for positive selfconcept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. To be credible, the Districts educational approach for the education of limited- English proficient students must be recognized as sound by experts in the field or recognized professionally as a legitimate educational strategy to ensure that LEP students acquire English-language proficiency and are provided meaningful access to the regular educational program. This approach must address each aspect of the Districts program for LEPs, at all grade levels, and at all schools in the district.  Definition of the LRSD ALP Although District staff commonly refer to the District s ALP as ESL, its delivery is not the same as a traditional ESL program. Rather, the LRSD ALP is characterized by the following:  LEPs scheduled with ESL-endorsed/trained teachers in core subject areas:  LEPs clustered in heterogeneous classes with a majority of English speakers (with some exceptions at Hall High School where there are sufficient numbers of LEP students to have separate classes in some subject areas)\n Instruction delivered through English immersionwith scaffolding, or differentiated strategies and appropriate materials informed by ESL and Total Physical Response training.  Full access to the Districts standards-based curriculum and assessments.  R 29 R 105:M Curriculuni ^XtSKds and grade-lev decision to estab^h^^-^^^ English-language learners *,udents. It is LRSD's same for all students. Ma)orinitiati learning) benchmarks curriculum for all other students and local expectations separate curriculum for for student learning shouU be the I i r BS~-rnem^ successful\nI I 1 The District has standards-based\n.3 consciously selected ^PP'^^Pgsrooms, including for the diversity of learners in a ------ SSSSSSS  504 students, and the new 2001. Standards Km for social languages development for the fine arts an is in progress. 2 The District has established-instmchonalsfo^^^^^^^^ 2 during 2001-2002 that 'also guide the profes.^onal Waisal System during, summer 2002 th j a de development program and s jhe models that were .2002 and the adoption of a new^^^^ Professional T eacher sssKasgsssasKS  Learning goes from whole to part. z  Lessons should be learner-centered of knowledge. because learning is the active construction  Lessons should have meaning and purpose for students now.  Learning occurs in in social interaction. . Reading, writing, speaking , and listening all develop together. o 2 90 O o n X 30 P5 2 PI 1058 Lessons should support students first languages and cultures.  Faith in the learner expands learning potential, (pp. 25-26) 3. The TESOL instructional standards have been adopted as the framework for teachers of English-language learners to use in designing not only their daily instructional plans, but also in designing small group work and other interventions that may be necessary for individual LEP students to learn English. Copies of these standards were purchased in 1999-2000 for all schools and for most individual teachers. Subsequently, the Arkansas Department of Education developed for fall 2002 publication a set of learning standards, the English Language Acquisition Framework, which the LRSD will also adopt. Assessments All LEP students took the Districts Achievement Level Tests in grades 2-9 in reading, language usage, mathematics, and science in school years 1999- 2000 through 2001-2002. (The Board of Education has eliminated those assessments, effective fall 2002, in anticipation of the new/ criteriori- referenced tests in grades 3-8 and high school that are mandated in No Child Left Behind.) Grades K-2 students all took the Developmental Reading Assessment and the sub-tests that compose the Observation Surveys. LEP students took the grade 9 Civics assessment, given for the first time in spring 2002. LEP students who have been in the United States for at least three years also take the Arkansas Benchmark Examination, including the End-of- Course Examinations (Literacy, Mathematics, Algebra, GeometryL Some LEP students are exempt from the Stanford Achievement Test (9 edition) and the State Benchmark tests, but those exempt from the Benchmarks must instead complete a portfolio assessment. These data enable District staff and parents to measure student growth not only in English-language learning, but also in the content areas. ESL InstructionElementary Schools The theoretical base for the Little Rock School Districts English-as-a Second Language (ESL) instructional strategies is the same as that for the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) and Effective Literacy instructional strategies (LRSD Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R, 1999 and revised in 2001). All teachers assigned to serve LEP students in core subject areas must be ESL-endorsed, be working on that endorsement, or have received at least 30 hours of ESL training. Elementary students may be served in classrooms in one of the following models:  R 31 105 Clustered in heterogeneous classrooms with provisions to group LEP students within class for special instruction. n  Multi-aged classrooms that are composed only of LEP students or that are heterogeneous. Care must be taken not to isolate LEP students from their English-speaking peers.  Assigned to a classroom composed solely of LEP students, but with provisions during the school day for integration with English-speaking students.  Clustered in a heterogeneous classroom in a co-teacher model (two teachers in the same classroom sharing the instructional duties.  A combination of any of the above. The instructional expectations are as follows:  The instructional strategies and the amount of time devoted to ESL instruction for Level I students must be differentiated from the strategies and time commitments that are appropriate for Levels Il-Ill students, even though all three levels may be in the same classroom.  Elementary level 1 students must be scheduled for at least two and one-half hours daily of English-language instruction. Level II and III students must have at least two hours daily of English-language instruction.  Prek-5 teachers are expected to modify instruction, pacing, materials, assessments, and grouping, as appropriate, for the proficiency levels of limited-English proficient students assigned to their classrooms.  Grading of student progress in English language arts will be based on students progress toward meeting the ESL standard for the grade level.  Grading in other subject areas allow LEP students to demonstrate their skill and knowledge in their primary language or in oral English rather than in writing, if appropriate. z ESL Instruction-Middle Schools The theoretical base that guides the ESL English instructional strategies in the Little Rock School District is the same as that behind the Reading/Writing Workshop provided for students in grades 6-8. The theoretical base for the instructional strategies in the grades 6-8 mathematics, science, and social studies programs are likewise compatible with the strategies that are effective Oz SO8 o Xn 32 1060 z n with ESL students as they learn the content areas. ESL students must be scheduled with ESL and content-area teachers who are ESL-endorsed, who are working on their endorsements, or have participated in at least 30 hours of training.  Teachers of middle school limited-English proficient students are expected to modify instruction, pacing, materials, assessment, and grading practices to reflect the developmental needs of the middle school LEP students.  When appropriate, teachers allow students to demonstrate the content knowledge and skill in their primary language or in oral, rather than written English. Pages 66-68 of the 2001-2002 Middle School Curriculum Catalog provide a list of approved ESL middle school courses and guidance in scheduling LEP students at each grade level. Middle School Newcomer Centers The following middle schools serve as Newcomer Centers\nCloverdale Middle and Dunbar Middle Schools.  The middle school Newcomer Centers provide core courses (Reading/Writing Workshop, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) for LEP students at all three grade levels. k ESL Instruction-High Schools The theoretical base that guides the ESL English instructional strategies in the Little Rock School district is the same as that behind the English I Workshop, provided for students in grade 9 for two periods and for English ll-IV. Likewise, teachers of mathematics, science, and social studies teach standards-based curricula, using similar strategies to teach for meaning and understanding in highly engaged classrooms. High school teachers of limited-English proficient students are expected to modify instruction, pacing, materials, assessment, and grading practices to reflect the developmental needs of the LEP high school students. High schools must schedule LEP students with ESL content-area teachers who are ESL endorsed, who are working on their endorsements, or who have participated in at least 30 hours of training.  Teachers of ESL English courses are to grade student progress according to the ESL Standards for the course.   33 106\n1  Teachers of other subject areas shall allow LEP students to demonstrate their knowledge and skill in their primary language or in oral, rather than written English. n Pages 93-97 of the 2001-2002 High School Curriculum Catalog provide a list of all approved ESL courses, along with guidance in scheduling students at each level. High School Newcomer Center (Hall High School)  ESL-adapted courses are provided in all the following core subject areas: English language arts, communications, mathematics, science, and social studies.  Level I students must be scheduled into ESL English I Workshop daily. Level II and III students must be scheduled into ESL English daily.  LEP students are scheduled with ESL and content-area teachers who are ESL-endorsed, who are working on their endorsements, or who have participated in at least 30 hours of training. No Child Left Behind Reguirements LRSD staff members have followed the development, passage, and roll-out of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, referred to as No Child Left Behind by the Bush administration. During 2001-2002 the staff examined the portions of the law that involve requirements for LEP students and concluded that the work done to fully implement the letter and spirit of the Commitment to Resolve had enabled the District to be ahead of the game, so to speak, regarding LEP student performance. z I Program Feature Curriculum Instruction 1998-99__________ Same as regular students: no adaptations_______ Students in Newcomer Centers received 30 minutes one-on-one tutoring each week 1999-01___________________ Same as regular students with adaptations and modifications 2001-2002 ____________ Same as regular students with adaptations and modifications Students at Newcomer Centers and Non-Newcomer Center Schools (elementary) benefit from in-class instruction from teachers who are either ESL endorsed or in the process of completing the endorsement requirement or teachers who are participating in the ESL training program_______ Review of the instructional model previously used with LEP students to assess the effectiveness of such approaches for success or failure. o z 38 o o x 34 n z tn 1062Program Feature Assessments 1998-99_________ LEP students generally exempted 1999-01______________________ LEP students included in the criterion referenced district-level assessments (ALTs) as much as possible, exempt from standardized assessments if deemed appropriate by LPAC (up to two years after initial enrollment), implementation of the Alternate Portfolio Assessments in place of the State Benchmarks assessments for LEP students' grades 4,6, and 8. End of level State assessments for grades 10 and 11 to be added during the 2001-2002 school year_________ 2001-2002 Continuation of inclusion of LEP students in district CRT's: alternative portfolio assessments extended to include LEP students in grades 4,6, 8, and 11. 1 Program Objective 5: To hire, train, and continually develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-to-one with the identified students and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community.  Teachers learn through their endorsement courses and through the training provided by the Little Rock School District how to adapt, not the curriculum, for LEP students, but the instructional strategies, materials, pacing, and assessments. This area is perhaps the one in which the District has made its most dramatic improvements since fall 1999. LRSD has moved from having only a part-time Director for the Alternative Language Program at the central office level in 1998-99 to the employment of a full-time ESL Supervisor, a half-time secretary, a full-time program evaluator, a full-time ESL parent coordinator, and a half-time secretary for her. At the school level, the District had only seven ESL-endorsed teachers in 1998-99. When school started in fall 2002, there were 172 teachers fully endorsed, with another 18 near completion. Both the District and the Arkansas Department of Education have fully supported the tuition-reimbursement program that was necessary to make this kind of progress. Administrators are much more knowledgeable now as well, and, consequently, much more supportive of the Alternative Language Program. Program Feature District-Level staffing 1998-99_________ 1/10 of Curriculum Director 1/10 of department secretary 1999-2001 ESL Supervisor % secretary ESL Parent Coordinator reports to VIPs director, /a secretary for parent involvement ESL Program Evaluator 2001-2002___________________ Continuation of same level of staffing. II 35 106I Program Feature I School-Level Staffing 1998-99 7 uncertified, unendorsed part-time tutors assigned to elementary and middle school Newcomer Centers 1999-2001 Elementary staffing - The five (5) Newcomer Center Schools and another AZ school (recently added) have received instructional support in the area of class size reduction as follows: Brady Elementary 1 additional teacher Chicot Elementary 3 additional teachers Romine Interdistrict 2 additional teachers Terry Elementary 2 additional teachers Washington Magnet 2 additional teachers Wakefield 1 additional teacher (new position) 2001-2002___________________ Elementary staffing -Continuation of the use of instructional support (i.e. class size reduction) at the Elementary Newcomer Center Schools, with the exception of Brady, and the addition of two other elementary sites as participants in this grant - Cloverdale Elementary, King Elementary, and Wakefield Elementary. Brady Elementary was dropped due to low LEP enrollment. r Middle School staffing - Continuation of the assignment of ESL endorsed teachers to teach LEP students in ESL adapted courses or mainstreamed inclusion model ESL adapted courses. k Middle School Staffing - At Dunbar Middle School the LEP students were taught by ESL endorsed teachers or teachers in the process of completing the ESL endorsement in mainstreamed classes. At Cloverdale Middle Level Academy, LEP students were clustered in discrete ESL classes and taught by ESL endorsed teachers or teachers working on their ESL endorsement. High School Staffing - At Hall High School the Newcomer Center Program is staffed with a half-time ESL-endorsed teacher/Coordinator, who is responsible to oversee the sight-based operation of the ESL program. ESL endorsed teachers teach LEP students in ESL classes. High School staffing - Continuation of the position of ESL Coordinator/ teacher at Hall High School as well as ESL endorsed teachers to teach the ESL courses required by LEP students. z 36 1064 Id Program Feature Number of Endorsed Teachers Teacher Professional Development Administrator Professional Development 1998-99 There were 5 teachers who were either ESL- endorsed at the start of the 1998-99 school year or had competed the ESL endorsement during that school year (4 at Hall High School and 1 at Terry Elementary). Vi-time UALR instructor provided on-site coaching and professional development Infrequent meetings of Newcomer principals only I 1999-2001 Currently there are 50 ESL endorsed teachers and another 10 expected to complete the course requirement May 2001(9 teachers and 1 administrator). Specific details provided on ESL Teacher Endorsement Table. Summer 2001 projections for the ESL Graduate Academy include up to 50 participants to complete the ESL endorsement requirement. Another 8 candidates may continue to complete their ESL endorsement course requirements through UALR. Implementation of a Professional Development Program developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics. This program was launched during summer 2000 with continuing sessions into the fall of 2000 and spring 2001. Elementary, middle, and high school teachers were provided with an initial 2 to 2'/2 day comprehensive training sessions which addressed the following areas: Culture, Second Language Acquisition, Assessment, and ESL Instructional Methodology. The final sessions will be delivered during the spring and early summer 2001._____________ Professional development sessions delivered through Leadership Team Meetings during the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years. Topics included- Compliance with the terms of the CTR\nEvaluation of teachers of LEP students. ESL instructional methodologies and strategies. 2001-2002 Approximately 172 teachers completed the ESL endorsement course requirements. Another 18 completed at least one course and are in the process of completing the others. Another ESL Graduate Academy is planned for summer 2003. Review the assignment of ESL endorsed teachers to LEP students or ESL courses to determine areas of future need. Reduction of the numbers of teachers who are approved to receive tuition support for completing the ESL endorsement courses. Monitoring the number of ESL endorsed teachers who actually remain in-district will also help to define the need. Continuation of the professional development program for elementary, middle, and high school teachers. Implementation of targeted assistance workshops for middle and high school teachers of LEP students on 'Sheltered Instruction' and TPR (Total Physical Response). These workshops will begin in 2002-03. Extension of ESL training to include all specialty area teachers, specialists, special education etc... 1 Continuation of professional development for administrators. As new administrators are hired, they will be scheduled to receive training in all applicable areas for compliance with the CTR. 37 II to  R 106!V Program Objective 6: To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. The District has invested considerable sums of money in the past three years to equip teachers with appropriate standards-based materials to use in instruction with diverse studentsscience kits, mathematics manipulatives, classroom sets of trade books at all reading levels and with cultural sensitivity, and dictionaries, in addition to especially designed materials for LEP students who are learning not only content and skills, but the English language and American culture. Or Program Feature Teaching Materials 1998-99_________ Totally teacher selected: available only in Newcomer Centers 1999-01 Much of the teaching materials used in our programs have been selected wflth teacher input as well as guidance from the ESL Supervisor. This year the district adopted a new reading series for Grade K-5 and this was a collaborative process with the Early Childhood/Literacy Department and the ESL Department. The program selected had specific modifications, materials and references provided for LEP students and their teachers. Our Science and Mathematics materials are likewise inclusive of strategies and modifications for our LEP students. Currently the Social Studies curriculum is under revision.____________ 2001-2002____________________ Provision of supplementary funds to all elementary schools to provide for minimum expenditures on supplementary materials based on a per student allotment. Review materials currently used in all levels of programs to ensure appropriateness and effectiveness in a students language development i z Program Objective 7: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. In 1998-99 the District had no evidence that students had been formally exited from the Alternative Language Program. At the end of 2001-2002 the District had documentation of at least 94 exited students as a result of improved instruction, monitoring, assessment, and procedures. Tables 1-8 in Section 1 provide demographic data for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students by language community, grade level, and school. 38 1066 oz o o PJ X 2 k Program Feature Exit criteria and guidelines 1998-99 None formally documented or articulated 1999-01 Exit from ESL Programs LEP students currently receiving ESL Program services are reviewed annually to determine current English proficiency status, progress in attaining the goals of the program, and the need to either remain in the program or exit the ESL Program. Students who demonstrate fluency in the four areas of reading, writing, speaking, and listening comprehension, who have been acculturated to US schools, are 'exited' from the program. These recommendations are made by the LPAC at each school site. Parents are usually notified of these changes in the services provided to their students. 2001*2002 1 Continuation of implementation of the Entry/Exit criteria and guidelines established during 1999-2001. Monitoring of these processes to ensure compliance with CTR requirements. II k Program Objective 8: To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. Major culture changes in the District have occurred relating to this area. In 1998-99 almost no one ever thought about the need for translated documents in communicating with parents or the need to provide oral translators for any level of parent meetings. This sensitivity is now evident in all departments of the District. For instance, the letter to send to parents relating to No Child Left Behind requirements for public school choice was immediately translated into Spanish once it was initially drafted. The addition of the ESL parent coordinator, who is a Spanish speaker, has also made a major difference in the Districts ability to work with Hispanic, as well as other LEP students parents. Her outreach efforts resulted in many LEP students parents participating in the Districts study circles for high school reform, in the Parent Institutes (Saturday workshops for parents twice each year), and in other activities. Page 39 of the ESL Administrator Handbook provides information about the ESL Parent Coordinator, and pages 40-41 include a list of available translators. Program Feature Parent Communication 1998-99 1999-01 Full-time ESL Parent Coordinator joined the Parent Team. This position is funded through Title I and local funds (approximately $35.000.00). 2001-2002 Continuation and review of duties of the full-time position of ESL Parent Coordinator. k R 39 106 RIn i. Program Feature Translated Documents 1998-99 Home Language Survey form 1999-01  Home Language Survey form Refrigerator Curriculum Course Selection Sheets SAIP LPAC documents for distribution to parents Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbooks will be available in Spanish for the 2001-2002 school year_______ 2001-2002 Increase in the awareness level of\navailable translated documents (ESL Handbook - Appendix). Increase the number of documents translated into Spanish. Allocation of resources to include translation of documents info one other minority language, if feasible. f I i Program Objective 9: To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/talented education and all procedural safeguards. This section examines equal access for PHLOTE students to the full range of district programs including special education, 504 services, and gifted/talented programs. Special Education According to LRSD Policy IHBA, the Board of Education believes in and is committed to the provision of educational programs through individualized instruction and related services for children who have special needs. s The District has established a process through the ESL Supervisor and the Director of the Department of Exceptional Children for monitoring and documentation of the services provided to LEP students who also require special education services. LEP students can receive services in both special education as well as the Alternative Language Program. This area was reviewed and reported to OCR twice annually. Special Education teachers are included in ESL training, as well as in the ESL endorsement process. This procedure was established during the 1999-2000 school year and continues. Special Education resource room teachers are receiving in fall 2002 updated and in-depth professional development in implementing the Districts standards-based curriculum. Section 9 of Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R establishes specific procedures for students who may require both LEP and Special Education services. (See pages 13-14 of the ESL Administrators Handbook.) Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels According to data from the LRSD Department of Exceptional Children, of the 48 Special Education PHLOTE students in the District, 42 (or 87.5 percent) were LEP 40 zo S\u0026gt;8 e o \u0026gt;n\u0026lt; w zn rw 1068 students, two (or 4.2 percent) were FEPE students, two (or 4.2 percent) were NALMS students, and three (or 6.3 percent) were FEP students. There were no REFUSE students identified as needing special education services. H Table 4 displays the LEP and FEPE students receiving special education services by grade level. According to the data, 42 (or 6.6 percent) of the LEP students and two (or 2.1 percent) of the FEPE students in the District received special education services during the 2001-2002 school year. The increase in the special education population from the 2000-2001 school year to the 2001-2002 school year raised a red flag among evaluation team members. Further investigation confirmed the accuracy of 2001-2002 numbers, but the count for 2000-2001 is below what it should have been due to a computer malfunction, and data could not be recovered. L I k Table 1 Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year Grade LEP Students FEPE Students LEP Students FEPE Students Enroll N 3-Yr. PreK W \"sT 1' 2 s 7 inB\" 79\" TF 0 y 78 y 49 45 0 Z y y 7 T 3 7 % NA yr yr Z6 ys Ts yr y2 Enroll 0 o o'  s' \"2 N 0 q q % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Enroll 1 86 53 N 0 o' I I 4 4 5 T % na NA yr TT yz Enroll 0 o\" y y T y 14 14 N 0 o q q q T \"o % NA NA NA NA y y TJ y  41 R 102000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year Grade 7^ To 11th 1^ Totals LEP Students Enroll 29 21 37 39 25 14 17 620 N 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 23 FEPE Students LEP Students FEPE Students % 6.9 NA 8.1 2.6 0 0 0 4% Enroll 5 3 5 2 5 3 2 47 N 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 % 0 33.3 0 0 0 0 0 2% Enroll 33 24 20 36 23 11 12 632 N 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 42 % 5.9 8.3 10.0 5.6 13.0 9.1 8.3 7% Enroll 5 9 10 11 11 7 3 94 N % 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 504 LEP and FEPE Students Table 5 shows the number (N) of LEP and FEPE students receiving 504 services, as compared to the total population (Enroll) of LEP and FEPE students enrolled in LRSD during 2001-2002. There were five (less than one percent) PHLOTE students identified as receiving 504 services in 2001-2002. According to Table 5, four of the students receiving 504 services were LEPs, and one student was FEPE. Table 2 LEP and FEPE Students Receiving 504 Services 2001-2002_________________ Grade Kdg. S'\" 8' 157 9^ 10th LEP LEP Students FEPE Students 0 0 0 9.1 0 0 0 2% Enroll 98 59 20 36 23 632 N 1 1 1 0 1 4 % 0.2 0.2 0.2 NA 0.2 \u0026gt;1% Enroll 0 0 0 11 0 94 N 0 0 0 1 0 1 % 0 0 0 9.1 0 1.1 42 1070 I X o2 S\u0026gt;8 e o m X m2 r* 1 Bl Program Feature SPED/LEP Procedures 1998-99 Undocumented participation in terms of students receiving both types of services. 1999-01 Monitoring and documentation of the services provided to LEP students. Students can receive both services in Special Education as well as the Alternative Language Services Program. This area is reviewed and reported on to OCR twice annually. Special Education teachers are included in our ESL Training as well as the ESL endorsement process. 2001-2002 Continuation of monitonng SPED/LEP procedures implemented 1999-2001 fe Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Students According to LRSD Policy IHBB, Gifted students are those who have outstanding abilities and who are capable of high performance, as identified by professionals using appropriate, multidimensional identification instruments and procedures. In order to make their contribution to self and society and develop their talent, ability, and potential, these students require differentiated programs and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program. The term B B \"gifted includes the following characteristics: high intellectual ability, task commitment and/or motivation, and creative ability. Second graders are assessed during the spring of the school year\nhowever, the gifted and talented program does not start until third grade. Identification procedures are outlined in District policy\nmore specific guidelines are found in the gifted/talented administrative handbook. The District monitors and tracks the participation rates among LEP students according to procedures created and implemented during the 1999-2000 school year. The GT Coordinator and GT Supervisor conduct documentation of evidence of LEPGT students and services provided to them. Training was provided to all GT Facilitators and GT Specialists on the characteristics of LEPGT students during the 1999-2000 school year. Three professional development sessions were held during the 2000-2001 school year on the LEPGT student and how to provide equitable access and services in the special opportunity programs.  Currently, there are five GT Specialists who have obtained the ESL endorsement. Other specialists have participated in ESL training either offered through the District's professional development program or through their cluster meetings. As new G/T specialists are assigned, they will also receive specialized training in this area. II  43 107I IM The District will continue the monitoring and tracking of LEPGT students and the access/availability of special opportunity programs for LEP students (Broadnax, 2001). Plans fortraining initiatives were developed and conducted for the 2001- 2002 school year. Section 9 of Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R establishes specific procedures for identification of students who are both LEP and gifted/talented. (See page 14 of the ESL Administrators Handbook.) I o  % % ! Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels According to available data, of the 161 PHLOTE students receiving gifted and talented services in the District in 2001-2002, 23 (or 14 percent) were LEP students, 24 (or approximately 15 percent) were FEPE students, 106 (or 66 percent) were FEP students, and seven (or approximately 4 percent) were REFUSE students. There were no Not Assessed Language Minority Students (NALMS) identified as receiving gifted and talented services. The LEP students participating in the gifted/talented program in 2001-2002 increased by 11, almost doubling those served in 2000-2001. FEPE participation also improvedby 10. Almost all the improvement was at the elementary level, perhaps as a result of the professional development provided to elementary GT specialists, but also probably a result of the secondary curriculum being more complex for LEP and FEPE students to master. Important to understanding these data is that secondary students are not identified for the gifted/talented program unless there is evidence that the courses they are currently taking are not meeting their needs. Both gifted/talented and other advanced students (who may also be gifted/talented, although not formally identified) are served academically in the Pre-AP and AP courses in the middle and high schools. Table 6 displays, by grade level, the data for LEP and FEPE students. Enroll designates the total number of LEP or FEPE students enrolled in LRSD for that school year. The number of LEP or FEPE students receiving gifted/talented services is given in the N column for each year. The percent (%) column is calculated by dividing N by Enroll. X 44 1 zo \u0026gt; o o g 5 5 1072 Grades 3-Yr. PreK K 2nd 3^ 7^ 8\"^ 11th 1^ Total 3-12 Totals Table 3 Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Comparison 2001 and 2002 2000-2001 School Year LEP Students FEPE Students 2001-2002 School Year LEP Students FEPE Students Enroll 0 44 94 7Q 62 66 49 45 29 21 37 39 25 14 17 342 620 N 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4% 2% Enroll 0 0 0 0 4 8 8 2 5 3 5 5 2 3 2 43 47 N 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 14 14 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 88 63 0 0 0 3 50 0 0 0 33% 30% Enroll 1 38 98 92 86 59 53 46 33 24 20 36 23 11 12 318 632 N 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 23 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.6 13.2 15.2 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 7% 4% Enroll 0 0 0 0 2 8 14 14 5 9 10 11 11 7 3 92 94 N 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 8 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 24 24 Section V\nPerformance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses analyzes the performance of high school LEP and FEPE students in Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses. These courses serve the needs of high school students identified as gifted/talented. 45 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 63.5 50.0 57.1 20.0 0 9.1 9.1 0 0 22% 26% 10   ! 107 Ie Program Feature Access to GT, Pre-AP, AP, and other special opportunities 1998-99 Undocumented participation 1999-01_________________________ Training was conducted on the characteristics of the LEPGT student during the 1999-2000 school year. Three PD sessions were also held this year on the LEPGT students and how to provide equitable access and services in the special opportunity programs. There were 2 GT Specialists who had obtained the ESL endorsement. One of them was actively involved in ESL training and support for GT specialists/teachers across the district.________________ I 2001-2002 Continuation of monitonng and tracking of LEPGT students and the access/availability of special opportunity programs to LEP students. Continuation of training initiatives as described previously. Program Objective 10: To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. I O r The District has assigned to the Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPACs) the responsibility of monitoring at least quarterly the performance of all enrolled LEP students and to track as well the progress of all exited (FEPE) students. When the LPAC determines that an LEP student should be exited from the program or when an FEPE student should be reclassified as LEP, appropriate notice is given to the ESL Supervisor, who changes the student tag in the data base. z This section evaluates the procedures and criteria for determining when students no longer need Alternative Language Program services as well as the methods that the District uses to monitor the success of students after AL program services have been discontinued and the students have exited the program. The determination of English-la\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_545","title":"Program evaluations, Volume IV","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":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume IV"],"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/545"],"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\nVOLUME IV RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGiWTBNnrn vf.ar  \u0026gt;\u0026lt; , /i'tOtM inni.E sriKKJi. transition LYCCUM SCHOi^ARS PROGRAM 1 4 I. I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO\nBoard of Education B 2 9 fl \u0026lt; S \u0026gt; \u0026gt; z FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools I PREPARED BY: 'fjfeonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction ! DATE\nFebruary 27, 2003 i SUBJECT: Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation ( Background Information on the Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation One in the group of programs required by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Lyceum Scholars program. Steps Taken as a Result of the Program Evaluation The Lyceum Scholars program was discontinued at the end of the 2000-2001 school year. The decision to abandon the program was made based on the programs high cost and the necessity of cutting budgets. Students who would have been served in the program in 2001-2002 and subsequently were either assigned to their home schools, to the Alternative Learning Center, or to the Accelerated Learning Center at Metropolitan.. Designation of External Consultant and His Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Lyceum Scholars program evaluation to the firm. Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., Dr. Larry McNeal, president, A copy of his resume is attached, establishing his qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation In addition to Dr. McNeal and his associates, the following LRSD administrators participated in the evaluation: Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Everett Hawks, Department of Pupil Services Dr. Walter Marshaleck, Lyceum Scholars Program Director Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent (alternative programs) fl 12 1 n  5 2 CA cs SM IZs 1606 8il *H1'1 fl 2 f'-\nBoard Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two fl \u0026gt; s Teacher Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation Lyceum Scholars teachers who participated in the surveys Lyceum Scholars teachers who administered in-class and District assessments Impact on African-American Student Achievement Approximately one-half of the students participating in this small program (8 to students total) were African American. Because the numbers were so small, neither performance data nor survey data were disaggregated by race. Neither the staff study nor that of the external evaluator could determine whether this program had any positive benefit on the academic performance of African American students. \u0026gt; c 2 5 -i 7\u0026gt;! 5 2 H   Recommendation _ That the Board of Education approve the Lyceum Scholars program evaluation tor submission to the federal court. BAL/adg w n2 n z2  CZ)C  2 J 2M C/) n X  1607 s DR. LARRY MCNEAL ! z 9 fl 3 fl \u0026gt; fl \u0026gt; BUSINESS ADDRESS_______________ University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 lxmcneal@ualr.edu HOME ADDRESS 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 btmcneal@netscane.net lTncneal59@hotinail.com or PED. M.S. M. A. B.A. Licensure: PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION Ed-ucational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison. WI (1990) F.Tnphagi\u0026lt;!- Fiscal and Community Support for Public Education Concentrations\nEducational Finance, School-Community Relations, and Public School! Administration Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) Emphasis\nAd-ministration and Organization of Public Education Concentration: Educational Administration (Public School) Public Affairs. University of Iowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis: Public Administration Concentration: Urban Administration Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD (1975) En^ihasis\nPolitical Economics Concentrations: Business Administration, Political Science and Economics Entrepreneurship: School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) : Quality Education and Management Associates, President PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational LeademMp. Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, .Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 nr 2n X 2 Vi C 2 2m Vi X 8 1S14 2 2 c X i 5 s2 3 Visiting Professor, Bellver International College, Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education, Palma de Mallorca, Baleaies, Spain, Summer 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, Graduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995-1997 \u0026gt; State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 1994-1996 2 3 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 X Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Summer 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education,  University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 52 2 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-Facilitator, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership andPohcy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1990-1991 I Budget Analyst Intent, University of Wisconsin System Administration, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 fl Budget and Managf-mc-nt Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, Summer, 1988 Marketing Manager, WarBuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instmctor, Business Department, Madison Area Techmeal College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere \u0026amp; Company, Moline, Illinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Commercial Service Representative, Honeywell, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public AriTninistratinn Tutem, Mayors Office, City of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 wr 5n z 2 VI e 2 S M  1615 0 a: 31 JI 2 _________________________________________DISSERTATION_________________________________ McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University of Wisconsin-Madison. \u0026lt; S \u0026gt; \u0026gt; _____________________________________RESEARCH INTERESTS____________________ School Communitarianism (the fundamental relationship between schools and their commtmities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance (adequacy and equity of funding for public education) Program Assessment and Evaluation 2 GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administration and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Politics and Policy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business A dmini strati nn Unman and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Public Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development __________________________________ PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED____________________ McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountability. Educational Considerations. Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model\nCombining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating quality reform: Program.^, communities, and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2000). Ingilications of legislative policy development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed.). Southern Regional Council on Educational Admini.stration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 436 694.. Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, \u0026amp; McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Planning \u0026amp; Changing. 27(1\u0026amp;2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. School Finance Pohcv Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Update I99S (135-138), C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University\nPolicy Research for Ohio-Based EducatioiL McNeal, L. \u0026amp;Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-community relations profile through sociological inventorying. People \u0026amp; Education: The Human Side of Schools. 3(3), 371-386. w P\" M s Tt 2 c\nS MS (A o  1616 McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 11(3), 3-10. z 3 s 3 \u0026gt;  McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students\nCase study of John Wilkinson Elementary School. TUinnis School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Development Journal. 31(1), 7-10. \u0026gt; e 2 McNeal L., \u0026amp; T eb-man, B. J. (1993). A vision of the future\nThe full-service school Planning and Changing. 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Working Title\nThe Sunerintendencv\nTheory to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. __________________________________MANUSCRIPTS IN PROGRESS______________________________ McNeal, L. (2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-community\nJames coleman and the effective schools movement. To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, WK. (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools\nComments about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, WK., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Implications of charter schools and home schooling for the funding of public schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. a.p ________________________________PUBLICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS_________________________ McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For tile Study of Educational Finance. Illinois State University. ________________________________PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED_________ McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment prngram.\u0026lt;\nDissertation. McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahorna\nAannal Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. McNeal. L., First, P. F., \u0026amp; Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections, 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Principals Newsletter. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Barner. 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of\nLiteracy, who's problem is it anyway? National Multicultural Banner. 5 (3), 2. w r n 5 n z je CZ) C 2 2 M ri a  1617eX, 2 r McNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Banner. 5 (2), 9. ( \u0026gt; 1 s e __________________________________CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK____________________ In the area of educational finance. Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles\n\u0026gt; 2 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revan^i Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ELL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in New's ILL. Odds Seen Better for Funding Reform in ELL. _______________ ____________________________ REPORTS______________ ___________________ McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District November, 2002. McNeal, L., et al. The college of education assessment report\n2000-2001: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Little Rock school district chatter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year: d* and 7* grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special school districts: 1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. I Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., \u0026amp; Webb, R. Provosts advisory group on assessment\nUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock. Summer 2000 report, July, 2000. McNeal, L., et aL The college of education assessment report 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little Rock Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment June, 2000. McNeaL L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually irrqjaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, October, 1995. McNeaL L, First P., Walker, V,, \u0026amp; Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High School Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District March, 1993. McNeaL L, et aL School choice\nOpen enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School AdministratoTs, March, 1990. I I McNeal, L. County veterans service officer training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. I McNeaL L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States department of veterans affairs. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans 2^ffairs, August 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and lie Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. ii M as 2 \u0026lt; c S 2 1618 Vi ra)  i ri ri H ri ri McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute\nAn analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L., Christy, \u0026amp;. Lewis, R. (2002). New leaders and new implications for educational aHmiTii.HTatinn Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (Noveniber, 2001). A discussion of change theory, systems theory, and state designed standards and accountability initiatives. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). State designed standards and accountability initiatives in the southwestern regional educational development laboratory service area. Southern Regional Council on Educational Artrnmistratinn Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. (2001, July). The institutionalization of the assessment process\nOne story in one college of education. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support San Juan, PR McNeal, L. (2001, July) . Faculty perceptions of their involvement in the assessment (evaluation) process. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp;. Planning Support San Juan, PR i Chesser, J., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). The use of the study circle in school reform: Bringing all the voices to the table. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Bowling Green, KY. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2000), Charter schools under construction: An analysis of a charter school evaluation plan. Southern Regional Council on Educational Admimstration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (Noveniber, 2000). Implications of charter schools and home schooling. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal. L. (November, 2000). The process of making sausage in the factory of program reform Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference. Nashville, TN. Michaelis, K, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). From indifference to injustice\nThe politics of teen violence. American Educational Research Association for the Spring 2000 Conference in New Orleans, LA. Caram, C. Christy, W. K, Altom, B, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April 2000). The sausage factory: The process nf planning for accountability. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Caram, C. A_, Christy, W. K., Altom, B., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). Responding to the call for accountability of a school leader preparation program. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 2000). Educational community study circles in Arkansas\nHow superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. American Association of School Administrators 11* Annual Conference Within A Conference, San Francisco, CA. 1619 s X 2 3 9 fl \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 2 tn n SM a: \u0026gt; CZ3 c S S M X rj s: 5 s  Chesser, J\nS., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 1999). School improvement through community dialogue\nThe first community study circles on education in Akansas and Oklahoma. Mid-South Educational Research Asociation Annual Conference, Clear Point, AL. J S' 9 s 9 \u0026lt;\u0026gt; JO c McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W. K. (November, 1999). From preparation to practice in Akansas: The relationship between program preparation standards and entry-level administrators success. Soufliem Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. \u0026gt;, e' 2 Christy, W. K., McNeal, L. (November, 1999). Implications of legislative policy development for public school districts. Southern Regional Council on Educational Ad-mjuistrafinn Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. McNeal, L., Gonzalez, M. L., \u0026amp;Noley, Grayson. (October, 1999). The ethics of silencing in school accountability\nListening to the voices of Hispanic, Native American, and African-American Researchers. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Minneapolis, MN. Christy, W. K, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 1999). Future policy impheations of an Akansas referendum initiative. American Education Finance Asociation, Seattle, WA. McNeal, L. (March, 1998). The link between quality and school communitarianism. Creating the Quality School\n7th Annual National Conference, Alington, VA McNeal, L., Place, A. W., Tillman, L.C., Beaumont, J. J. \u0026amp; Sanders, E. T. W. (October, 1997). A cross-cultural discussion of the 1997 UCEA conference theme. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Orlando, FL. McNeal, L. (October, 1997). The contextual world of education for children and the schoolcommunity\nJames Coleman and the effective schools movement. MidWestem Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (March, 1997). Influencing instnictional strategics,to enhance learning by using the school-connnunity relations profile model. Creating the Quality School\n6th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK_ McNeal, L. (1996, March). The implications of community based information for caring schools: SCKPING along. Creating the Quality School\nSth Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK.. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Chi, J. (1996, March). Performance indicators and curriculum offerings: Is there a cotmection in Oklahoma? American Education Finance Association Conference, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L., Parks, J., Watson, L., Jackson, D., Midgette, T., \u0026amp; Glenn, E. (1996, March). Our pedagogy\nCulture as a major variable. Pedagogy of the Oppressed Conference, Omaha, NE. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1995, October). School-community relations profiling: Re eTamining leadership for community. University Council for Educational Admini.stration, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L. (1995, April). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers\nA look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on Fiscal Issues, Pohcy, and Educational Finance (FIPEF). American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA McNeal, L. (1995, March). Promoting quality in education through the SCRPING of schools. Creating the Quality School: 4th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. I MM s2 2 \u0026lt; Vi C 2 2M 1620 3:  I Hl JI McNeal, L., Higham, R, \u0026amp; Boyd, M. A. (1994, October). Establishing community between higher education, public education, and self:. An effort of compromise in infusing multiculturalism. Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1994, April). The state of educational finance in Oklahoma. American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. \u0026lt; \u0026gt; n z McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and school improvement Lessons from Chicago school reform. Creating the Quality School\n3rd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and decision-making\nAnother way to promote quality. Creating the Quality School Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Lehman, B. I (1994, February). A vision of the future: The full-service school. American Association of School Administrators (Conference-Within-A-Conference), San Francisco, CA. t ! ( I McNeal, L. (1993, March). Quality schools and site-based management: An issue of fiscal management. Creating The Quality School\n2nd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK McNeal, L. (1993, March). Site-based fiscal management and the preparation of building administrators. American Education Finance Association Conference, Albuquerque, NM. McNeal, L., Chance, E. W., Langenbach, M., Costa, E. W., \u0026amp; Carem, C. (1993, March). National Sallie mae ^nn^rg and their principals. American Association of School Administrators (Conference- Within-A-Conference), Orlando, 1^. McNeal, L. (1992, March). The university's role in the preparation of school site-based managers. Creating The Quality School\n1st Annual National Conference, Norman, OK. INVITED PRESENTATIONS ! McNeal, L. (October 8, 2001). Standards for school leaders: The next generation. EDAS 7380\n' Practicum and EDAS 83 80\nPracticum, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. I McNeal, L. (Spring, 2001). Concerned base adoption model (CBAM). EDAS 8314\nContemporary Educational Administration Issues, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L, (July, 2000). A conversation about charter schools in Arkansas. Crossing Boundaries: Teaching, Learning, Results. Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center, Peachtree City, GA. McNeal, L, Broadnax, W., \u0026amp; McLean, L. (July, 2000). The charter schools APIEM process. Crossing Boundaries: Teaching, Learning, Results. Southeast Conprehensive Assistance Center, Peachtree City, GA. McNeal, L. (March, 2000). An alternative governance model for pubhc education. International Academy of Educational Leaders, Nashville, TN. McNeal, L. (October, 1999). The change process, communications and interpersonal relations. Ray fTTaHaTn Training Center, Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL. {q w 5 M 3\n2 \u0026lt; CZ) C s s M  X 8 1621 -X z for McNeal L. (September, 1999). Collegiality leadership for school improvement. Arkansas Institate IVlVlNCal) Xrf. vij f o j /- T '**1 T5 1 AT) School Improvement, sponsored by the Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center, Little Rock, .AR. s \u0026gt; 1 McNeal L. (January, 1999). National standards and their unpact on educational administraticon programs: Lessons IX. learned from reflection. International Academy of Educational Leaders, San Antonio, \u0026gt; McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process and its intact on high school principals. z Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA. McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process audits impact on junior and middle school principals. Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA. McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process and its impact on elementary school principals. Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA. anyway? McNeal, L. (September, 1997). Focusing ' Quad-Cities Alhance of Black Educators, Rock Island, IL. on 1he needs of children of color: Whose job is it (February, 1997). Revisiting the Coleman report: Parents, families, communities and McNeal, L. (--------.. , _ schools. Illinois State University Administrators Club, Normal, IL. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Parks, J. (October, 1996), Linking school-based data with community based data: The school-community relations profile model. Illinois School Board Association, nimois Associanon of School Administrators and Illinois Association of School Business Officials 64th Joint Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1993, January). Site-based management Cooperative Council of Oklahoma School Administrators, New Principal Training Workshop, Norman, OK. McNeal, L, et al. (March, 1990). School choice\nOpen enrollment and post secondary options. Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, Madison, WI. McNeaL L Bread, J. and Willamson, M. (November, 1992). Financing the colorization of the canon. New Directions Norman, OK. for African American Scholarship and Research Conference\nColonzmg the Canon, funded GRANTS Preparing tomorrows teachers to use technology (PTS) grant. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. July 1 throng August 15,2001. $4,375 Arkansas department of education grant award: Administrator licensure preparations. Reject Director\nAngela Sewall \u0026amp; Project Assistant Director Larry McNeal). Arkansas Department ofEducation. July 1,2001 through June 31,2002. $10,000 Proposal for the professional development of those who prepare school administrators in fre use enhance teaching and learning. (Co-Principal Investigators: L. McNeal \u0026amp; D. Ashby). of technology to tuuojiv... ~------------ \\-------- * - , ,nno n non University Council for Educational Administration. May 1 through September 30,1998. $1,000 Educational output in Illinois: Studying the disparity in academic test scores ^ong school districts. University Research Grant (Illinois State University). June 1.1996 through June 30,1997. $5,000 tn r n S w a: 2 ue cz\u0026gt; e S 2 M ri x  0 1622X z Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired, Illinois center for rehabilitation and education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services. May 15, 1995 through October, 1995. $7,500 \u0026lt; s \u0026gt; I I \u0026gt; ________________________________________FELLOWSHIPS____________ Advanced Opportunity Program Fellowship, University of Wisconsin, 1987-1990 Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, 1993-94 z  _________________________________EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARDS______________________ Editorial Review Board, Planning and Changing, 1993-1998 Editorial Review Board, Journal of School Leadership, 1997-1999 Editorial Review Board, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook, 2000 to present \u0026lt; Bi REFERRED PROPOSALS AND MANUSCRIPTS FOR University Council for Educational Administration Amp-rican Educational Research Association, Division A MidWestem Educational Research Association, Division A Southern Regional Council of Educational Administration Planning and Changing Journal of School Leadership Midwestern Educational Researcher Center for the Study of Small and Rural Schools SRCEA Y eaibook I ________________________SELECTED SERVICE ACnyiTIES Citizenship Service (Program. Department College. University') Rrogram Level Program Coordinator, Educational AdTninistratinn and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Chair, Educational Administration and Supervision Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-99,1999-2000,2000-2001 I Academic Advisor, Educational AdTninistration and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1997 to present Academic Advisor, Department of Educational Admi-nistrarin-n \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Academic Advisor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Dissertation Chair, Educational Administration and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1997 to present Dissertation Chair, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 ii n S M 2 2 CA c 2 2 M CA O s 8 1623I I 31 -I pi Dissertation Advisor, Educational A riministratinn and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership and PoUcy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Department Level Faculty Recorder, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999- present Member, Peer Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000-pTesent Member, Student Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000 Member, Higher Education Program Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-99 Academic Advisor, Quad Cities K-12 Doctoral Cohort, Department of Educational Admipistratinn \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997- 1998 Member, K-12 Doctoral Curriculum Review Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026lt;\u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 Member, Faculty Status Committee, Department of Educational Administtation \u0026amp; Foundations [Ilhnois State University] 1996-1998 Member, Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1995-1996,1997-98 Member, Research Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Hhnois State University] 1995-1998 Member, Student Recruitment Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1995-1997 Coordinator, K-12 Program Professional Practice, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Chair, Faculty Development Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1992-1993 Chair, Graduate Tuition Fee Waivers Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1992-1993 Member, Danforth Evaluation Team, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Education [University of Oklahoma] 1992-93 College Level Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998 to present Member, College of Education Retreat Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 \u0026amp; 2001 Member, Associate Dean Search Committee College of Education [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 11 1624 z 9 S 9 \u0026lt;\u0026gt; 2 rw M 5n 2 C 2 2 M so 8 I 2 Member, College Council, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1994-1998 \u0026gt;\n? i President, College Council, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1996-1998 \u0026gt; I Member, Elections Committee, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1996-1998 2 Member, Technology Cn-mmittee, College of Education [Hhnois State University] 1996-1998 Member, Multicultural Task Force, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1994-95 Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993  Member, Education Faculty Development Committee, College of Education [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, Equal Opportunity Committee, College of Education [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, Graduate Faculty Member [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993' Member, Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, COE [Uitiversity of Oklahoma] 1991-1992] University Level Member, Commission to Cornbat Intolerance and Harassment [Illinois State University] 1995 1996 Member, Multicultural Task Force, Member, Commission to Combat Intolerance and Harassment [Illinois State Uitiversity] 1995 1996 Academic Calendar and Schedules Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2001-present Program Development and Accreditation Service Member, Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999-2001 Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999-2001 Co-Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-1999 Member, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Member, Program Advisory Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Chair, K-12 Program Curriculum Review Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Member, North Central Self Study Task Force (Governance and Administration Community) [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-1999 Chair, K-12 Program Curriculum Review Committee Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997- 98 tq M 2 w 2! Vi C 2 2 M CA ri s:  1625f Merhber, K-12 Doctoral Curriculum Review Committee^ Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 External Reviewer (Evaluation) of Department of Educational Administration Northern Illinois University [sponsored by University Council for Educational Administration] spring 1996 Member, K-12 Program Review Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1997 Member, Administration Certificate Program Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, NCATE Category Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy- Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Professional and Community Service fPiogram, Department College, University') Professional Associations Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) 1999-to present American Educational Research Association (AERA) 1991 -to present American Education Finance Association (AEFA) 1991-1999 International Academy of Educational Leaders (lAEL) I998-to present University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) 1991-98 National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) 1996-2000 Mid-South Educational Research Association (MSERA) 1998 to present Mid'Westem Educational Research Association (MWERA) 1993-1998 Southern Regional Council of Professors of Educational Administration (SRCPEA) 1998-to present Illinois Council of Professors of Educational Administration (ICPEA) 1993-98 Illinois Association of School Administrators (lASA) 1995-98 Kappa Delta PI School Level (Service to Schools') Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR Pulaski County School District, Pulaski County, AR Peoria Pubhc School District, Peoria, IL Kankakee public School District, Kankakee, IL Galesburg Public School District, Galesburg, IL Pulaski Charter School, Inc., Maumelle, AR East St. Louis Public School District, East St. Louis, MO Bloomington Pubhc School District, Bloomington, IL Oklahoma City Pubhc School District, Oklahoma City, OK Rock Island Pubhc Schools, Rock Island, IL Nicoma ParkPubhc Schools, Nicoma Park, OK Moore Pubhc School District, Moore, OK Metcalf School (Hhnois State University), Normal, IL University High School (minois State University), Normal, IL Savannah, Pubhc School District, Savannah, GA Chatham County School District, Chatham County, GA School District (Service to School Districts') Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR 1626 S W' z 9 9 \u0026lt; [fl \u0026gt; J! 11 \u0026gt; z 11 r m S M a\n2 JO Vi c 2 2 M Vi ri 2 8kit? 7 X H B 2 9 State Level \u0026gt; S Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000 Executive Committee Member, Oklahoma Commission for Educational Leadership [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 \u0026gt; 2 Chair, Administrative Procedure Committee Superintendent's Advisory Council for Accounting and Financial Reporting (sponsored Oklahoma Department ofEducation) [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Executive Committee Member, Oklahoma Association of School Administrators [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Chair, Ad-ministrative Procedure Cn-mmittee, Superintendent's Advisory Council for Accounting and [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Executive Committee Member, Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration Administrators [University of Oklahoma] 1991 1992 Regional/Natiorial/Intemational Level Regional Executive Board Member, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 to present Junior Chair, Division A (Administration) MidWestem Educational Research Association [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 Chair, Division A (Administration) MidWestem Educational Research Association [Illinois State University] 1995-1997 National School Leaders Licensure Assessment Test Examiner, School Leader Licensure Educational Testing Service {Princeton, NJ} [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] July 200 Executive Committee Member, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 to present Advisory Board Member, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools [University of Oklahoma] 1998- 2000 Executive Committee, University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University] 1996- 1998 Plenary Representative, University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University] 1993- 1996 Faculty Speaker, National Graduate Student Research Seminar (sponsored by the University Council for Educational Administration for UCEA National Convention in Louisville, KY) [Illinois State Uinversity] 1996 1627 m n S x 2 \u0026lt; Vi c 22 M V) sO 8 n n Planning Committee Member, National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration (sponsored by the University Council for Educational Education and the American Educational Research Association for AERA Conference in Francisco, CA) [Illinois State University] 1995-1996 \u0026gt;1 2 0 B 9 \u0026gt; n n Member, Ad Hoc Finance Committee University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University] 1994 1996 \u0026gt; J C 2 Member, Urban Education Consortium (based at Rutgers University in the Center for Government Services) [Illinois State University] 1994-1998 Planning Committee Member, Information Environment for School Leader Preparation Simulation Project [sponsored by UCEA sponsored] 1993-1997 Bl Steering Committee Member, National Research Conference on Afiican American Studies (sponsored by University of Oklahoma) [University of Oklahorna] 1992-1993 ! I I i ( I n Executive Committee MenibeT, Wisconsin Alumni Association National Alumni Council For Multicultural Diversity [University or Wisconsin-Madison] 1990-1992 n Internationa n International Academy of Educational Leaders (lAEL) [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-to present SELECTED CONSULTING ACHVITIES q Site Date School Leader Licensure Educational Testing Service Princeton, NJ July 2001 Charter School Evaluation q Student Enrollment Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR June 2001 q Pulaski Charter School, Inc. Maumelle, AR April 2001 Student Enrollment Trends Pulaski Charter School, Inc. MaumeUe, AR November 2000 q Flexible Block Scheduling Pulaski County School District Jacksonville, AR October 2000 q Change, Communications \u0026amp; Interpersonal Relations Chicago Pubhc School District Chicago, IL. October 1999 q Collegiality and Leadership Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR September 1999 School Board and Superintendent Relations East St Louis Pubhc School District East St Louis, MO July 1998 School In^rovement/Change Process Daverrport Pubhc School District Davenport, LA February 1998 tn n 2 n z 2 Vi C 2 2 M Vi ri x 8 15 1628H Ed After School Programs Evaluation d Galesburg Public School District Galesburg, Illinois December 1997 April 1998 \u0026lt; Title 1\nSummer School Evaluation Peoria Pubhc School District Peoria, IL November 1997 f\u0026gt;l 7i fl \u0026gt;  Annexation Bloomington Public School District Bloomington, IL Summer 1997 2 Curriculum Development/Computer Simulations University Council for Educational Administration St. Louis, MO July 1997 a Administrative Tcsting/Principalship Educational Testing Services Princeton, NJ June 1997 a Block Scheduling Rock Island Public School District Rock Island, IL Spring 1997 a School hnprovement/Commuitity Relations Galesburg Public School District Galesburg, IL February 1997 a School Improvement/Diversity Kankakee Pubhc School District Kankakee, IL November 1996  Site-Based Fiscal Management Georgia Southern Uitiversity Savannah, GA May 1996 \u0026amp; April 1995 Site-Based Management/Personnel issues Nicoma Park Public School District Nicoma Park, OK March 1993' Student Diversity Moore Public School District Moore, OK Spring 1993 Staff Relations \u0026amp; Diversity Oklahoma City Public School District February-March Oklahoma City, OK 1993 Educational Finance/Montana Grant Writing/At-Risk Children Student/Date D. Bangs (2001) Broadnax, W. (2001) Center For The Study Of Small/ Rural Schools Norman, OK Oklahoma Public School District Oklahoma City, OK Summer 1992 Summer 1992 THESIS AND DISSERTATION COMMITTEE SERVICE Topic A study of student drug-testing effects in selected Arkansas secondary schools [Chair] A study of Arkansas public school superintendents knowledge of and attitudes toward charter schools [Chair] Pl 5PI \u0026gt; 9e \u0026lt; Wl C S s Pl CB n s  1629 M 1^ Sain, L. (2001) A comparison of pre-post student outcomes after an intervention of a secondary alternative program for disruptive students [Chair] Austin, R. (2001) Role of the special education supervisor as perceived by Arkansas superintendents, principals, and special education supervisors [Member] r s II \u0026gt; fl   \u0026gt; V. Abernathy (2001) A Study of the Superintendency supply issue for public education [Chair] z W.Bitely(2001) English as a second language in the state of Arkansas [Chair] C. Claye (2001) An analysis of a case study of a secondary alternative education program in Brazil: Lessons for the United States [Chair] M. Dalia Rosa (2001) Principals and educational interpreters perceptions of the evaluation process of educational interpreters in ATkangas public schools [Member] A. Tucker (2001) An Investigation of student performance in Arkansas high schools using the traditional schedule, alternate day block schedule and intensive block schedule [Chair] J. Tackett (2000) Self-reported teacher job satisfaction and perception of administrative listening skills [Chair] M. Dickerson, (2000) Superintendent perceptions of effectiveness: A study of Arkansas school improvement [Chair] T. J. Chesser (2000) The first statewide study circles on education in America: Participant perceptions of study circles in two Arkansas communities [Chair] D. Williams (2000) A descriptive case study of a single innovations effect on multiple literacy initiatives in Arkansas [Member] Y. Meade-Williams (2000) A study of the effect of principal leadership style on teacher stress in six junior high schools in the Pulaski county special school district [Member] B. Wood (2000) A profile of female superintendents in Arkansas 1999-2000 [Member] L. J. Jackson (1999) Aftican-American and Caucasian American students satisfaction of perceived instructional strategies in third-and-sixth-gradc urban elementary classrooms [Member] Illinois State University E. Eddings (1999) Does the level of inqjlementation of total quality management affect student outcomes? [Co-Chair] University of Arkansas at Little Rock E. Goldstone (1998) Case study of the involvement of the business community in the Illinois partnership academy in eight Illinois school districts from 1993 to 1996 [Meniber] Hhnois State University tn Pl S Pl 2 2 V) c\n2 2 M X V) S  n 1630(. 2 S hI \u0026gt;2 R.L. Kilpatrick (1998) N. J, Anderson (1998) C. W. Dawson (1998) V.D. Steele (1998) B. Hinrichs (1998) E. J. Brown (1998) G. L. Harrison (1998) C. A. Stack (1997) T. M. Eddy (1997) J. D. White (1997) J. J. Pokomey (1997) D.P. Henry (1996) L. A. Obi (1995) J.R. Davis (1995) M. J. Moore (1994) Determining the costs of school year extensions [Member] Illinois State University The four block scheduling model as a change mechanism A study of three selected high schools [Chair] lUinois State University A. case study of desegregation in the rockford school system, rockford, Hlhiois, from 1989-1997 [Member] Illinois State University The relationship between leadership styles of elementary principals and school cultures [Member] Hhnois State University Understanding situational leadership and its relationship to student project groups [Chair] THinnis State University The instructional leadership role of elementary school principals and its Influence on instructional practices as perceived by elementary school teachers [Chair] Illinois State University An analysis of the dismissal of tenured teachers under article 24A. of Illinois public acts 84-126 and 84-972: evaluation of certified employers [Chair] minois State University A study of the organizational structure of middle level blue ribbon schools and factors that promote efficiency [Chair] Hhnois State University Teacher and student perceptions of school environment and student discipline [Chair] Illinois State University Reduced class size and teacher perceptions of its impact in kindergarten through third grade [Member] Hhnois State University Education\nrelationships with job satisfaction and organization commitment [Member] Illinois State University African American parents involvement in the elementary education of their children [Member] Illinois State University The efficacy of oral English language proficiency policies for international teaching assistants in institutions of higher education [Member] Illinois State University An investigation of the value congruence held by Illinois school board members regarding alternative schooling and the allocation of financial resources to support alternative education [Member] Illinois State University African American voter participation\nThe role of religion in the 1992 presidential election (Thesis) [Member] University of Oklahoma w t-n S M V) C 2 2 M ri s  1631 ?! fl ' \u0026gt; fl 3 \u0026gt; e 1 e I E. W. Costa n (1993) The principal as leader\nA study of the perceptions of entry-level teachers [Member] University of Oklahoma I. B. Seay (1993) P.T.B. Freeman (1993) Women in leadership roles\nPerspectives from female elementary administrators [Member] University of Oklahoma Presidential profiles in higher education: Perspectives \u0026amp;om Afacan American women [Meiriber] University of Oklahoma \u0026gt; fl  \u0026gt; 5 z G.W. Griffin (1992) Principals and superintendents perceptions of superintendent behaviors and activities which are linked to school effectiveness [Member] University of Oklahoma W, L, Anderson (1991) An analysis of the roles of.high school administrators as perceived by principals and assistant principals in selected Oklahoma public high schools [Member] Illinois State University REFERENCES Furnished Upon Request A tn r n 2 M Z \u0026gt; IZ G s s n :c CZ) ri s  1632i 21 5 Bl 9 \u0026gt; I 2 \u0026gt;51 I THIRD-PARTY EVALUATION OF THE LYCEUM SCHOLARS PROGRAM Prepared By Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc. Little Rock, Arkansas January 2003 0 1633 ) i ( i I w r* B s w z 2 vs C 2 S m X  C 1. 1 Foreword The Little Rock School District contracted with the Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc. (QEMA) to serve as a third-party evaluator for the LRSD Lyceum Scholars Program conducted at Philander Smith College. The impetus for the third-party evaluation was the federal court ruling in September 2002 releasing the District from court supervision, with the exception of one area relating to the evaluation of certain programs. The LRSD Lyceum Scholars Program was one of several educational programs identified in the Districts final Compliance Report (March 2001) that the court required to be completed, approved by the Board of Trustees, and submitted to the court by March 15,2003. p  J 2 0 PI' s fl 3 r \u0026gt; c 2 Evaluation Overview This third-party evaluation is a supplement to three evaluation reports prepared on the LRSD Lyceum Scholars High School (LSHS) program. Two of the reports focused on individual school years of operation of the LSHS program, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The third report was a two-year comparison of the evaluation data from school years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. I The evaluation is divided into four parts. Part A is a description of the LSHS program. Part B describes the methodology and summarizes and interprets the key findings of the three previous evaluations. Part C describes the limitations of the three previous evaluations. Finally, Part D offers suggestions for improving future evaluations of any similar programs that the Little Rock School District may initiate. A. Program Description Mission The mission of the LSHS program, as stated in the previous evaluations, is as follows: To provide an opportunity for underachieving secondary students, who have academic potential but require a nontraditional approach to learning, to achieve academic^ly and to develop social competencies that will allow them to obtain a high school diploma and successfully transition into a post-secondary educational environment. Program Objectives The objectives of the LSHS program, as stated in the previous evaluations, are as follows: 1. The academic performance of each student enrolled in the Lyceum Scholars High School will increase during the period of participation in the program, as 1 1634 tn M sz 2w V) 2e 2w V) ri s   n 2. 3. 4. 5. measured by pre and post computerized student assessment data and grade point average. The attendance rate for each student enrolled in the Lyceum Scholars High School will be 95% or better. Each student will demonstrate maturity, self-control and appropriate social interaction skills as evidenced by teacher/staff assessment and then absence of disciphnary sanctions during the period of program participation. Each student will develop a plan for his/her own continuing education that will include high school graduation and enrollment in a post secondary educational institution. Each student will demonstrate an increased commitment to continued program participation, as evidenced by self-report on the annual program evaluation. The curriculum of the Lyceum Scholars High School will be delivered in a non- traditional way to include group work, project-based learning, interdisciplinary and applied units, and computer assisted instruction. 11 n V 6. H Program Design and Activities n The LSHS program was designed to provide the participants with the LRSD high school academic cumculum in a small class setting utilizing computer based PLATO software. The participants were also exposed to a social skills curriculum. The program began with 10 grade students and was supposed to add a grade level each year until grades 9-12 were in operation. At the end of their year of participation, students could reenroll or return to the regular classroom. n II n LSHS was staffed by two certified teachers, one instructional aide, a part-time security officer, and a program admimstrator. Case management services were provided through a grant-funded position from the Arkansas Department of Human Services. Unfortunately, there are no additional details in the three previous evaluations that desOTbe the precise treatment afforded students in the program. Missing is any indication of precisely how much of the curriculum was delivered by computer, how and when any of the methods described in Objective 6 above were implemented, the role of the certified teachers and aide, how and when the social skills curriculum was implemented (or even what the social skills curriculum actually consisted of), or any type of schedule of activities. m m 11 History The Lyceum High School Scholars program began as an alternative learning environment program for underachieving high school students in October of school year 1997-98. It was envisioned as a partnership venture with a Little Rock area college or university inn order to enhance the likelihood of successfully addressing the mission of the program as stated above. The initial partner was UALR, which housed the program for one year. Thereafter, the program was housed at Philander Smith College. The LSHS program was discontinued after the 2000-2001 school year. 2 m 1635B. Methodology t p 2 C5. \u0026lt; \u0026gt;5 11 The methodology and key findings of each of the three previous evaluations are addressed separately below. fl 3 \u0026gt; Z 1999-2000 Program Evaluation Although the evaluation report does not have a section that specifically describes the methodology in detail, there is enough narrative in the report to discern that the methodology consisted primarily of satisfaction surveys administered to students, parents, staff, and administrators. In addition, the report provides a statistical analysis of student achievement gains in mathematics, language arts, and reading as measured by a pre/post assessment utilizing the PLATO instructional program and a pre/post assessment of student attendance and suspensions. I Key results of the program evaluation included the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the application process, student services offered, stafTstudent interactions/communications, and the overall program. Students gave high ratings to their interactions with college personnel and the instructional program. 100% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with meals provided by the LRSD and 62.5% of the students were similarly dissatisfied with the meals in the student center. With the exception of the items on meals, parents were satisfied or very satisfied with all components of the program. The staff was completely satisfied with the program. The LRSD administrators were highly complimentary of the program. When compared to pre-LSHS levels, students exhibited an 85% reduction in school absences and a 30% reduction in suspensions at the end of the program. Average grade-level increases from the beginning to the end of the program for students were 3.71 for mathematics, 6.48 for language arts, and 5.00 for reading. 1 Based on the results of the program, it would appear that the LSHS program was successful. Program Objective #1 was achieved, results approached the level sought in Program Objective #2, and Program Objective #3 appeared to be met. However, because of the limitations of the evaluation outlined in the next section, the results and interpretation of the results should be viewed with caution. 2000-2001 Program Evaluation The same methodology that was described above also applies to this evaluation report with one exception. In this evaluation, LRSD administrators were not surveyed. 15 W 2M v\u0026gt; C2 2w ri a 8 3 1636 Key results of the program evaluation included the following\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The percentages of students who were satisfied or very satisfied with program components were as follows: 100%-application form and social studies instruction. 94.5%English instruction 94,4%science and communications instruction 88.9%faculty 77.8%-mathematics instruction 66.7%-case management, computer-aided instruction, and grading procedures 83.4% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with meals provided by LRSD and 55.5% were similarly dissatisfied with the media center. 94.4 % of the students thought that their teachers respected them as individuals. 72.2% of the students would not recommend the LSHS to a friend 61.1% of the students expressed satisfaction with the overall program 61.7% of the students indicated that they preferred to return to their assigned schools the next year. 80% of the parents were satisfied with the overall program 75% of the parents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the meals provided by LRSD 60% of the parents stated that they would like their child to return to the LSHS next year and would recommend the program to others. 10.100% of the LSHS staff were satisfied or very satisfied with the service that the service center provided LSHS students. 11. 67.7% of the staff were very dissatisfied with the student selection process and 50% were very dissatisfied with the career center. 12. 67.7% of the staff were dissatisfied with preparation and planning time, expectations of student behavior, management of student behavior, and support for disciplinary actions. 13.40% of the staff were dissatisfied with support from the LRSD administrator. 14. When compared to pre-LSHS levels, students exhibited a 60% reduction in school absences and a 33% reduction in suspensions at the end of the program. 15. Average grade level increases from the beginning to the end of the program for students were 4.51 for mathematics, 6.57 for language arts, and 6.23 for reading. Results of the program evaluation for 2000-2001 are mixed. Students are still satisfied with many aspects of the program, but at lower levels than the previous year. Yet, a clear majority of the students would not recommend the program to a friend nor did they want to return the next year. However, the students did exhibit reductions in absences and suspensions, and average increases in grade levels were higher than the year before. With respect to the staff, levels of dissatisfaction with program elements related to student behavior and discipline were high, as was dissatisfaction with administrative support. Although student absences and suspensions decreased, it appeared that discipline was problematic for the staff. That certainly raises the question of whether or not there that disparity might be related to students' reluctance to recommend the program to others and their desire to return to their regular schools. 4 B II II II B II n n II 11 m v in in VI 1637r a Again, because of limitations addressed in the next section, results and interpretations need to be viewed with caution. 1998-1999 \u0026amp; 1999-2000 Two-Year Comparison fl fl fl fl fl The LRSD provided QEMA with a program evaluation report that combined data on the LSHS program for 1998-1999 \u0026amp; 1999-2000. However, the report is clearly labeled a Draft on all pages of the report, and theres no indication that the report was ever taken beyond the draft stage to become an official program evaluation of the LSHS program. Nevertheless, the report does have a description of the methodology, although the description tends to outline the data to be presented as opposed to how it was collected or analyzed. The methodology addresses participation, performance, and perception. Participation in LSHS is presented by race and gender. Performance is addressed through suspension and absentee data\ngrade level gains in language, mathematics, and reading, achievement test scores in language, mathematics, and reading\nand correlations between achievement tests and computer generated tests. Perception is addressed through a set of satisfaction surveys administered to students, parents, teachers, and admimstrators. fl fl fl Key results of the program evaluation included 1. Student absences increased, while the days in suspension decreased. 2. Students were performing at grade level as measured by the PLATO software. 3. Students scored higher in mathematics than the LRSD average e scores on the Achievement Level Test (ALT). 4. Students scored below the LRSD average in reading and language usage on the ALT. 5. Students in the 1999-2000 group reported higher levels of satisfaction than those in the 1998-1999 group. a 6. 7. 8. 9. Students and parents wanted more classroom time and less time on the computers. Both students and parents were dissatisfied with morning bus amval times. Staff wanted more support in instructional delivery. Principals of feeder schools wanted more information about the LSHS program. I ffS Results of this evaluation report are mixed also. However, when the results are compared to the other two program evaluation reports, it is interesting to note that the measures used to report the results are different. For example, in the previous two reports, absenteeism and suspension data were reported by a pre/post recording of actual incidences of absence and suspension. Then, an average gain or loss was calculated. In this 1998 through 2000 comparative study, an average number of days absent and days suspended was calculated, and the first year was compared to the second. Hence, there occurs an entirely different interpretation of the data and the relative success of the program. It is also interesting to note that absence and suspension calculations in the two other evaluations were consistent with the expectations of program outcomes as stated in the program objectives. {15 M 2 n \u0026gt; CZ5 C 2 2 M 5 -1(38 p p 2 C Wi \u0026lt; J' n 5 \u0026gt; c 2 CZ) n a   The same difficulty with interpretation occurs with the performance data. In the previous two reports, performance was measured by pre/post gains in grade levels, while in the instant case, that data were reported, but also included comparisons on a different test. The latter was not a test identified in the LSHS program objectives. II n An overall and general interpretation of the data from all three evaluation reports would indicate that the satisfaction levels of students, parents, staff, and administration increased from the first year of program operation to the second and diminished from the second year of operation to the third\nthat the LSHS program had a positive impact on reducing student absenteeism and suspensions\nand that students made gains in mathematics, language arts, and reading grade levels as measured by PLATO, but fell below grade level in language arts and reading when compared on a different test. B II II C. Limitations General II 1. There is an inadequate description of the program that hinders stakeholders from determining the exact \"treatment\" of the program and whether or not the data provide any useful information. II 2. Although neither the 1999-2000 nor the 2000-2001 evaluations have a clearly identified purpose for the evaluation, the Two-Year Comparison evaluation, does. However, the \"draft\" status of the latter limits the utility of the report. VI VI 3. The stakeholders for the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 evaluations are not clearly identified. The audience for the Two-Year Comparison evaluation is not identified either and is complicated by the fact that the report is clearly labeled a Draft on all pages of the report. Thus, the utility of that report is limited. m 4. There are no clearly identified research questions that address LSHSs effectiveness, impact, success, etc. in any of the three evaluation reports. However, while the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 evaluations do not identify what the evaluation is supposed to achieve, the Two-Year Comparison evaluation's purpose statements do provide direction for the data presentation and analysis. The data presentation and analysis in all three reports do appear to be directly related to at least some of the stated objectives of the program. m w RI Methodology Hl 1. There is no methodology stated in either the 1999-2000 or the 2000- 2001 evaluations. The Two-Year Comparison evaluation, on the other hand, does have a description of the methodology, although the description tends to outline the data be presented as opposed to how it was collected or analyzed. 6  1639I 2. The methodology utilized for 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 evaluations is grounded primarily in student, parent, staff, and administrator satisfaction oriented reactions to all of the components of the LSHS program. While that data may be of interest, there is no meaningful connection between that data and program objectives nor the primary intent of the program, which was to help underachieving students reach their academic potential. Since similar surveys were utilized in the Two-Year Comparison evaluation, the same limitations apply. 3. The number of students, parents, staff, and administrators participating in the siuveys limits the interpretation of the data. 4. 'Data generated on achievement levels of the students are limited by small numbers and absence of control groups or any other controls against research bias. Data to Inform Practice El Because of the limitations stated above, there is very little in the way of meaningful data that could inform current practice in providing alternative learning environments in the LRSD. Achievement Effects I Although there was some encouraging data in terms of absenteeism, suspensions, and grade level gains, none of the data was broken out by ethnicity. Therefore, there was no way that stakeholders could ascertain the impact of the LSHS program on the academic achievement of African American students. D. Suggestions for Improved Practice in Program Evaluation QEMA recognizes that the Little Rock School District has adopted the evaluation guidelines outlined in the publication \"The Program Evaluation Standards: How To Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (2\"'' Edition) by The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994). The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation is a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of evaluation and is housed at The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University. The guidelines are compatible with the Little Rock School District Revised Compliance Plan and standards for program evaluation. Continued implementation of the evaluation guidelines should address most issues related to program evaluation in the futme. r n 2 M 2 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; C S s w ri X  7 1640 p I p 2 6' W' 7 \u0026lt;1 \u0026gt; s 9 5 c 2PROGRAM EVALUATION PhUander Smith College/ LRSD Lyceum Scholars High School 1 .1 1999 - 2000 D II II n n p p p p p p p p p p p } 16411 I This evaluation report is divided into two sections. Section I presents the results of four surveys that were completed by the following individuals\nA. Students in the Lyceum Program B. Parents of Lyceum students C. Lyceum staff members D. LRSD administrators with' students enrolled in the Lyceum program Section n is a statistical analysis of student academic progress for \u0026amp;e year and a r^rt conqiaring student attendance and suspensions before entrance to the program and this year. key MNUIMPS 1. The number of individuals completing each of the evaluation surveys were\nStudent Survey - 8 Parent Survey -10 Staff Survey-3 Administrative Survey - 3 2. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Application Process. 3. Only 50% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Restroom Facilities. 4. 5. 6. 100% of the students were satisfied or very satisfied with the Student Services offered. Students regarded their Interactions with College Personnel as very fevorable. The Instructional Program received high marks from the students. 7. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with StafiZStudent 8. 9. Interactions/Commnnications. 100% of the students were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the Meals Provided by LRSD. 62.5% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied by the Meals in the Student Center. 10.100% of the students were satisfied or very satisfied with the Overall Program. tn n 2 '2. \u0026gt; Vi S S m n a: 8 1642 r Si S 5^ fl 0 \u0026gt; c 2 I 2 311. With the exception of the survey item dealing with Meals Provided by LRSD, all of  were either satisfied or very satisfied. the parent responses 12 Thp St Aff Survey reflected complete satisfaction with the program. 13. LRSD school administrators were also highly complimentary of the program. 14 Lyceum students showed an 85% redaction in school absences, and a 30% reduction in the number of suspensions, when compared to their pre-Lyceum assignments. 15. Lyceum students recorded the following average grade level increases over the course of this school year: Language Arts - 6.48 Math-3.71 Reading-5    n A n n n II n n in wi 1643program EVALUAHON - LRSD LYCEUM STUDENT SURVEY 1999- 2000 \u0026gt; Frequeni Valid GRADE z fl \u0026gt; fl 5 I Valid Valid Missing Total 9.00 10.00 Total Male Female Total 6 2 8 Frequeni 5 3 8 Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Gender Valid Percent TOO 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent TSX\" 100.0 z Percent 62.5 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent ezT 37.5 .100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 100.0 Race Frequeni African American Caucasian Other Total System Frequeni Valid 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 Total 1 3 2 2 8 Valid Missing Total 8.00 725.00 Total System 4 2 1 7 1 8 Percent 500 25.0 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent TtT 28.6 14.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 85.7 100.0 Age Percent 12.5 37.5 25.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent \"715 37.5 25.0 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent TTT 50.0 75.0 100.0 Schcxl attended prior to the Lyceum Frequeni 1 5 6 2 8 Percent 12.5 62.5 75.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 167 83.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent  100.0 w M 2 w \u0026gt; CZ) CS sM (Z s 1644  I I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Missing System Total Valid Vary Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total___________ Valid Written Application Forms Frequency 3 3 1 7 1 ______ 8 Percent 37.6 37.5 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 42.9 42.9 14.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 85.7 100.0  Personal Interview Frequency 3 4 7 1 ____8 Percent 37.6 50.0 87.5 12.6 100.0 Valid Percent 42.9 57.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 100.0 n Notification of Acceptance Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total___________ Frequency 3 4 7 1 _____ 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 42.9 57.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 100.0 II II n Classrooms Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Frequency 3 5 ____ 8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Restrooms Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total _______ _ Frequency 2 2 3 1 ________ 8 Percent 25.0 25.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 I Valid Percent 25.0 25.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 25.0 50.0 87.5 100.0 1645 student Center Frequem Valid Missing Total Valid H SI ! Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total System Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Missing System Total___________ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_ 3 . 3 1 7 1 8 Percent 37.5 37.5 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Media Center Frequem 2 4 1 7 1 8 Percent 25.0 50.0 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Computer Lab Access Frequency 1 7 ____ 8 Percent 12.5 87.5 100.0 Orientation Frequency 1 4 3 ____ 8 1 Valid Percent 42.S 42.0 14.3 100.0 Percent 12.5 50.0 37.5 100.0 Health Services Frequency 1 5 2 8 Valid Percent 28^ 57.1 14.3 100.0 Valid Percent 12.5 87.5 100.0 Percent 12.5 62.5 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 85.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 28.6 85.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.5 100.0 2 I) \u0026gt; n a r \u0026gt; 2 Valid Percent iTT 50.0 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent 12.5 62.5 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.5 75.0 100.0 w n 2 M a: \u0026lt; Vi i 2 m X CA ri x  1646 Career Center I ) Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total________ I Valid Valid Valid Frequency 2 4 2 _____8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Mery Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Mery Satisfied Satisfied Total_________ Percent 25.0 50.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 25.0 50.0 25.0 100.0 Mentoring/Counsellng Frequency 2 5 1 _____6 Percent 25.0 62.5 12.5 100.0 Case Management Frequency 3 4 1 ______8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Faculty Frequency 5 3 _____B Percent 62.5 37.5 100.0 Support Personnel Frequency 4 4 ___8 Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Security Frequency 3 5 ______8 Cumulative Percent 25.0 75.0 100.0 D II 11 Valid Percent 25.0 62.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Percent 37.5 62.5 Cumulative Percent 25.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 87.5 100.0 II n RI RI RI RI Valid Percent 62.5 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 I Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 RI \\Administration ) ) I I } Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Valid Valid Frequency 3 5 8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 62.5 100.0 Classroom Management Frequency 3 5 8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent \"stT 62.5 100.0 Instructional Materials Frequency 3 5 ____8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Textboolcs Frequency 5 2 1 8 Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent  62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 62ir 25.0 12.5 100.0 Computer-aided Instruction Cumulative Percent sTs 100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 87.5 100.0 Vary Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37iP 50.0 12.5 100.0- Cumulative Percent stT 87.5 100.0 English Instruction Missing Total Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Frequency 4 3 7 1 ____ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 57.1 42.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 57.1 100.0 tn n S \"i \u0026gt; la \u0026lt; CA e 22 w CoA s  1648 p'. c. P9 O' X 9 \u0026gt; z I 2 Vi X z Math Instruction Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 6 2 ___ 8 Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Science Instruction Valid Valid Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Valid Valid Valid Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 T Cumulative Percent 75.0 100.0 n nn Frequency 4 2 2 ____ 8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Percent 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 75.0 100.0 nn Social Studies Instruction Frequency 6 2 11 Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 I Cumulative Percent 75.0 100.0 Connnunications Instruction Frequency 5 2 1 _____ 8 Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 87.5 100.0 Personal Academic Success Frequency 4 3 1 ______8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Individual Attention to Needs II H m m II m Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 4 3 1 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent soio\" 87.5 100.0 ffl mn 1649 Number of Courses Available 1   .a 1 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total_ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total____ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 4 3 1 ____ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Group Wort( Frequency 3 4 1 ____ 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Projects Frequency 3 3 1 1 ___ 8 Vaiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied I Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied ' Total_______ Valid Percent \"soio' 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 50.0 1Z.S 100.0 Percent 37.5 37.5 12.5 12.5 100.0 Grading Procedures Frequency 1 4 3 1 _______Ll Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Field Trips Frequency 5 2 1 8 Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Homework Frequency 7 1 ___ 8 Cumulative Percent 50.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 375\" 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 37.5 12.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 75X 100.0 r,  '5 ci K0?a Valid Percent ' 50ir 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent soio\" 87.5 100.0 Percent 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 625\" 25.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 625\" 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent btT 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 87.5 100.0 m n S n \u0026gt; 'JO \u0026lt; 7) c S S M x  1650 I \u0026gt;  I s3 \u0026gt; He 7. i 5 X -I X \u0026gt;X H 2 t 1 I staff Responds in a Caring and Helpful Manner vSid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent StT 50.0 12.5 100.0 Staff Provides Nurturance and Support to Students Vaiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid Valid Frequeni 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.6 50.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37T 50.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37y 87.5 100.0 Staff Has High Expectations for My Academic Success Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 4 3 1 ___ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent soy 37.5 12.5 100.0 Staff Has High Expectations for My Behavior Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 6 1 1 8 Percent 75.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent 75.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 My Teacher Respect Me as an Individual VaHd Very Satsfied Satisfied Dissatslfied Total_______ Valid Cumulative Percent \"soy 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent Tsy 87.5 100.0 Frequency 4 3 . 1 ___ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 5oy 37.5 12.5 100.0 Support Staff Respect Me as an Individual Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied ' Total_______ Frequency 4 3 1 ___ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 5oy 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent ' 5oy 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent soy 87.5 100.0 1651 Meals Provided by LRSD Frequem ) I ) Valid Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ vSiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Valid Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid 1 7 8 Percent 12.5 87.5 100.0 Meals in Student Center Frequeni 1 2 1 4 8 Percent 12.5 25.0 12.5 50.0 100.0 Bus Arrivals A.M. Frequeni 2 4 1 1 8 Valid Percent 115 87.5 100.0 Percent 25.0 50.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 Bus Arrivals P.M. Frequency 3 4 1 8 Valid Percent \"\"iis\" 25.0 12.5 50.0 100.0 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Bus Safety Cumulative Percent 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 25F 50.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Pexent 37T 50.0 12.5 100.0 Ti Si. n 9 . Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Would you Valid Yes Missing System Tolaf___________ Frequency 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 1 Cumulative Percent il5 37.5 50.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 2sy 75.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent stT 50.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 87.5 100.0 recommend the Lyceum Program to a friend? Frequency 7 1 8 I Percent 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent iooio Cumulative Percent  100.0 w Pl 2 Pl 2 \u0026gt; czi C2 S M Vi O x  1652 5 ' c2 Overall Program Satisfaction i ) J Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ .Frequency 3 5 _________ 8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 I 9 If the Lyceum Program is available to you for the 2000-01 school year, what are your plans? 9 Valid Missing Total Valid Continued Enrollment Undecided Total System Frequency 6 1 7 1 8 Percent 75.0 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 85.7 14.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 85.7 100.0 9 II n What are your plans after graduation from high school? n Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Enroll in Four Year College Enroll in Two Year College. Undecided Total 4 1 50.0 12.5 57.1 14.3 57.1 71.4 Missing System Total___________ 2 7 1 8 25.0 87.5 12.5 100.0 28.6 100.0 100.0 ri II nn n II n n 1653 M [ri program evaluation - LRSD LYCEUM parent survey 1999 - 2000 iri iri Gender II II II fl il n II n nn pi Frei lueni Valid Valid Male Female Total 1 9 10 Percent ioT 90.0 100.0 Valid Percent  ioo 90.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Race Frequem African-America Caucasian Totel_________ Valid Missing Total 1.00 8.00 725.00 Total System Valid Parent 6 4 10 Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 Valid Percent eoxr 40.0 100.0 School Last Attended Frequem 1 2 5 8 2 10 Percent iKo 20.0 50.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 Vaiid Percent 25.0 62.5 100.0 Relationship to Student Frequency 10 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent ioo.^ Cumulative Percent 600\" 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent  [fl 2n z\u0026gt; \u0026lt; Cw S s n s 8 1654 { e 0 c, \u0026gt; fl 9 \u0026gt; -i ze ! (I C I I Valid Valid Valid Valid My Child's Grade 9.00 10.00 Total Frequency 6 4 ____10 Very Satisfied satisfied Dissatisfied 22.00 Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Percent 60.0  40.0 100.0 Valid Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 student Referral Procedures Frequency 4 4 1 1 10 Percent 40.0 40.0 10.0, 10.0 100.0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Cumulative Percent 60.0 100.0 Vafid Percent 40.0 40.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Written Application Forms Frequency 4 6 ________ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Vafid Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Personal Interview Frequency 4 6 _____ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 NoUfication of Acceptance Frequency 4 6 ______ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 _______ 100.0 Orientation II n II Cumulative Percent 40.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 II II n II II Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Totel_______ Frequency  3 7 ___ 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30.0 100.0 1655 ri Health Services ri Freguenc\nValid ri I Missing 1 Total Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System 3 6 9 1 to Percent soT 60.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent . 100.0 ( e r: e \u0026lt; B'l \u0026gt; fl 0 ri Case Management \u0026gt; 5z ri ri Valid Freqtiem II El El El 1 / Missing Total Valid 11 II nn Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Missing Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Missing Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ 4 5 9 1 10 Percent 40?0 50.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Career Center Frequeni 2 7 9 1 10 Valid Percent 447 55.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 447 100.0 C Percent I 20^ 70.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent -----------Si nA 100.0 Cumulative Percent 222 100.0 Mentoring/CounsellnB Frequent 5 4 9 1 10 Frequent Percent 50^ 40.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Faculty 4 6 10 Percent 405\" 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 1 ' 5^6 44.4 100.0 Valid Percent 40^ 60.0 100.0. Cumulative Percent 55.6 '' 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 ww S n 2 \u0026lt; c S ffl X 8 1656 ) 1 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total____________ Valid Missing Total Valid Support Personnel Frequency 5 4 9 1 _____ 10 i Percent 50.0 40.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Securtty Valid Percent 55.6 44.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 55.6 100.0 nn II Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total_______ ____ Valid L Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequency 3 6 9 1 _____ 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100\n0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Administration Frequency 2 7 9 1 __10 Percent 20.0 70.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 222 77.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 222 100.0 Classroom Nlanagement Frequency 4 6 _ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Instructional Materials 100.0 Missing System Total _________ Frequency 3 5 8 2 ______10 Percent 30.0 50.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 K 1657 Textbooks Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency _ 3 6 1 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent soT 60.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 90.0 100.0 f c R\nC'. \u0026lt; \u0026gt; fl 9 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total I Computer-aided Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 English Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Math Instruction Frequeni I 1 p 1 i Valid Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ 4 6 10 Valid Percent 40X 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40X 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 5 5 5 ! S I Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent Zo^\" 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 Science Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent ZoF 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent  ZoT 100.0 J Social Studies Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent ZoT\" 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 r pj S n 2 \u0026gt; va C S CA a:  r 1658! Communications Instruction vSiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 2 8 ___10 i Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 Valid Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 Your Child's Personal Academic Progress Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Vaiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Cumulative Percent 20.0 100.0 n Bl n Frequency 4 5 1 10 Percent 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 90.0 . 100.0 Individual Attention to Needs Frequency 3 7 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent ??? 70.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30.0 100.0 Number of Courses Available Frequency 4 6 ___10 I Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40?\" 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Group Work Bl Bl Bl Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 2 8 10 Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 Vafid Percent 2?? 80.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 20? 100.0 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Classroom Environment Frequency 6 4 10 Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 I Valid Percent 6?? 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 60? 100.0 1659Valid Grading Procedures 4 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequency 5 5 ___10 Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Reid Trips Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Homeworic Valid Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Cumulative 1 Percent 50.0 100.0 ( e R 9 \u0026lt; \u0026gt; 9 B 9 VaHd Percent 40^ 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent  40^ 100.0 \u0026gt; c 2 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 3 6 1 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 60.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 90.0 100.0 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Valid ParenVTeacher Conferences Frequency 3 7 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent sox' 70.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 100.0 Responsiveness of Teachore to Student Needs Very Satisfied Satisfied Tptel_______ Frequency 2 8 __ 10 T Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 i Valid Percent 2oT 80.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent  20^ 100.0 Nurturance and Support Provided Students Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 3 6 1 __ 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 60.0 10.0 100.0 1 Cumulative Percent 30.0 90.0 100.0 P3 S n z \u0026gt; CA C S S M W  1660 1 Valid Valid Valid staff Respects Me as an Individual Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent ^oT 60.0 100.0 staff Responds in a Caring and Helpful Manner Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 3 7 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent ' \"aoT 70.0 100.0 Meals Provided by LRSD Frequeni ! Valid 1 f ,! I i Cumulative Percent ZoT 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 100.0 II Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Meri Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Valid Valid Vary Satisfied Satisfied Dissafisfied Total Very Satisfw Satisfied Dissatisfied ' Total_____ id 1 2 5 2 10 Percent 10.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent \"io^ 20.0 50.0 20.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent ioT 30.0 80.0 100.0 Ml Hl Meals in Student Center Frequeni 3 5 1 1 10 Percent 30.0 50.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 50.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent ' 3oT 80.0 90.0 100.0 Bus Arrival A.M. Frequency 3 5 2 10 Percent 30.0 50.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 50.0 20.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 80.0 100.0 Bus Arrival P.M. Frequency 4 6 1 10 Percent 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent ToT\" 50.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent  40^ 90.0 100.0 ' 16611 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Do you Valid I Bus Safety Frequem 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 4oT 60.0 100.0 Have you volunteered at school this year? Yes No Total Frequency 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent * 40T 60.0 100.0 wish for your son/daughter to for the 2000-01 school year? Yes No Total Frequency 7 3 10 Would you Vaiid Yes No Total Valid Cumulative Percent 400 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4^ 100.0 return to the Lyceum ALE Program Percent 70.0 30.0 100.0 Valid Percent . 70.0 30.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent \"\" toT 100.0 recommend the Lyceum ALE Program to others? Frequency 9 1 10 Percent 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 90^ 10.0 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Frequem p I? s'. \u0026gt; X n 0 \u0026gt; C z Very Satisfied Satisfied Totel________ 6 4 10 Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 90^ 100.0 Valid Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 60^ 100.0 1662 P5 2 M z \"J V) C 2 2 Q IPROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM STAFF SURVEY 1999-2000 n ) student Selection Process Valid Valid Valid Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_____ Frequency 1 2 ____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 n n Satisfied Curriculum Offered Frequency ____ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Expected Outcomes Very Satisfied Missing System Tote!___________ Frequency 1 2 _____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Selection of Staff Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 ________3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Qualifications of Staff Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 _ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100 J Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 II Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 1 leaching Performance Valid Very Satisfied , Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 ______3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 1663 p I :S Valid Satisfied Ir% g 1r1 II ri II nnn Valid Relationships with College Personnel Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Orientation Frequency 1 2 3 Valid Percent 100.0 Percent 33.3 100.0 Health Services Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 335\" 100.0 e?. \u0026lt;i\ng fl 3 5z Valid Virf Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Career Center Frequency  Percent Valid Valid Satisfied Satisfied Missing System Total___________ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent NIentoring/Counseling Frequency 2 1 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent Too? Case Management Frequency 1 2 ___ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 PreparationZPIanning Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 33T G\u0026amp;.7 100.0 Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 3^3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 t5 m 5 z \"i \u0026gt; fl \u0026lt; Cfl C S M sn 8 1664 ! Valid Satisfied Dissatisfied Total____ _ Valid Valid Valid Support In Instnictlonal Delivery Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total ______ Frequency 1 2 ____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Intructional Materials Frequency 1 2 ______3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total______ Valid Satisfied Valid Satisfied Valid Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Program Evaluation Design Frequency 1 2 _____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Profeasioml Evaluation Process Frequency 1 2 _____ 3 Percent 33.3 66,7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Expectatiorrs for Student Behavior Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Management of Student Behavior Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Support for Disciplinary Actions Very Satisfied Missing System Total __________ Frequency 2 1 ___ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0- Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 1665 i Valid Administration of Food Sendee Program  r 1 h Satisfied Dissatsified Total_____ Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 P'\nRi O \u0026gt;5 I fl 9 1 Delivery of LRSD Prepared Meals Valid Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Frequency 1 2 ____ 3 Valid Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Vafid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 5c z Distribution of LRSD Prepared Meals Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 1 2 _3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0\n-Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Service of Lyceum Students in the Student Center Satisfied Frequency _____3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Bus Arrival Times AM. Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Very SattsBad Frequency 1 2 3_L Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Vafid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Bus Arrival Times P.M. Frequency 1 2 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33? 100.0 From Ale Administrator Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 100.0 w Pl S Pl \u0026gt; CZl c: 2 2 oX 8 1666 ) From LRSD Administrator Valid Very Satisfied Frequency ____3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 n n Valid I Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Valid Very Satisfied Valid Valid Lyceum Advisory Committee II Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Valid Satisfied Missing System Total___________ Frequency 1 2 ___ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 _______ 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 II n ParentZStaff Interactions Frequency ______ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 II n Parent Involvement Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 n Parental Support Frequency ____ J. Percent 100.0 Vafid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Summer Teacher Training Frequency 2 1 _3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Behavior Management Training Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 _______ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 1667 Valid Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid I Satisfied Dissatisfied Total OngolnQ Staff Davalopnwnt Frequem 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Plato Training Frequency 1 2 ___ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Classrooins Frequency 2 1 3_l Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Library Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 3X3\" 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3X3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3X3\" 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 r oS s 9 \u0026gt; -1 C z I Valid Valid Frequei Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Merf Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Computer Lab Frequency 1 2 3 I Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 I Valid Percent 3X3 66.7 100.0 JanKorial Services Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 3X3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3X3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33T 100.0 w r n S n zg. s ws ya Vi n s  1668 Comfortability I t I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 1 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 I I Do you recommend that the Lyceum Program continue for the 2000-01 school year? I Frequeni Valid Yes Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent  io^ 3 II recommend that theXyceum Program expand to another grade Do you level for the 2000-01 school year? [ Valid Yes Frequency 3 Percent Valid Percent 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 [ return to the Lyceum Program for the 2000-01 school yrar? Do you wish to I Valid Yes Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 I  I Overall Program Satisfaction I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 ____3 i Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 I I III II I 1669 I\u0026lt; zi- Valid Valid 1 Valid 1 PROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM ADMINISTRATIVE SURVEY 1999-2000 student Referral Process Frequeni Cl 51 fl 9 Very Satisfied Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Very Satisfied Valid 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0~ Cumulative Percent 10Q.0 \u0026gt; 2 2 Opportunities for Acceleration Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Valid Very Satisfied Valid Frequency 2 1 ___13 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66T 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 5 J 2 7 2 Student Parent Contact Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Selection of Students Frequency 2 1 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Curriculum Offered Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Expected Outcomes Frequeni Very Satisfied 3 \\ Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100^ Percent 100.0 Valid Percent eST 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Vafid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent eeT 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 r PJ 2 PJ 2 X VJ C2 2 C/5 n s  1670 Selection of Staff Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 2 1 _________ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 ________100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Qualifications of Staff I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 2 1 _____ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 I Valid Relationships with Program Personnel n Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 2 1 ___3 Percent 66,7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 II n Expectations for Student Behavior Valid Very Satisfied Frequency _______ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 n n Management of Student Behavior Valid Very Satisfied Valid Very Satisfied Frequency ______3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 From ALE Administrator Frequency ________ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 From LRSD Administrator Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 11 II II n Valid Very Satisfied Frequency _____ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent _______ 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 1671 Student/Parant Orientation Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_____ __ Frequency 2 1 ______ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Health Services Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 2 1 _____ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Valid Very Satisfied Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Case Management Frequency ________ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Computer Assisted Instruction Frequency 1 2 _____3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Instructional Methodology Frequency 2 1 _______ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Very Satisfied Frequency _______ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Would you recommend the Lyceum Program to other students? Valid Yes Frequency _____ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 m n S B Z \"i \u0026gt; 50 \u0026lt; w e 2 2 CX) n a:  1672 l n 2| 0 s' \u0026lt; \u0026gt; 5 \u0026gt; c 1 3 9 'ZI -I X \u0026gt; 1u: 3 2 BBSSS. BBEEEEEEECSaiH: Philander Program Evaluation  Smith College/LRSD Lyceum Academic Report 1999-2000 Plato Fastrack Assessment Pre/post bl vH, John Mt, Lytfone cy. Anah na, Qulanla xJthart, Ray eyllehl, Bfanlaha cCoy, Hicota Mtaf, April Unpton, Patridt unpiofl. Shelly tfjay. Jawaa /I ere. 3/10X)0 n/1(V8B Bn4/B8 U24/Q0 B/24/W 3J22M) sa4/eo tt24ia9 ta4ia9 90199 ea4/M eA4/oe 0 10   0 10 0 10 4.33 ^2 2.2 3 2.4 7.1 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.2 2.4 2 0.68 10.67 068 0.11 7.67 11 7 06 11 0.44 044 0.11 8.70 6.22 8.37 7.36 8.11 6.17 3.0 6.38 8.4 734 7.24 8.71 8.70 MB 6-6 6.8 2.56 62 2.68 8.67 6 6 6-7 6 6.7 9 2.78 7.87 06 0.76 8.03 3.83 025 8.21 10.22 0.26 0.17 0 1.37 3.0 7.10 3.73 1.28 2.88 2.71 4.62 4.26 3.47 6.37 486 273 2.73 2 38 2.00 4.6 37 7.4 767 38 37 200 0.2 10 0.2 803 200 10 7.8 10.77 1041 10.82 1023 8.07 436 7.27 6.47 0 6.6 4.1 337 2.74 7.22 863 608 0 0 0 Compiled -^B/00L B-. II: B.\nc . L IL. 4 i mHHMX school transition k k' p ELEMENTARY SUMMER SCHOOL i ! ' J I 1^ *' .1 J II\n '3 j b \u0026lt;   * - ^?W-' J* i\u0026gt;'  - 3 vj': I I r- - -LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education \u0026gt;l 2nl 0 fl * t \u0026gt;-i C2 FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: S^bBonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction \u0026lt; DATE: February 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation Background Information on the Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation One in the group of programs required by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Elementary Summer School program. In 1998 the State discontinued funding for the elementary summer school program, which had been mandatory for identified students in grades K-3 during 1993-1997. During those years the District also offered a tuition-funded program for students in grades 4-6, providing approximately 25 days of extended instruction with an emphasis on reading and mathematics. Effective 1998, the District continued the funding for grades K-3, and grades 4-5 students had the option of attending a tuition program. (Grade 6 moved to middle school in fall 1999.) The K-3 program changed the emphasis from reading and mathematics to a focus on reading and writing, and instruction was patterned after the Districts comprehensive early literacy program in Prek-3. Steps Taken as a Result of the Program Evaluation The E lementary S ummer S chool p rogram was a bandoned a fter summer 2 001. This decision was made based on the analysis of data by District staff from the summer 2000 and summer 2001 programs and on the desire of elementary principals to provide their own school-based remedial programs throughout the year, instead of during the summer. They saw the summer intervention as being too late to impact achievement scores and too late to impact the initial retention decisions. The funds, approximately $250,000 annually, previously allocated for K-3 summer school are now divided among the elementary schools according to a formula based on the schools enrollment, achievement data, and the number of free/reduced lunch students. Each school submits a plan annually for the use of the funds, including goals. I 1674 I Board Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two strategies, assessments, and budget. Individual students at each school are identified for the program. \u0026gt;1 4 P5I1 91 \u0026lt;pj \u0026gt; f9l eft f\u0026gt;l 5z Desiqnation of External Consultant and His Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Elementary Summer School program evaluation to the firm. Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., Dr. Larry McNeal, president. A copy of his resume is attached, establishing his 1 J i qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Proqram Evaluation /' In addition to Dr. McNeal and his associates, the following LRSD administrators participated in the evaluation: Ms. Frances Cawthon Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary School Services Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Mr. Ken Savage, Department of Computer Information Systems Ms. Lillie Carter, Summer School Coordinator Summer 2000 Summer School administrators-Joyce Willingham, Eleanor Cox, Ada Keown, and Donna Hall Summer 2001 Summer School administratorsJoyce Willingham, Eleanor Cox, Ada Keown, and Les Taylor  n Teacher Participation in Conductinq the Proqram Evaluation Elementary school-level test coordinators and teachers involved in administering the SAT-9 (grade 5), ALT (grades 2-5), DRA (grades K-2), Observation Surveys (grades K-2), and state Benchmark examinations (grade 4) a Impact on African-American Student Achievement The external evaluator was not able to determine definitively from existing data whether the elementary summer school program resulted in improved achievement among African American students. The conclusion was that the program had mixed results.\" There was some growth among second- and third-grade students, but kindergarten and grade one students performance maintained a similar level of achievement before and after the program.\" 1 These findings were virtually identical to those concluded by the staff participating in the original study. Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the Elementary Summer School program evaluation for submission to the federal court. BAL/adg 4 ' V 1675 DR. LARRY MCNEAL BUSINESS ADDRESS_______________ University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 buncnealtSualr.edu HOME ADDRESS 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 l-xmcneal (ainetscape.net lmcneal59@HntmaiI.com or PkD. __________________PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION____________________ Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1990) Emphasis\nFiscal and Community Support for Public Education Concentrations: Educational Finance, School-Community Relations, and Public School! Administration M.S. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) EmpHasiR- Administration and Orga-nization of Public Education Concentration\nEducational Administration (Public School) 21 5B1l 91 \u0026lt;M1I \u0026gt;1 n 1 cz M. A. B.A. Licensee: Public Affairs. University of Iowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis\nPublic Administration Concentration: Urban Admini-stration Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD (1975) Eirqihasis: Political Economics Concentrations\nBusiness AdTninistration, Political Science and Economics School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) Entrepreneurship: Quality Education and Management Associates, President _________ PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE _______________ Professor, Pppartment of Educational Leadership, Graduate School ofEducation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present I Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School ofEducation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor. Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 1 1681 19 Visiting Professor, BeUver International College. Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education. Palma de Mallorca. Baleares. Spain, Surmner 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, Graduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995-1997 State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 1994-1996 2\nCi \u0026gt;s i1 fal \u0026gt; C \"2. Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administratinn and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 n Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Summer 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of SmaU/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education,  University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-FaciHtator, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 iM I Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madicon Wisconsin, 1990-1991 Budget Analyst Intern, University of Wisconsin System Administrating, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 Budget and Management Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, Summer, 1988 Marketing Manager, Warfiuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instructor, Business Department, Madison Area Technical College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere \u0026amp; Company, Moline, Illinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Commercial Service Representative, HoneyweU, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public Administration Intern, Mayors Office. City of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 1682 I _________________________________ DISSERTATION_________________________________ McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Pl 0 rI 91 \u0026lt;R1\u0026lt; \u0026gt;1 g- RESEARCH INTERESTS \u0026gt; ' Cz School CnmrminitariaTii.'iTn (the fundamental relationship between schools and their communities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance (adequacy and equity of funding for pubhc education) Program Assessment and Evaluation GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administtation and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Pohtics andPohcy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business AdTninistratinn Human and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Pubhc Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development ____________________________ PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED____________________ McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountabihty. Educational Considerations. n la Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model: Combining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating guahtv reform: Programs. comTmTnities. and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. can Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2000). Impheations of legislative pohey development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed ). Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 436 694. Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, \u0026amp; McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Plaaning \u0026amp; Changing, 27(1 \u0026amp;2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. School Finance Pohev Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Update 1995 (135-1381. C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University: Pohey Research for Ohio-Based Education. McNeal, L. \u0026amp;Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-community'relations profile through sociological inventorying. People \u0026amp; Education: The Human Side of Schools. 3(3), 371-386. 3 1683 1 McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journ^, 11(3), 3-10. McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students\nCase study of John Wilkinson Elementary School. TUTHors School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Development Journal. 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Lehman, B. J. (1993). k vision of the future: The fuU-service school Planning and Changing. 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Chxiatj, V/.K., fc McNeal, T (?QO1) WnTlring Title\nThe Superintendencv. Theory to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. manuscripts in progress --------------^2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-commumiv: James coleman and the effective schools movement To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Educanon an Development. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, WX (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools: Comments about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, WJC, McNeal, L. (2001). Inqilications of charter schools and home schooling for the funding of pubhc schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. PUBLICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For the Study of Educational Finance. Hhnois State University. PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. Dissertation, McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahoma: Annual Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. First, P. F., \u0026amp; Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma McNeaL L.,----- Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Principals Newsletter. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Banner. 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of: Literacy, who's problem is it anyway? Nation^ Multicultural Banner, 5 (3), 2. 4 1684 r p R! 0 S'. \u0026gt; fl 3 \u0026gt; ZMcNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Barmer. 5 (2), 9. 6 __________________________________CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK____________________ In the area of educational finance. Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles: oRll s\u0026lt; 1I 1 9a ' 5 c 2 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revamp Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ILL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in News ILL. Odds Seen Better for Funding Refonn in ILL. ____________________________ REPORTS______________ ___________________ McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, November, 2002. McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report 2000-2001\nUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001. 'I McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year\n6 and 7^ grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special school districts\n1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. 1g Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., \u0026amp; Webb, R. Provosts advisory group on assessment: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. SummeT 2000 report, July, 2000. McNeal, L., et. aL The college of education assessment report 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little Rock Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2000. McNeal, L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually impaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and lUinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, October, 1995. bri McNeal, L, First, P., Walker, V,, \u0026amp; Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High SchooL Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District, March, 1993. M McNeal, L, et aL School choice: Open enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School AdministtatoTS, March, 1990. McNeal, L. County veterans service nfHr.Rr training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. McNeal, L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States departmeni of veterans affairs. Prepared for die Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and the Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. 5 1685 r E McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute\nAn analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS\nREFERRED p e 0 \u0026lt;\u0026gt; 3 \u0026gt; Cz McNeal, L., Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; Lewis, R (2002). New leaders and new impheations for educational admini-gtratinn Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Little Rock, AR. ri McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). A discussion of change theoTy, systems theory, and state designed standards and ac\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_1039","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":["2003-03"],"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/1039"],"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 MAR 18 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting March 2003 (\").,, \u0026gt;. :ImD r- rr-,-\ns-:: g~ ~~ m.., :ID C: -z\n,.c, (.\"...). I=\n(\")UI ~ I. 11. 111. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING March 20, 2003 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests 8. Performance - Hall High Madrigals REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Baseline Elementary School - Lena Goad Young's Catfish, Baseline - Gerald Ware, Carey G. Young Fulbright Elementary School - Deborah Mitchell Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies - Brent Bumpers Central High School - Nancy Rousseau Heifer Project International - Ann Jacobs Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Central - Mike Peterson, Victor Eack/es, Allie Freeman North Point Nissan - Adam Guise Landers Toyota - Dennis Harris North Point Ford - David Lynch Landers Ford - Rick Wadsworth C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors F. Update on the Implementation of TAP - - Rockefeller and Stephens Regular Board Meeting March 20, 2003 Page2 IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members 8 . Desegregation Update C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes - Regular Meeting, 02-27-03 - Special Meeting, 03-13-03 B. Personnel Changes C. Adoption of Standards for Arkansas School Boards VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Overview of State Test Items B. Approval of Revised Technology Plan Vil. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: IX. X. A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION: CLOSING REMARKS: A. Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT :- =:- I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL UI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS STUDENT PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. CITIZENS/ D. CTA E. JOSHUA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 March 20, 2003 Board of Directors Debbie Milam, Director, VIPS/Partners in Education~ T. Kenneth James, 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 Young's Catfish- Baseline Fulbright Elementary School and Brent and Sam's Cookies Central High School and Heifer Project International Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center and North Point Nissan, Landers Toyota, North Point Ford, and Landers Ford .:.n. ?ii C: \"D ~ m Partners in Education Proposal Baseline Elementary and Young's Catfish-Baseline Baseline Elementary School and Young's Catfish-Baseline have formed a partnership designed to enhance the education of the students at Baseline. Baseline commits to the following activities: Provide holiday cards for employees Provide student art work for restaurant Provide students to sing during the holidays Acknowledge Young's Catfish-Baseline as a Partner in Education Encourage students to enter the coloring art contest Young's Catfish commits to the following activities: Sponsor a coloring art contest each year with the following awards: school winner will receive a fishing pole and tackle box\noverall winner will receive a $50 American Express Gift Cheque and a chicken tender/French fry classroom party Provide school staff discount cards Set up a school supply drive at the restaurant to collect school supplies for Baseline students Provide coupons for student recognition such as honor roll and perfect attendance Use student art work on company calendars Support other activities when possible CDn oo ~~ p n m=I ,::\n\u0026lt;-m Oz \":c'\"-' ~ !=' n\n! Partners in Education Proposal Fulbright Elementary School and Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies Fulbright Elementary School and Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies have formed a partnership designed to enhance the education of the students at Fulbright. Fulbright commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide art from 4th and 5th grade classes for display in Brent \u0026amp; Sam's offices  Submit student artwork for consideration for company holiday cards  Acknowledge Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies as a Partner in Education on school publications Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies commits to the following partnership activities: Donate product to be used in fundraising projects benefiting technology at Fulbright On-going support as needed LittCe 'Rock- Centra{ Jfi[Jli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutli 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .Arkansas 72202 'Phone 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 Central High School and Heifer Project International propose forming a mutually beneficial partnership. Activities will be added as the partnership teams at Central and Heifer begin to meet. The following activities have been agreed upon to kick off the partnership:  Help Heifer with the development of high school curriculum  Encourage the EAST lab to adopt a Heifer project for class work  Encourage foreign language clubs to host fundraisers for Heifer  Encourage service clubs to consider Heifer volunteer opportunities such as WorldFest, Riverfest, Dunbar Gardens and Inner City FutureNet  Have Central students read Beatrice's Goat to elementary classes during the Little Rock School District's Reading Day in November  Form a group to participate in the Global Village overnight experience at the Ranch  Send student representative(s) to attend the Youth Forum Camp held at the Ranch during the month of August\nHeifer will make available/ offer a scholarship for one student  Have Central students make a bulletin board for Heifer promotion  Provide tours for Heifer's national and international visitors  Make Central's conference center available for Heifer meetings when practical  Recruit Heifer employees and visitors to serve as speakers for Career Day  Encourage environmental science classes and International Studies Magnet program to collaborate with Heifer on ways to enhance class work  Investigate the possibility of placing a student in a work-study position at Heifer r\u0026gt; !J:I CDC cm 81:l !!l C) C c~~c C\u0026gt; \u0026gt;--\u0026lt; m--\u0026lt; m r\u0026gt; n m =I\n_ ~ oz (J)U, ::ccc \u0026gt; n \u0026gt; Partnership Between North Point Nissan and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize North Point Nissan 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 North Point Nissan 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 North Point Nissan in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with North Point Nissan . 5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. North Point Nissan will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school . 3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year 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. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center !=' n 0 z ~ :ID m ~ ~ Partnership Between Landers Tovota and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize Landers Toyota of Little Rock 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 Landers Toyota of Little Rock 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 Landers Toyota of Little Rock in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with Landers Toyota of Little Rock . 5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. Landers Toyota of Little Rock will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school . 3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year 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. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center !=' n 0z ~\nJO m ~ fl n m=l\n_ 1\nj Oen ezn ::c- ~!=' n ~ Partnership Between North Point Ford and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize North Point Ford 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 North Point Ford 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 North Point Ford in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with North Point Ford  5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. North Point Ford will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school  3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year 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. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center :..n. t .C.,: ~ m Partnership Between Landers Ford and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize Landers Ford of Little Rock 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 Landers Ford of Little Rock 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 Landers Ford of Little Rock in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with Landers Ford of Little Rock . 5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. Landers Ford of Little Rock will: l. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school . 3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year 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. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center r\u0026gt; (\") m =l - ~ ls z Ch Ch ::c- \n:!=' (\")\n: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: March 20, 2003 TO: Board of Education From: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Re: Informational Update on the Implementation of the Teacher Advancement Program at Rockefeller and Stephens Background Information: As you know, this is our initial year of implementation of the Teacher Advancement Program at Rockefeller and Stephens. The program is currently being implemented in two school districts in the state. We are very fortunate that the Walton Family Foundation has funded this program for three years. The TAP program is a multi-tiered teacher-staffing model that provides quality teachers with new career growth paths, increased salary flexibility and ongoing applied professional development opportunities. TAP's framework for systemic change is built on five key principles:  Multiple Career Paths  Market-Driven Compensation  Performance-Based Accountability  Ongoing, Applied Professional Development  Expanding the Supply of Quality Educators Anne Mangan and Sharon Brooks, along with staff members from Rockefeller and Stephens, will provide the board with an overview of our initial year of implementation. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board receive the report as submitted and commend the staff members and administration from Rockefeller and Stephens for their willingness to be a part of Teacher Advancement Program. f\u0026gt;!Jl ID C cm 8~ !!j Cl C c~~c ~:!:\n-\u0026lt;m m '54.n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" March 20, 2003 TO: Board of Directors THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent FROM: Bill Goodman ~ SUBJECT: March Construction Report, Bond Projects Please note that my attached report shows the renovation of Franklin Elementary and the addition and renovation of Romine Elementary have recently been completed. This brings the total completed Bond projects to 125. All of the District's 60 school and administrative buildings have been affected. It has been almost three [3] years since the voters approved the mileage increase to support the capital improvements to our facilities. The District has spent approximately $57,000,000 since that time to make major improvements to our buildings. Those improvements will continue because several projects are either in the planning stage or construction phase. The Bond construction program should be completed in early 2006. The addition and renovation of Pulaski Heights Middle and Elementary will bid on March 20th . You will be given a report on that bid at the Board meeting. The architect has completed the drawings for the addition and renovation of Dunbar Middle. The drawings are going through the review process by both the District and governmental agencies. Bidding is scheduled for April. If you have questions, please feel free to call me at 44 7-1146. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION FacilitvName Project Descriotion Cost Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SPRING 2002-2003 FacilitvName Project Descriotion Cost Administration 1Fire alarm $32,350 Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Baseline Renovation $953,520 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Carver Parking lot $111,742 Central Parking Student parking $50,000 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $100,000 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Otter Creek Repair surface water drain $25,000 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Southwest Drainage I street widening $250,000 Southwest New roof $690,000 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Ctr / Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Wilson Parkina Exoansion $110,000 Est. \\,\nOlllpletion Date Mar-03 Dec-05 May-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Aua-03 est. completion Date Aor-03 Jun-03 Dec-03 Dec-04 Jul-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Jun-03 Mar-04 Aug-03 Dec-03 Jun-03 Mar-04 Jun-03 Aug-04 Auo-04 Aua-03 Aug-03 May-04 Jun-03 Feb-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-03 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. Gomp1et1on Facility Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Date J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 Unknown Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Jun-04 Wilson Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Woodruff Parkino addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation I Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Leaming Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Bale HVAC $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Hall Energv efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall Intercom Hall Security cameras $10,600 Est l,OOlpletion Date May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 J\\or-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 May-01 Jun-01 Aua-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aor-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 2 !II \"O m\no !S z z '.! Facility Name Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDennott McDennott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $193,679 ' Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alann $1,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units $300,000 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Asphalt walks The total $1.8 Walkway canopies million is what has Boiler replacement been used so far Fencing on the projects Partial demolition/portable classrooms listed completed for Security cameras $36,300 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Stadium stands repair $235,000 Intercom $46,000 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Fire alann $16,175 Asbestos abatement $253,412 Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Replace shop vent system $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 HVAC renovation $237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Parking lot $138,029 6 classroom addition $888,778 HVAC controls $210,000 Roof replacement $273,877 Exterior lights $10,784 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Move playground $17,000 Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Parking addition $111,742 l:St. \\JOC1..,.......,.1 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 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 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aua-02 3 !13 \"D i z z ,m- !'\" z.... m\na\na m~\ng\u0026gt; 1!:lc::: C a ~ CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 SecurityfTransportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Wakefield Demolition/ Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Washington Security cameras $7,900 Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191,946 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 ESL\\.,01,.,......,..., Date , Apr--02 Mar--03 Jun--01 Aug--00 Jan--02 Aug--02 Dec--01 Nov--02 Feb--01 Aug--02 Sep--02 Jun--01 Feb--01 Nov--02 Jun--01 Apr--01 Jul--01 Aug--01 Aug--01 Aug--02 Aug--02 Aug--02 Dec--01 Jul--01 Jun--01 Aug--02 4 !D I z z .m.... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: March 20, 2003 To: Board of Directors Fromsandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - March This is the forty-first communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with three high schools and two middle 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 implementation of technology by participation in the technology committee( s). b) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. c) Participating with the Technology Committee. :..n.. c:: Pl o\"C z::c ?jO m -\u0026lt; !II \"C m\n,:, is zz m r- Audit Report - March 2003 Page 2 of2 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. 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. 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) 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 internal controls. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Serving 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 501-44 7-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. :..n.. c:~ -.i::c cz \u0026gt;.m....o.g.. -\u0026lt; Little Rock School District Board of Directors Technology Update March 20, 2003 Current Projects:  New Network o Conversion to the new district network continues to be implemented site by site. Two to three sites per week are scheduled. o As each site comes on the network the benefits include:  Being able to share files and folders across the district,  Managing routine maintenance and management from the Tech Center,  Managing desktop troubleshooting from the Tech Center.  Computer Purchases o Computer purchases to bring every school up to a 5: 1 ratio are complete except for one school. Computers are being installed at Terry and McDermott this week.  Training Plan o Work continues on developing on-line training for district staff.  Technology Plan Update o Technology Planning Committee has submitted the revised technology plan for approval. !.J,I, i zz ,m... TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR.KANSAS March 20, 2003 11 .\\ Board of Education p Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes 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 19, 2002 are considered intern teachers. Personnel Changes Page 2 March 20, 2003 NAME Dixon, Elisha Reason: Health K.idda, Colleen Reason: Leaving City Holeman, Eleanor Reason: Leaving City Lesley, Bonnie Reason: Retired Vandiver, Jalisha Reason: Personal Jones, Elizabeth Morgan, Keisha POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsff erminations Certified Em(!IOl'.ees Vocational Tch 10-10-96 1-02 METRO 3-4-03 VOC925 Counselor 8-20-90 6-16 SOUTHWEST 2-14-03 CNLl0 Voe. Business 1-22-85 6-21 CENTRAL 4-25-03 VOC105 Assoc. Supt. 7-1-98 81-20 CURR \u0026amp; INSTR. 3-14-03 ADC12 English 8-19-02 1-01 HALL 2-27-03 TCH925 New Certified Em(!lovees Biology 2-4-03 1-02 FAIR TCH925 Special Ed. 2-3-03 2-05 DODD SPE925 ANNUAL SALARY 27056.00 47629.00 53213.00 100764.00 26546.00 27056.00 annual 10850.58 prorated 30936.00 annual 12567.75 prorated ~  C :I: ?' ~ fl\u0026gt; s  F 8~ z~ .... mZ 5en Zen en~ fl\u0026gt; f\u0026gt; en,X~ ~8 z,- Cl:II  o el~ en C ?- ~ .... z men ~:il m~ cn::: :1: .... 00 ~~\no ,- sen i~ Personnel Changes Page 3 March 20, 2003 NAME Williams, Frank POSITION SCHOOL Algebra I CENTRAL START DATE END DATE 2-10-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 Resignationsff erminations on-Certified Employees Boyd, Marlo Child Nutrition 1-21-03 3-01 Reason: Abandonment GEYER SPRINGS 3-14-03 FSH4 Brown, Christine Child Nutrition 10-7-02 3-01 Reason: Returning to School WESTERN HILLS 2-15-03 FSH4 Hairston, Patricia Child Nutrition 9-6-02 1-01 Reason: Abandonment MCCLELLAN 3-13-03 FSH5 Hampton, Deidre Care Worker 1-24-03 4-01 Reason: Resigned Without CARE 3-14-03 CARE Notice Lewis, Jerry Instr. Aide 8-19-02 1-01 Reason: Abandonment WAKEFIELD 2-14-03 INA925 Moore, Edwin Custodian 8-9-02 1-01 Reason: Personal DUNBAR 2-28-03 CUS925 Scott, Tina Instr. Aide 8-7-02 1-06 Reason: Personal WOODRUFF 3-7-03 INA185 Townes, Stephanie Care Worker 12-5-03 3-01 Reason: None Given CARE 3-7-03 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 25546.00 annual 10093.01 prorated 5687.00 5687.00 7312.00 6.251hr 10577.00 10329.00 12798.00  6.861hr ~ \u0026gt; C ii: 1E ~ fl\u0026gt; s \u0026gt;\n:= 8~ ~~ .... m i5 Ch z\"' Ch Ch ~ fl\u0026gt; r\u0026gt; ~ u, ::c i!8 z,- ~~ jg~ Ch C\n,-\ns .... z m!!l ~::a =IC: m\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; ii: .... 015 ~ ~ ::a,- s\"' ~~ Personnel Changes Page 4 March 20, 2003 NAME Woods, Robert Reason: Terminated Ridgel, Richard Wal ton, Coretta Bateman, Vadea Stephens, Ivan Tolbert, William Ghant, Natlyn POSITION SCHOOL Custodian CARVER START DATE END DATE 10-2-89 3-03-03 SALARY CLASS 1-11 CUS925 New Non-Certified Employees Custodian 2-24-03 1-01 WASHINGTON CUS925 Child Nutrition 2-14-03 1-01 FAIR FSH5 Child Nutrition 1-24-03 1-01 HALL FSH5 Instr. Aide 2-11-03 1-07 WAKEFIELD INA925 Care Worker 3-6-03 3-05 CARE CARE Care Worker 2-20-03 3-05 CARE CARE ANNUAL SALARY 14461.00 5164.50 annual 1740.21 prorated 7312.00 annual 2666.25 prorated 7312.00 annual 3272.22 prorated 13115.00 annual 4891.54 prorated 7.40/hr 7.40/hr ~ \u0026gt; C ~ ii! ~ !II s \u0026gt;\n= g!!! z!!!  Z -1m oen Zen en~ !II ~ ~ en ::c  8 Zr ~~ jg~ en C\n,,,\nS -tz men ~il =I~ m-1 ~ 0 0~ ~r ~~ ~!II Personnel Changes Page 5 March 20, 2003 NAME Corbin, Marquitta Carter, Noda POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide FAIR Instr. Aide MCCLELLAN START DATE END DATE 2-18-03 2-11-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 INA925 1-02 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 10577.00 annual 3716.24 prorated 11106.00 annual 4142.24 prorated ~ \u0026gt; C E :z ~ ~ s \u0026gt;\n= 8~ z!!l  Z --.m Oen Zen en~ n ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: TO: March 20, 2003 Board of Education From: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Re: Adoption of Arkansas School Boards Standards Background Information: Standards have recently been developed for Arkansas School Boards. The standards focus on: Vision/Philosophy\nOrganization\nBoard Operations\nBoard Development\nPersonnel Operations\nand Board/Staff/Community Relations. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board officially approve and adopt the Standards as proposed. TKJ/bjg .!:,D, z \u0026gt;z 0 ~ Standards for Arkansas School Boards I. Vision/Philosophy A. The School Board creates a clear vision for the district that focuses on students, excellence in education, and academic achievement. B. The School Board adopts this vision that is created through collaborative processes that involve the staff, parents, community, and students. C. The School Board effectively communicates this vision to the staff, parents, community, and students. D. The School Board adopts long- and short-term goals to accomplish the vision of the district. E. The School Board believes that accountability for achieving the goals of the district rests with the School Board, the superintendent, the staff, the parents, the community, the students, and the state. II. Organization A. The School Board adopts and follows a \"Code of Ethics. 11 B. The School Board adopts policies that clearly define the roles and duties of its members. C. The School Board adopts policies delineating the procedures for electing its officers and defining their roles and duties. Ill. Board Operations A. The School Board governs through approved policies and maintains a current policy manual which is reviewed regularly. B. The School Board conducts professional meetings in accordance with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act by establishing and publishing the agenda prior to the meeting and by following the agenda during the meeting. C. The School Board conducts public forums periodically to receive input from citizens. D. The School Board acts with fiscal responsibility. IV. Board Development A. The School Board receives annual training as recommended and/or conducted by the Arkansas School Boards Association and is familiar with A Handbook for Arkansas School Board Members. B. New School Board members receive additional timely training regarding School Board member responsibilities. C. The School Board conducts annual self-assessments and avails itself of professional develop-ment opportunities based on the needs of its members. D. The School Board keeps abreast of state and federal laws that impact education. E. The School Board stays informed about current education issues. F. The School Board attends regional and state Arkansas School Boards Association meetings and remains informed of National School Boards Association meetings and issues. G. The School Board, at least annually, convenes for an extended work session to review goals, evaluate the progress of the district, and develop long-range plans.  H. The School Board is familiar with Key Work of School Boards and implements those concepts. V. Personnel Operations A. The School Board maintains a high standard of ethics in all personnel matters. B. The School Board remains neutral in all personnel matters until the superintendent brings a recommendation to them. C. The School Board adopts personnel policies with input from district personnel. D. The School Board empowers the administration to recruit and recommend highly qualified applicants to the Board. .!.l,l z ~ 0 ~ Ul E. The School Board expects the administration to maintain a highly qualified staff by offering timely and adequate opportunities for professional development F. The School Board hires the superintendent and is responsible for conducting a search to replace an exiting superintendent. G. The School Board evaluates the superintendent annually and determines the continued employment of the superintendent. VI. Board/Staff/Community Relations A. The School Board maintains a positive, supportive, and professional attitude toward all staff. B. The School Board and the superintendent work together as a leadership team. C. The School Board recognizes, protects, and encourages the chain of command at all times. D. The School Board and superintendent recognize that communication is a two-way process. E. The School Board and the superintendent work together to provide and follow a process that encourages and seeks input from the staff and community when appropriate on significant issues by: 1. providing leadership in the establishment of open dialogue through community discussion groups, school councils, and other means\n2. collaborating with local, state, and national agencies\n3. working with the media to provide information\n4. visiting schools\nand 5. including informative presentations from staff and students at school board meetings. F. The School Board models respect for the superintendent, staff, parents, community, and students. G. The School Board supports and adopts the use of Study Circles, or a similar process, as a method of communicating with the staff, the parents, the community, and the students. .!.J,' z \u0026gt; ~ i!: Ul LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: TO: March 20, 2003 Board of Education From: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Re: OVERVIEW OF STATE TEST ITEMS Background Information: In an attempt to provide Board members with a better understanding of what our students experience while taking state examinations, Dennis Glasgow will provide an overview of some of the test items at the various grade levels. This will be an experiential activity. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board receive the report as submitted. s \u0026gt;\n= g~ ,z-!!z! _,m 0 gi Zu, (II\u0026lt; n !\" .!.I,' z n~ ~ (II Date: To: From: Through: Subject: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 20, 2003 Board of Directors Lucy Neal, Technology and Media Services T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Revised LRSD Technology Plan The Little Rock School District's revised technology plan is due to the Arkansas Department of Education on or before April 15, 2003. A draft copy of the plan was provided for your review at the agenda meeting on March 13. The plan has undergone minor revisions and edits since that time, and a final document is being provided under separate cover. I am available to respond if there are questions or comments. It is recommended that the Board approve this document for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. ~  0 iE ?! ~ !I' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: March 27, 2003 TO: Board of Education FROM: ~arral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, 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 Brady Elementary $800.00 cash to be used Bank of Ozarks School to defray the cost of art teacher Central High School Golf cart, valued at David \u0026amp; Dawn Terry approximately $1,000.00, to be used by security personnel to assist in the surveillance of campus Central High School Refrigerator, valued at Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Mark Ramm approximately $400.00, Dr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Randall Hundley for the teachers' lounge McClellan Magnet $250.00 cash to be used in Ms. Melissa Kumpe High School baseball program It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. !..l,' z \u0026gt;z 0\ni: U\u0026gt; BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM February 10, 2003 Darrall Paradis Director of Procurement Ada Keown a,{ Principal Donation Bank of Ozarks, our Partner in Education, has donated $800.00 to Brady Elementary School. We sincerely appreciate this donation, which will be used to defray the cost of our art teacher. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Bank of Oz.arks P.O. Box 196 Oz.ark, Arkansas 72949 7915 West Markham Street  Phone (501) '147-3900  Fax (501) 447-3901  Little Rock. Arkansas 72205 ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 en z C) I .!J.,I z \u0026gt;z (\") j!: en LittCe 'Rock Centra{ J-fifJli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt[e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 'Phone 501-447-1400 ]'ax 501-447-1401 DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NA CY ROUSSEAU, PRI CIPAL Yf[.__- SUBJECT: DO ATIO Please accept the donation of a golf cart, estimated value of $1000 to Central High School. The golf cart will be utilized by Central security to assist in the surveilance of our campus. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. David and Dawn Terry of 15 Platte Drive Maumelle, AR 72113 have made this very gracious contribution to our school. ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 !z! l c\n, ill I fJ) .itt{e 'Roci. Centra{ J-ffafi Scfioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .Jlrkansas 72202 Tfione 501-447-1400 ]'ax 501-447-1401 DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREME T FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL yfl) SUBJECT: DO ATIO -SEPTEMBER2002 Please accept the donation of a refrigerator for the teachers' lounge, estimated value of $400 to Central High School. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Mr. and Mrs. Mark Ramm and Dr. and Mrs. Randall Hundley made this very gracious contribution to our school. Cc: Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Ramm Dr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Hundley ' ,, 'l !..I,I z \u0026gt;z n ~ en McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL DATE: TO: FROM: THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA February 10, 2003 Darral Paradis, Direct~F\n~\nfrocurement Lany Buck, Princip~ SUBJECT: Donation Please accept this generous donation given to McClellan High School. Ms. Melissa Kumpe, 1905 McWiliams Lane, Little Rock, AR 72206 has given a cash donation of $250.00 to be used for the McClellan Baseball Team. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Cc: Dr. Marion Lacey, Associate Superintendent FEB 1 0 2003 ! - ..:::- .. --:_:_- J 9417 Geyer Springs Road  Phone 447-2100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 20, 2003 Board Of Directors ~Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services THROUGH:__ ~ _y-enneth James, Superintendent Of Schools ~onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Financial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. --- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2002 AND 2003 ..-- APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2001 /02 02/28/02 COLLECTED 2002/03 02/28/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,850,000 57,086,336 98.68% 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% DELINQUENT TAXES 6,950,000 6,730,591 96.84% 8,000,000 8,432,483 105.41% 40% PULLBACK 28,450,000 29,400,000 -EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 190,000 186,429 98.12% 187,000 205,072 109.66% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 575,000 353,143 61 .42% 385,000 174,515 45.33% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 125,000 126,034 100.83% 135,000 337,232 249.80% M ISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 600,000 147,159 24.53% 340,000 235,596 69.29% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 600,000 115,387 19.23% 275,000 119,016 43.28% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 155,000 144,376 93.15% 160,000 175,342 109.59% TOTAL 95,495,000 64,889,454 67.95% 97,432,000 66,827,036 68.59% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 25,000 17,024 68.10% 24,000 17,215 71.73% TOTAL 25,000 17,024 68.10% 24,000 17,215 71.73% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,568,331 34,184,630 62.65% 54,867,630 35,239,580 64.23% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,455,741 5,478,756 73.48% 7,590,000 4,566,701 60.17% VOCATIONAL 1,325,000 857,796 64.74% 1,340,000 833,381 62.19% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,900,000 66,075 3.48% 1,700,000 757,851 44.58% EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 175,782 75.12% 273,358 205,407 75.14% TRANSPORTATION 3,468,291 1,161,445 33.49% 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,865,000 1,894,530 49.02% 3,265,000 1,804,317 55.26% ADULT EDUCATION 987,869 547,481 55.42% 1,006,014 377,991 37.57% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 1,195,000 1,097,074 91 .81% 658,607 658,607 100.00% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 25,000 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 605,000 158,878 26.26% 650,000 64,573 9.93% WORKER'S COMPENSATION 600,000 TOTAL 76,229,224 45,622,447 59.85% 75,441,106 47,246,763 62.63% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 600,000 620,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 700,000 15,540 2.22% 1,126,233 175,922 15.62% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,639,927 546,642 33.33% 1,664,438 554,813 33.33% TOTAL 2,939,927 562,182 19.12% 3,410,671 730,735 21.42% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 174,689,151 111,091,108 63.59% 176,307,777 114,821,750 65.13% REVENUE- OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 15,868,127 6,045,266 38.10% 22,230,023 10,731 ,261 48.27% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 2,091 ,348 53.33% 3,980,000 2,082,476 52.32% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 8,721,449 35.16% 25,065,942 10,408,214 41 .52% TOTAL 44,592,636 16,858,062 37.80% 51,275,965 23,221,951 45.29% TOTAL REVENUE 219,281,787 127,949,170 58.35% 227,583,742 138,043,700 60.66% - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2002 AND 2003 - APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2001/02 02/28/02 EXPENDED 2002/03 02/28/03 EXPENSES SALARIES 98,743,100 55,825,120 56.54% 100,865,586 59,903,522 -BENEFITS 25,603,621 14,188,170 55.41% 24,838,361 15,085,593 pURCHASED SERVICES 20,235,454 11,425,363 56.46% 19,795,774 11 ,960,581 -MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 9,252,512 5,077,623 54.88% 8,347,098 4,756,586 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,792,554 647,958 36.15% 1,616,991 860,152 OTHER OBJECTS 8,402,940 2,853,528 33.96% 8,508,680 2,918,811 -DEBT SERVICE 10,526,942 10,653,854 101.21% 12,217,048 12,213,572 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 174,557,123 100,671 ,616 57.67% 176,189,538 107,698,817 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 16,519,453 7,126,750 43.14% 22,995,210 10,208,019 -DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 2,213,186 56.43% 3,980,000 1,976,084 MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 12,196,030 49.17% 25,065,942 13,302,996 TOTAL 45,243,962 21,535,966 47.60% 52,041,152 25,487,100 - TOTAL EXPENSES 219,801,085 122,207,582 55.60% 228,230,690 133,185,917 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (519,298) 5,741 ,588 (646,948) 4,857,782 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,937,298 1,937,298 1,645,440 1,645,440 OPERATING 8,489,087 8,489,087 8,557,652 8,557,652 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 1,285,972 (2,740,606) 880,253 (619,709) OPERATING 8,621,115 18,908,579 8,675,891 15,680,583 TOTAL 9,907,087 16,167,973 9,556,144 15,060,875 % EXPENDED 59.39% 60.74% 60.42% 56.98% 53.19% 34.30% 99.97% 61.13% 44.39% 49.65% 53.07% 48.97% 58.36%\n,\u0026lt; 0 5 en z C, Rl i en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE ?\u0026lt; (\") 07-01-02 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 02-28-03 5 \"z' C\u0026gt; $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE Rl FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 ~ MCCLELLAN 78,319.02 800.00 77,519.02 ~ \"' CONTINGENCY 1,052,354.15 1,052,354.15 SUBTOTAL 1,163,956.07 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 1,163,156.07 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ~~ ADMINISTRATION 0.00 182,400.00 102,096.04 80,303.96 \u0026gt;~ NEW WORK PROJECTS 22,028,270.87 8,302,568.00 7,788,543.80 9,490,272.24 13,052,022.83 Cr\n! ~\no SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 s! z LIGHTING PROJECTS 348,708.80 30,625.90 379,334.70 0.00 ~~ mz MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 5,749,803.26 344,842.00 2,908,041.59 241,894.71 2,944,708.96 .... RENOVATION PROJECTS 47,947,115.45 983,360.00 12,036,498.29 12,115,817.09 24,778,160.07 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 4,744,881 .05 90,303.80 3,778,535.57 267,238.75 789,410.53 SUBTOTAL 80,861 ,053.40 0.00 9,934,099.70 26,993,049.99 22,115,222.79 41,686,880.32 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 139,801.90 45,668.11 5,771 .03 179,698.98 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 FULBRIGHT PROJECT 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 31,569,505.02 {9,934,099.70) 21 ,635,405.32 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST STATE OF ARK 469,063.03 469,063.03 INTEREST 5,022,644.80 1,984,556.28 7,007,201.08 SUBTOTAL 38,500,102.43 2,080,224.39 {9,934,099.70) 5,771.03 0.00 30,640,456.09 GRAND TOTAL 1 jla :iil:i m 11a i a11a ii~ :111 l2J22 jl l!l!l! liill ail ijl ll:i 2~~ ZII za ~11a ~Iii ~11 - -- PROJECT - ALLOCATIONS PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 02-28-03 - ADMINISTRATION 586,846.55 NEW WORK PROJECTS 35,363,912.16 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,853,208.89 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 11,104,325.29 RENOVATION PROJECTS 53,447,136.00 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 9,735,402.78 - UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 22,929,226.29 TOTAL - 138,285,872.13 - - - - - 'S:\u0026gt;AS lOOH:\u0026gt;S 'XI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2003 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE 2000-01 2001-02 THRU 02-28-03 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 102,096.04 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 7,788,543.80 113,930.47 109,609.73 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,334.70 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 2,908,041.59 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 12,036,498.29 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 3,778,535.57 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 26,993,049.99 - - -  - ENCUMBERED THRU 02-28-03 SUBTOTAL -t 506,542.59 9,490,272.24 1 22,311,889.33 223,540.20 4,853,208.89 241,894.71 8,159,616.33 12,115,817.09 28,668,975.93 267,238.75 8,945,992.25 22,115,222.79 73,669,765.52 1N3WNMnorov nx S9Nll:IV3H 'IX ENDING ALLOCATION 02-28-03 80,303.96 13,052,022.83 42,273.97 0.00 2,944,708.96 24,778,160.07 789,410.53 22,929,226.29 64,616,106.61 S\u0026gt;n!VW3l:I 9NIS01:\u0026gt; x - Fund Purchase Date Qperating 12-09-02 - Operating 01-19-03 Operating 08-10-02 Operating 02-28-03 Operating 12-27-02 Total Food Service 02-28-03 Total Activity Fund 11-14-02 Total - - Bond Account 09-09-02 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Proje~s Fund 02-14-03 Capital Projects fund 01-29-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 Capital Projects Fund 11-15-02 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-22-03 Capital Projects Fund 07-17-02 Capital Projects Fund 11-15-02 Capital Projects Fund 09-17-02 Capital Projects Fund 09-17-02 Capital Projects _fund 02-24-03 - Total Deseg Plan Scholarship 01-10-03 Deseg Plan Scholarship 09-27-02 Total - Rockefeller Sc~olarship 01-30-03 Total s~AS lOOH~ \"XI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28,2003 Maturity Institution Interest Rate Date 06-09-03 Regions 1.190% 07-19-03 Regions 1.190% 04-08-02 Pulaski 2.330% TFN Bank of America 1.150% 03-03-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% TFN Bank of America 1.040% 04-02-03 Bank of America 1.120% 03-10-03 Regions 1.590% 01-16-04 Metropolitan 1.930% 01-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks ~ .250% 10-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.440% 01-29-04 Bancorp South 2.000% 01-16-04 Superior 2.250% 11-14-03 Superior 1.900% 05-15-03 USBANK 1.380% 07-15-03 USBANK 1.360% 01-16-04 Bank of America 1.240% 03-14-03 Merrill Lynch 1.770% 05-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.480% 04-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 2.070% 09-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 2.200% TFN Bank of America 1.070% 06-11-03 Bank of America 1.050% 06-10-03 Bank of America 1.430% 06-24-03 Bank of America 1.090% Type Money Market Money Market Money Market Repo CD Repo Treasury Bills CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD Treasury Bills Treasury Bills CD CD CD Repo Treasury Bills Treasury Bills Treasury Bills 1N3WNHnorav nx SONl'!IV3H \"IX Principal 20,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 13,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 23,050,000.00 540,000.00 540,000.00 800,523.15 800,523.15 400,000.00 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 10,000,000.00 5,299,646.43 4,940,754.17 9,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 9,890,000.00 95,206,829.90 124,445.83 534,508.80 658,954.63 249,898.04 249,898.04 S)l'!IVW3'!1 ONISOl~ 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":7,"next_page":8,"prev_page":6,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":72,"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}}]}}