{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"nge_ngen_john-lewis-1940-2020","title":"John Lewis (b. 1940)","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Moye, J. Todd"],"dc_date":["2004-07-26"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article about John Lewis, a preeminent leader of the modern American civil rights movement. He has represented the Fifth Congressional District of Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1987. Lewis attended the American Baptist Theological Seminary and Fisk University, both in Nashville, Tennessee. Lewis was a participant in the 1961 Freedom Ride. He was chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) from 1963 until 1966 and was one of the speakers at the August 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Lewis was also executive director of the Southern Regional Council's Voter Education Project and the associate director of ACTION, the federal agency for volunteer service. Lewis also served on the Atlanta City Council.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata.","GSE identifier: SS2H1, SS8H11"],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dcterms_subject":["African American civil rights workers--Georgia","Legislators--United States","African American political activists--Georgia","African Americans--Politics and government"],"dcterms_title":["John Lewis (b. 1940)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/john-lewis-1940-2020/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["If you wish to use content from the NGE site for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, you must request and receive written permission from the NGE. Such requests may be directed to: Permissions/NGE, University of Georgia Press, 330 Research Drive, Athens, GA 30602."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"John Lewis (b. 1940),\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Lewis, John, 1940-2020"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_140","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2004-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/140"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nArkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL . LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director July 30, 2004 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED AC3 - 2 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION f,10NITORING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of July 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Si(ncIerJely, \\I ( I ~tf. ~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier -:------------- STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair -JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia An Equal Opportunity Empl~yer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for July 2004. Respectfully Submitted, SJ~5r General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on July 30, 2004, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED AC3 - 2 200~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION f,iONITORlNG DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the AD E's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Based on the information available at June 30, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for_FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued} B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued} 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Based on the information available at June 30, 2004, the AbE calculated for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 On June 30, 2004, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 03/04 were as follows: LRSD - $53,226,139 NLRSD - $28,075,080 PCSSD - $50,967,808 The allotments of State Equalization FundinQ calculated for FY 03/04 at June 30, 2004, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $53,226, 139 NLRSD - $28,075,080 PCSSD - $50,967,808 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2004 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2004 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2004 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Distributions for FY 03/04 at June 30, 2004, totaled $12,305,271. Allotment calculated for FY 03/04 was $12,305,271 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Calculated for FY 02/03, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Distributions for FY 03/04 at June 30, 2004, 2003 were: LRSD - $4,149, 129 NLRSD - $3,771,548 PCSSD - $11,589,336 The allotments calculated for FY 03/04 at June 30, 2004, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4,149, 129 NLRSD - $3,771,548 PCSSD - $11,589,336 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of July 31, 2004 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 In January 2004, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 03/04 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 e. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 In September 2003, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 02/03 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2003, the following had been paid for FY 02/03: LRSD - $3,835,562.00 NLRSD - $742,399.62 PCSSD - $2,252,050.92 In September 2003, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2003, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $1,243,841.33 NLRSD - $263,000.00 PCSSD O $727,406.63 In February 2004, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2004, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $2,487,682.66 NLRSD - $526,000.00 PCSSD - $1,454,813.26 M.  ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. N. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD -14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD -12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1 , 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42, 155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. 0. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. Specifications for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M school buses have been forwarded to State Purchasing for bidding. Bids will be opened on May 12, 2003. The buses will have a required delivery date after July 1, 2003 and before August 8, 2003. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new MaQnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. s. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring.(Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01 /02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1 . Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued} 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and  reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 111. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede deseg reg a ti on. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not re.port any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary wete distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998 . . The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO P.RINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 37 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in  accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1 . Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative s1aff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled ''Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 1 O regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency {LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan {IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 1 O and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on 'The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued} The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2004 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on ''The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken  Stamatis presented \"Smart Steps to Creating a School Culture That Supports Adolescent Comprehension\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On August 8, 2002, Steven Weber held a workshop at Booker T. Washington Elementary on \"Best Practices in Social Studies\". It was presented to the 4th grade teachers in the Little Rock School District. The workshop focused around the five themes of geography and the social studies (fourth grade) framework/standards. Several Internet web sites were shared with the teachers, and the teachers were shown methods for incorporating writing into fourth grade social studies. One of the topics was using primary source photos and technology to stimulate the students to write about diverse regions. A theme of the workshop included identifying web sites which apply to fourth grade social studies teachers and interactive web sites for fourth grade students. This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. On August 13 Steven Weber conducted a workshop at Parkview High School in the LRSD. Topics of the workshop included: 1. Incorporating Writing in the Social Studies Classroom 2. Document Based (open-ended) Questioning Techniques 3. How to practice writing on a weekly basis without assigning a lengthy research report 4. Developing Higher Level Thinking Skills in order to produce active citizens, rather than passive, uninformed citizens 5. Using the Social Studies Framework 6. Identifying state and national Web Sites which contain Primary Sources for use in the classroom The 8:30 - 11 :30 session was for the 6 - 8 grade social studies teachers. The 12:30 - 3:00 session was for the 9 - 12 grade social studies teachers. Several handouts were used, also PowerPoint, primary source photos and documents, and Internet web sites (i.e., Library of Congress, Butler Center for Arkansas Studies, National Archives, etc.). This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. Marie McNeal is the Social Studies Specialist for the Little Rock School District. She invited Steven Weber to present at the workshop, and was in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 (Continued) On September 30 through October 11, 2002, the ADE provided Professional Development for Test Administrators on the End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport. All three districts in Pulaski County sent representatives to the training. On October 3, 2002, Charlotte Marvel provided in-service training for LEP teachers in the Little Rock School District. On December 6, 2002, the Community and Parent Empowerment Summit was held for parents of children attending the LRSD. It took place at the Saint Mark Baptist Church in Little Rock. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented information on No Child Left Behind, Supplemental Services, after school tutoring, how parents can help, and the Refrigerator Curriculum. Mr. Reginald Wilson, Senior Coordinator for Accountability, presented information on ACTAAP, including how to find information on the AS-IS Website and what is included in the school report cards. Donna Elam spoke on the topic \"From the School House to the Jail House\". On December 10 - 12, 2002, the Math Workshop \"Investigations in Number, Data and Space\" was held at the Clinton Elementary Magnet School in Sherwood. Training for Kindergarten and First Grade Teachers was held on December 10, and included Making Shapes and Building Blocks, Quilts, Squares and Block Towns. Training\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_845","title":"\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004-07/2004-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","School boards","School employees","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/845"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nREC-,J1ED JUL 1 3 200\\ OFFIOCFE DESEGREG\n,,AOTNIOITNO RHI\u0026amp;, 9NRJO!INOPl!JV 931f93S30 ~0331~~ ~oot:z r 1nr 03/\\13031:1 BOARD OF EDUCATION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Thursday, July 15, 2004 5:00 P.M. MEETING AGENDA NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Thursday, July 15, 2004 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. CALL TO ORDER, Teresa Burl, President II. INVOCATION, Yolanda Platt, Secretary to Administrative Director of III. FLAG SAL UTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Teresa Burl, President Marty Moore. Vice President Trent Cox, Secretary Rochelle Redus, Parliamentarian Charles Hoskyn, Member Mable Mitchell, Member John Riley, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS None Elementary Education VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, June 17, 2004 5:00 P.M. (Regular)- Page A- 1 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None Page 2 - Board Agenda July 15, 2004 VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. Consider Extension of Superintendent's Contract through June 30, 2007 - President Burl B. Consider Student Uniforms for Argenta Academy- B. Acklin C. Consider Revision to Board Policy 4.35 - Student Medications - (First Reading) - M.K. Asti - Page B - I D. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - T. Kimbrell I. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - I 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 3. Consider bid items - Page R - 1 4. Consider building use requests - Page S - I 5. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. 2004 - 2005 Teacher's First Day-Thursday, August 12, 2004 B. 2004 - 2005 Student's First Day - Thursday, August 19, 2004 C. Board Meeting (Regular)- Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 5:00 p.m. X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS None XI. PERSONNEL HEARING XII. ADJOURNMENT \"BEGINNING THE VISION\" WORKSHOP NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES June 17, 2004 The North Little Rock School District Board met in regular session on Thursday, June 17, 2004 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. One teacher requested that the Board accept the proposal from the Certified Personnel Policies Committee. President Teresa Burl called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Shara Brazear, Communications Specialist, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Teresa Burl, President Trent Cox, Secretary Rochelle Redus, Parliamentarian Charles Hoskyn, Member Mable Mitchell, Member John Riley, Member Absent Marty Moore, Vice-President - (entered meeting at 5: IO p.m.) Others Present James Smith, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nDonald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services\nrepresentatives from the Personnel Policies Committees, PT A and press\nseveral other staff members\nand Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) and Jim Billings (video) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS None DISPOSITION OF MINUTES MOTION Marty Moore moved to accept the minutes of the May 20, 2004 (Regular) meeting as printed. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None A-1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Certified Personnel Policies Report Chairman Rick Kron presented their report. Mr. Kron explained that the P.P.C. rejected the Board's proposal at its May 27, 2004 meeting and gave a proposal from the P.P.C. at the June 2, 2004 Board workshop. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the Board's proposal as sent to the P.P.C. in the May Board meeting. Mable Mitchell seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None Trent Cox moved to revisit the salary when deemed additional monies available. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None Rochelle Redus moved to increase the salaries by three (3) per cent plus one (I) step for all eligible classified personnel. Marty Moore seconded the motion. YEAS: Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley NAYS:  None Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report There was no Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report as they did not meet. Proposal to Form a Foundation for NLRSD Athletics Athletic Director Danny Russell made a presentation on behalf of a group of NLRHS alumni that have formed a foundation named The Wildcat Foundation. They requested permission to remove the existing visitor's concession stand at NLRHS Stadium and build a training facility with a concession stand. This would be at no cost to the North Little Rock School District. A fundraising campaign is underway. After completion, this facility would be turned over to the North Little Rock School District. A-2 MOTION Charles Hoskyn moved to give the Wildcat Foundation permission to build a training facility. Marty Moore seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None 2005 - 2006 Budget Proposal Donald Watkins explained that the proposed 2005 - 2006 budget. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the proposed 2005 - 2006 budget as presented. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None Consent Agenda Mr. Smith presented the consent agenda with an additional item of fire alarms for all of the District's portable buildings. MOTION Charles Hoskyn moved to accept the consent agenda as presented with the additional late bid. Marty Moore seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl. Cox. Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None James Smith thanked everyone for their hard \\Vork \u0026lt;luring his 15 (fifteen) years as Superintendent of North Little Rock School District. He encouraged everyone to support the new Superintendent Dr. Tom Kimbrell. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to enter into Executive Session concerning personnel matters. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None The Board went into Executive Session at 6:05 p.m. Charles Hoskyn exited the meeting at 6:05 p.m. John Riley did not attend the first part of the Executive Session. The Board reconvened in open session at 6:50 p.m. A-3 ADJOURNMENT Rochelle Redus moved to adjourn the meeting. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None (Hoskyn - absent) Chairman Burl declared the meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Teresa Burl, President Trent Cox, Secretary A-4 PROPOSED 4.35-STUDENT MEDICATIONS Prior to the administration of any medication to any student under the age of eighteen ( 18), written parental consent is required. The consent form shall include authorization to administer the medication and relieve the Board and its employees of civil liability for damages or injuries resulting from the administration of medication to students in accordance with this policy. Unless authorized to self-administer, students are not allowed to carry any medications while at school. The parent or legal guardian shall bring the student's medication to the nurse, or in the absence of a nurse, to the principal's office. The student may bring the medication if accompanied by a written authorization from the parent or legal guardian. Medications, including those for self-medication, must be in the original container and be properly labeled with the student's name, the ordering provider's name, the name of the medication, the dosage. frequency, and instructions for the administration of the medication (including times). Additional information accompanying the medication shall state the purpose for the medication, its possible side effects, and any other pertinent instructions (such as special storage requirements) or warnings. Any change in medication dosages or administration schedules shall required new written physician and parent requests and new or newly labeled medication containers. Non prescriptive medications may be given to students upon the decision of the principal or the nurse. Such medications must be in the original container, clearly labeled and accompanied by a written authorization form signed by the parents or legal guardians that includes the student's name. the name of the medication, the dosage, and instructions for the administration of the medication (including times). Non prescriptive medications will not be gi\\en for more than one week \\\\ithout a written doctor's order. nurse s office All medications must be auministered in the school office or other designated area. The student must swallow the oral medication in the presence of the adult administering the medication. Inhalers must be used in the presence of an adult. The school is not responsible for any reactions caused by medications which are properly administered. If questions arise concerning a meuication, school personnel have the right to call the doctor/pharmacist regarding the medication. The school shall not keep outdated medications or any medications past the end of the school year. Parents shall be notified ten (10) days in advance of the school's intention to dispose of any medication. Medications not picked up by the parents or legal guardians within the ten (10) day period shall be destroyed by the nurse \\Vith a witness present. Reference: Arkansas State Board of Nursing: School Nurse Roles and Responsibilities Date Adopted: 12/19/95 Last Revised: 12/18/03 PROPOSED B- l Y-T-D SUMMAROYF FUNDS nJND 1-SJ\\LARY FUND 2-0PERATING FUND 4-DEBT SERVICE (FUNDS 1 + 2 + 4) FUND 3-BUILDING FUND 5-CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND 6-FEDERAL FUND 8-FOOD SERVICE TOTAL ALL FUNDS - MONTHLYSU MMAROYF FUNDS Fund 1-Salary Fund 2-0perating Fund 4 Debt Service Fund 3-Building Fund 5-Capital Outlay Fund 6-Federal Fund 8-Food Service TOTAL MONTHLYFU NDS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT JUNE 04--NOT FINAL BEGINNING Y-T-D BALANCE REVENUE .00 25,257,696.28 3,068,891.33 32,772,443.76 1,597,982.00 .00 4,666,873.33 58,030,140.04 3,424,284.45 92,732.58 992,538.44 1,482, 307. 62 2,105,832.22 6,866,766.71 22,796.77 3,125,766.42 11,212,325.21 69,597,713.37 MONTH REVENUE .00 6,949,371.22 .00 34,828.50 160,045.64 1,076,353.06 248,301.01 8,468,899.43 0 - 1 Y-T-D CURRENT EXPENDITURES BALANCE 32,606,486.79 7,348,790.SlCR 25,579,685.18 10,261,649.91 1,659,298.15 61,316.15CR 59,845,470.12 2,851,543.25 274,365.50 3,242,651.53 1,940,258.43 534,587.63 6,407,711.87 2,564,887.06 3,066,910.17 81,653.02 71,534,716.09 9,275,322.49 MONTH REVENUE EXPENDITURES OVER/UNDER EXPENSE 7,348,790.51 7,348,790.51CR 4,725,847.74 2,223,523.48 36,282.77 36,282.77CR 33,669.17 1,159.33 161,021.88 976.24CR 1,349,177.50 272,824.44CR 259,960.42 11,659. 41CR 13,914,749.99 5,445,850.56CR REVENUE FUND 1 SALARY FUND Transfers FUND 2 OPERATING FUND LOCAL REVENUE current Taxes Pullback Delinquent Taxes Land Redell'(ltion Interest Soft Drink Sales Spec Ed Preschool Local Misc Local TOTAL LOCAL R!:VENUE STATE REVENUE State Equalization Aid State Incentive Funding Sp Ed Supv/ESY/Res/Cat Special Ed Preschool K-1 Proverty Aid ABC Preschool M-to-M Program Magnet/M-to-M Trans General Facility Fund Debt Service Funding Deseg-Teach Retire/Insu Miscellaneous State TOTAL STATE REVENUE TRANSFERS TOTAL OPERATING FUND FUND 4 DEBT SERVICE Current Taxes Transfers TOTAL REVENUET UNOS 1,2,4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT JUNE 04--NOT FINAL BUDGETED COLLECTED REVENUE THIS MONTH 32,975,000.00 .00 12,200,000.00 824,144. 68CR 5,475,000.00 2,372,111.22 1,400,000.00 45,978.38 160,000.00 27,467.47 175,000.00 8,176.16 100,000.00 9,902.01 400,000.00 435,192.40 229,068.00 74,584.88 20,139,068.00 2,149,267.84 28,075,080.00 2,552,280.00 1,156,301.00 1,156,301.00 212,792.00 98,737.10 542,449.00 .00 225,269.00 .00 469,956.00 .00 2,650,000.00 446,280.00 750,000.00 224,000.00 179,079.00 .00 249,690.00 .oo 1,350,000.00 115,627.17 240,316.00 206,572.00 36,100,932.00 4,799,797.27 34,570,000.00CR 306 .11 21,670,000.00 6,949,371.22 .00 .oo 1,675,000.00 .oo 56,320,000.00 6,949,371.22 0 - 2 COLLECTED BUDGET ' COLLECTED TO DATE BALANCE TO DATE 25,257,696.28 7,717,303. 72 76.591 10,643,633.19 1,556,366.81 87,241 6,149,070.00 674,070.00CR 112,311 2,747,951.94 1,347,951. 94CR 196.28\\ 216,946.57 56,946.57CR 135.59% 184,834.43 9,834,43CR 105. 611 92,335.99 7,664.01 92.331 435,192.40 35,192. 40CR 108. 79% 198,451.55 30,616.45 86. 631 20,668,416.07 529,348.07CR 102. 621 28,075,080.00 .00 100.00% 1,156,301.00 .oo 100.001 - 193,244.10 19,547.90 90. 811 542,449.00 .00 100.001 225,269.00 .oo 100.00, 469,956.00 .oo 100.00, 3,771,548.00 1,121,548.00CR 142.32% 750,000.00 .00 100.001 179,079.00 .oo 100.001 249,690.00 .00 100.00\\ 1,303,564.41 46,435.59 96.56\\ 422,069.39 181,753.39CR 175. 631 37,338,249.90 1,237,317.90CR 103.42% 25,234,222.21CR 9,335,777,79CR . 00\\ 32,772,443.76 11,102,443. 76CR 151. 231 .oo .00 .00\\ .00 1,675,000.00 .001 58,030,140.04 1,710, 140.04CR 103. 031 REVENUE (CONTINUED) FUND 3 BUILDING FUND Interest Other TOTAL BUJ:LDING FUND FUND 5 CAPITAL OUTLAY Current Taxes Pullback Delinquent Taxes Other TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY E'UND 6 FEDERAL REVENUE ROTC TITLE IV-B 21st Century TITLE I TITLE V-B Charter Schoo Reading Excellance - Vocational Carl Perkins TITLE VI-B, PL 94-142 Special Ed Pre-School Medicaid TITLE II-A Improve Teac Miscellaneous Federal TOTAL FEDERAL REVENUE FUND 8 FOOD SERVICE Sales Federal Reimbursement Other TOTAL FOOD SERVICE TOTAL REVENUE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT JUNE 04--NOT FINAL BUDGETED COLLECTED REVENUE THIS MONTH 22,800.00 6,128.50 37,200.00 28,700.00 60,000.00 34,828.50 780,000.00 83,324,98CR 550,000.00 239,861.45 110,000.00 3,509.17 10,000.00 .oo 1,450,000.00 160,045.64 100,000.00 9,928.31 732,587.00 .00 2,434,220.00 941,780.00 150,000.00 . 00 409,800.00 .00 194,378.00 13,120.00 1,577,791.00 . 00 479,435.00 .00 305,000.00 111,524.75 642,789.00 . 00 29,000.00 .00 7,055,000.00 1,076,353.06 870,000.00 1,137.21 2,050,000.00 239,279.30 80,000.00 7,884.50 3,000,000.00 248,301.01 67,885,000.00 8,468,899.43 0 - 3 COLLECTED BUDGET I COLLECTED TO DATE BALANCE TO DATE 29,932.58 7,132.58CR 131. 281 62,800.00 25,600.00CR 168.81\\ 92,732.58 32,732.58CR 154. 55% 657,436.58 122,563.42 84.28% 621,535.00 71,535.00CR 113.00% 200,226.30 90,226. 30CR 182.02\\ 3,109.74 6,890.26 31. 091 1,482,307.62 32,307.62CR 102. 221 101,993.97 l,993.97CR 101. 99\\ 845,693.56 113,106.56CR 115.431 2,433,541.00 679.00 99.97\\ 150,000.00 .00 100.001 409,800.00 .oo 100. oo, 194,176.20 201. 80 99. 89% 1,577,791.00 .00 100.00, 479,435.00 .00 100.00\\ 301,399.07 3,600.93 98 .81\\ 350,747.00 292,042.00 54 . 56\\ 22,189.91 6,810.09 76.511 6,866,766.71 188,233.29 97. 331 862,260.81 7,739.19 99.11' 2,177,013.83 127, 013.83CR 106.191 86,491.78 6,491.78CR 108 .11' 3,125,766.42 125,766. 42CR 104.19' 69,597,713.37 1,712, 713.37CR 102. 521 EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION FUND 1 SALARY FUND Regular Programs Special Education Workforce Education Compensation Education Other Instruct Program Student Support Instruct Staff Support General Admin Support School Acinin Support Business Support Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation Transportation Central Office Other Support TOTAL SALARY FUND 2 OPERATING FUND Regular Programs Special Education Workforce Education Compensation Education Other Instruct Program Student.Support Instruct Staff Support General Admin Support School Admin Support Business Support Maintenance, Operation Transportation Central Office Other Support TOTAL OPERATING FUND FUND 4 DEBT SERVI CE FUND Other Support TOTAL DEBT SERVICE TOTAL FUND 1, 2, 4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT JUNE 04--NOT FINAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES THIS MONTH 16,608,519.00 4,305,063.18 5,026,343.00 1,195,256.74 1,640,057.00 229,488.36 101,859.00 5,184.75 1,156,810.00 295,649.40 2,572,059.00 558,204.99 1,849,195.00 283,445.16 316,585.00 32,301.18 2, 631, 652. 00 393,268.85 81,017.00 7,653.66 81,060.00 7,713.80 68,050.00 11,203.23 210,835.00 24,357.21 .00 .00 32,344,041.00 7,348,790.51 5,033,731.00 994,367.29 2,232,783.00 503,257.09 483,957.00 41,759.74 '63,340.00 9,757.93 736,880.00 108,292.99 2,508,956.00 454,636.68 1,788,987.00 204,471.25 247_, 221. 00. 122,357.42 1,527,304.00 241,814.49 447,236.00 1,273,733.90 5,609,526.00 430,188.77 3,446,599.00 252,356.48 741,181.00 45,941.40 1,515,053.00 42,912.31 26,382,754.00 4,725,847.74 1,657,760.00 36,282.77 1,657,760.00 36,282.77 60,384,555.00 12,110,921.02 0 - 4 EXPENDITURES BUDGET , or TO DATE BALANCE BUDGET 17,647,918.68 l,039,399.68CR 106.251 4,841,071.60 185,271.40 96.31' 1,360,591.60 279,465.40 82. 961 10,369.50 91,489.50 10.18% 1,224,675.21 67,865.21CR 105. 861 2,591,465.45 19,406.45CR 100. 751 1,595,554.00 253,641.00 86.281 343,717.01 27,132.0lCR 108. 57% 2,549,269.04 82,382.96 96. 861 81,190.00 173.00CR 100.211 81,232.60 172. 60CR 100. 21\\ 66,840.34 1,209.66 98.221 211,566.76 731.76CR 100.341 1,025.00 1,025.00CR .001 32,606,486.79  262,445. 79CR 100.811 - 4,784,823.89 248,907.11 95. 051 2,011,585.08 221,197.92 90. 09% 362,877.78 121,079.22 74. 98% 35,321.05 28,018.95 55. 76% 506,071.99 230,808.01 68. 67% 2,214,695.89 294,260.11 88. 27% 1,144,529.00 644,458.00 63. 97% 418,103.17 170,882.17CR 169.12% 1,503,441.18 23,862.82 98. 431 2,071,658.85 1,624,422.85CR 463.211 5,036,608.03 572,917.97 89.78% 3,023,205.38 423,393.62 87. 711 696,647.89 44,533.11 93. 991 1,770,116.00 255,063.00CR 116. 831 25,579,685.18 803,068.82 96.951 1,659,298.15 l,538.15CR 100.091 1,659,298.15 1,538.15CR 100. 091 59,845,470.12 539,084.88 99.101 - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT JUNE 04--NOT FINAL - EXPENDITURESB Y FUNCTION BUDGETED EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES BUDGET \\ OF EXPENDITURES THIS MONTH TO DATE BALANCE BUDGET FUND 6 FEDERAL FUNDS Regular Programs 688,385.00 91,694.96 473,403.20 214,981.80 68. 77\\ Special Education 1,164,579.00 219,888.24 945,778.63 218,800.37 81.21% Workforce Education 188,637.00 20,854.22 171,623.50 17,013.50 90.98\\ Compensation Education 2, 159,664.00 480,047.94 1,872,476.99 287,187.01 86.70\\ Other Instruct Program 912,646.00 132,831.59 674,783.64 237,862.36 73,93\\ StudeM Support 1,421,127.00 204,529.36 1,135,917.49 285,209.51 79.93% Instruct Staff Support 1,840,653.00 182,893, 98 935,436.43 905,216.57 50.82% General Mm!n Support 80,602.00 5,690.54 68,104.25 12,497.75 8 4. 49% School Admin Support 2,000.00 .00 .00 2,000.00 .oo, Business Support .00 .00 .00 .00 .00% Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation .00 .00 .00 .oo .00\\ Transportation 129,901.00 96.25 4,467. 98 125,433.02 3.43% Central Office Support 99,800.00 .00 95,711.18 4,088.82 95.901 Other Support 131,642.00 10,650.42 30,008.58 101,633.42 22. 79% TOTAL FEDERAL FUNDS 8,819,636.00 1,349,177.50 6,407,711.87 2,411,924.13 72.65% FUND 3 BUILDING FUND 288,141.00 33,669.17 274,365.50 13,775.50 95.2H FUND 5 CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,242,413.00 161,021.88 1,940,258.43 302,154.57 86.52% FUND 8 FOOD SERVICE 2,978,231.00 259,960.42 3,066,910.17 88,679 .17CR 102.97% - ALL FUND, FUNCTION TOTALS REGULARP ROGRAMS 22,343,388.00 5,391,125.43 22,906,732.28 563,344.28CR 102. 52\\ SPECIAL EDUCATION 8,423,705.00 1,918,402.07 7,798,435.31 625,269.69 92. 571 WORKFORCEED UCATION 2,312,651.00 292,102.32 l. 895,092.88 417,558.12 81.94\\ COMPENSATIOEND UCATION 2,324,863.00 494,990.62 1,918,167.54 406,695.46 82.501 OTHER INSTRUCTINAL ED 2,806,876.00 536,773.98 2,405,530.84 401,345.16 85.70% STUDENT SUPPORT 6,502,142.00 1,217,371.03 5,942,078.83 560,063.17 91. 38% INSTUCT STAFF SUPPORT 5,478,835.00 670,810.39 3,675,519.43 1,803,315.57 67. 08% GENERALA DMINS UPPORT 644,408.00 160,349.14 829,924.43 185,516.43CR 128.78% SCHOOL ADMIN SUPPORT 4,160,956.00 635, (BJ. 34 4,052,710.22 108,245.78 97. 3 91 BUSINESS SUPPORT 1,094,363.00 1,304,558.41 2,431,053.78 1,336,690. 78CR 222 .14\\ MAINTENANC\u0026amp;E OPERATION 6,580,534.00 534,631.68 6,000,171.11 580,362.89 91.181 TRANSPORTATION 3,644,550.00 263,655.96 3,097,695.18 546,854.82 84. 99% CENTRAL OFFICE 1, 632,907.00 106,439.85 1,423,541.35 209,365.65 87 .17\\ OTHER SUPPORT 6,762,798.00 388,455.77 7,158,062.91 395,264.91CR 105,841 ALL FUNDS TOTAL EXPENDITURES 74,712,976.00 13,914,749.99 71,534,716.09 3,178,259.91 95. 74% 0 - 5 - EXPENDITURES BY OBJECT FUND 1 TEACHERS SALARY FUND Salaries Fringe Benefits Other TOTAL TEACHER SALARY FUND 2 OPERATING FUND Salaries Fringe Benefits Purchased Services Supplies Capital Outlay Other TOTAL OPERATING FUND FUND 4 DEBT SERVICE Principal Interest Fees TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 3 BUILDING FUND Purchased Services Supplies Capital Outlay Other TOTAL BUILDING FUND FUND 5 CAPITAL OUTLAY Purchased Services Supplies Capital Outlay Other TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT JUNE 04--NOT FINAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURES AMOUNT THIS MONTH 30,022,307.00 6,687,380.79 2,321,734.00 661,409.72 .00 .00 32,344,041.00 7,348,790.51 9,769,387.00 1,174,400.18 9,616,505.00 3,019,938.99 3,596,303.00 340,160.25 2,970,113.00 178,911.53 351,971.00 10,611.79 78,475.00 1,825.00 26,382,754.00 4,725,847.74 635,360.00 19,229.87 997,500.00 17,052.90 24,900.00 .00 1,657,760.00 36,282.77 70,283.00 30,577.50 62,256.00 3,091.67 155,602.00 . 00 .00 . 00 288,141.00 33,669.17 919,082.00 42,594.91 537,301.00 22,108.58 523,549.00 60,989.63 262,481.00 35,328.76 2,242,413.00 161,021.88 0 - 6 EXPENDITURES BUDGET I OF TO DATE BP.L!\\NCE BUDGET 30,439,153.15 416,846.lSCR 101. 381 2,167,333.64 154,400.36 93.30 .oo .00 .001 32,606,486.79 262,445. 7 9CR 100.811 8,880,732.62 888,654.38 90.901 10,477,660.15 861,155. lSCR 108. 951 3,104,636.34 491,666.66 86.321 2,723,810.32 246,302.68 91. 701 193,510.03 158,460.97 54. 971 199,335.72 120,860.72CR 254.011 25,579,685.18 803,068.82 96.951 693,977.75 58,617. 75CR 109.221 - 965,320.40 32,179.60 96. 77% .00 24,900.00 .001 1,659,298.15 l,538.15CR 100. 091 100,644.61 30,361. 61CR 143.191 66,420.38 4,164.38CR 106.681 107,300.51 48,301.49 68.951 .00 .00 . 001 274,365.50 13,775.50 95. 211 625,281.48 293,800.52 68.031 404,182.50 133,118.50 75. 22% 657,892.06 134,343. 06CR 125. 66% 252,902.39 9,578.61 96.351 1,940,258.43 302,154.57 86.52% EXPENDITURES BY OBJECT FUND 6 FEDERAL FUNDS Salaries Fringe Benefits Purchased Services Supplies Capital Outlay Other TOTAL FEDERAL FUNDS FUND 8 FOOD SERVICES Salaries Fringe Benfits Purchased Services Supplies Capital Outlay Other - TOTAL FOOD SERVICE ALL FUNDS TOTALS SALARJES FRI NGE BENEF I TS PURCHASEDs rnVICES SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER TOTAL ALL FUNDS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT JUNE 04--NOT FINAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURES AMOUNT THIS MONTH 3,961,296.00 704,929.43 1,222,766.00 246,384.21 1,805,876.00 90,661.81 1,291,075.00 234,755.28 437,293.00 72,241.77 101,330.00 205.00 8,819,636.00 1,349,177. so 1,437,530.00 109,607.23 497,525.00 60,533.27 41,726.00 1,636.54 994,500.00 87,121.08 6,850.00 1,052.30 100.00 10.00 2,978,231.00 259,960.42 45,190,520.00 8,676,317.63 13,658,530.00 3,988,266.19 6,433,270.00 505,631.01 5,855,245.00 525,988.14 1,475,265.00 144,895.49 2,100,146.00 73,651.53 74,712,976.00 13,914,749.99 0 - 7 .EXPENDITURES BUDGET I OF TO DATE BALANCE BUDGET 3,244,066.13 717,229.87 81. 891 994,753.81 228,012.19 81. 351 891,498.88 914,377.12 49.361 878,011.34 413,063.66 68.001 392,544.79 44,748.21 89.761 6,836.92 94,493.08 6. 741 6,407,711.87 2,411,924.13 72.651 1,420,938.29 16,591.71 98. 841 514,984.57 17,459.57CR 103.501 24,147.32 17,578.68 57 .871 1,101,292.13 106,792.13CR 110.731 5,522.86 1,327.14 80.621 25.00 75.00 25.001 3,066,910.17 88,679.17CR 102. 97% 43,984,890.19 1,205,629.81 97. 331 14,154,732.17 496,202.17CR 103. 631 4,746,208. 63 1,687,061.37 73.771 5,173,716.67 681,528.33 88.361 1,356,770.25 118,494.75 91. 961 2,118,398.18 18,252.18CR 100.861 71,534,716.09 3,178,259.91 95. 741 Jody Edrington Raquel Barton l\\larye Jane Brockinton Kasey Cathey Sharon Haver Michael Huels Michael Mueller Andrea Neville Laura Ralston Wilene Rigsby Randy Sandefur Anita Smith NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Board Agenda - July 15, 2004 ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES From Principal, Redwood Early Childhood To Coordinator of Early Childhood Programs CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CHANGES AND TRANSFERS From Rose City Middle School, Business Education To North Heights Elementary, Media Specialist From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Language Arts To Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Science From Belwood Elementary, Special Education To Seventh Street Fine Arts Elementary, Reading Recovery From Boone Park Elementary, Third Grade To Poplar Street Middle School, Language Arts From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Special Education To Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Social Studies From NLRHS West Campus, Speech/Drama To NLRHS West Campus, English From Park Hill Elementary, Third Grade To Indian Hills Elementary, First Grade From Lynch Drive Elementary, Fourth Grade To Crestwood Elementary, Fourth Grade From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Science To Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Special Education From NLRHS East Campus, Physical Education/Athletics To NLRHS East Campus, PE/ NLRHS West Campus, Head Baseball From Seventh Street Fine Arts Elementary, Kindergarten To Park Hill Elementary, Reading Recovery P-1 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - July 15, 2004 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES CONTINUED Abby Stone Monica Ball Carol Clark Deborah Cline Tara Derby Mary Cynthia Fotioo Monica Talbert Lula Turner Crystal Welborn Markee Burgos Brad Burl Nathan Clayborn, Jr. Michael Dean From Lynch Drive Elementary, Special Education To Lynch Drive Elementary, First Grade CERTIFIED PESONNEL RESIGNA TlONS AND RETIREMENTS NLRHS West Campus, Science Effective 6/25/04 NLRHS East Campus, Social Studies Effective 6/29/04 Boone Park Elementary, Fourth Grade Effective 6/30/04 Lynch Drive Elementary, First Grade Effective 8/2/04 Boone Park Elementary, Fourth Grade Effective 6/30/04 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Social Studies Effective 6/23/04 North Heights Elementary, Kindergarten Effective 8/2/04 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Math Effective 6/24/04 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL Lynch Drive Elementary, Fifth Grade Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 9, 190 days Elementary Art, Location Unassigned Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Lakewood Middle School, PE/Social Studies/ Athletics Effective 7/29/04, Category I, Step 0, 200 days Lakewood Middle School, Social Studies Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 8, 190 days P-2 Mindi Disterdick Jill Dillman Shannon Duke Kathryn Jill Gearhart Lacresha Gulley Mary Gail Hayden Michelle llolt Alyssa Ivy Karen Johnston Tina Kimbrell Amy Lloyd Abbra !\\lack Sally Martin Lora f\\ 1atthey Sandra Plante North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - July 15, 2004 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED Lynch Drive Elementary, Special Education Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 0, 190 days NLRHS East Campus, Speech/Drama\nActivities Director (.5) Effective 8/6/04, Category II, Step 7, 194 days NLRHS West Campus, Speech/Drama (recall from RIF) Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step I, 190 days Tri-District Early Childhood, Speech Language Pathologist Effective 8/12/04, Category IV, Step I, 190 days Seventh Street Fine Arts Elementary, Second Grade Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Poplar Street Middle School, Sixth Grade Math Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 17, 190 days SeYenth Street Fine Arts Elementary, Media Specialist Effective 8/10/04, Category IV, Step I, 192 days Speech Language Pathologist, Unassigned Effective 8/12/04, Category lV, Step 6, I 90 days Rose City Middle School, Special Education Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 13, 190 days Crestwoood Elementary, Third Grade Effective 8/12/04. Category V, Step 12. I 90 days Pike View Elementary, Special Education Effective 8/12/04, Category IV, Step 7, 190 days NLRHS West Campus, Science EffectiYe 8/12/04, Category I, Step I, 190 days Tri-District Early Childhood, Speech Language Pathologist Effective 8/12/04, Category IV, Step 6. 190 days Elementary Art Teacher, Location Unassigned Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Elementary Art Teacher, Location Unassigned Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 0, I 90 days P-3 Marjean Rowe Melissa Sela Ledena Ann Stephens Sarah Taylor Bob Warford Christie Wilson North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - July 15, 2004 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED Tri-District Early Childhood, Speech Language Pathologist Effective 8/12/04, Category IV, Step 18, 190 days Poplar Street Middle School, Sixth Grade Math/Science Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Lakewood Middle School, Math Effective 8/12/04, Category III, Step 0, 190 days Elementary Teacher, Location Unassigned Effective 8/12/04, Category IV, Step 0, I 90 days Lakewood Middle School, Science/Math Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 17, I 90 days Seventh Street Fine Arts Elementary, Second Grade Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 0, 190 days NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: Markee Burgos Lynch Drive Elementary, Fifth Grade BSE - UAPB, Pine Bluff, AR 1/92 Elementary 1-6 Anne Frank School, Dallas, TX 8/0 I - 6/03 Salem Lutheran School, Glendale, CA 8/00 - 6/01 Watson Chapel School, Pine Bluff, AR 8/94 - 6/00 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Brad Burl Elementary Art, Location Undetermined BA - Arkansas Tech, Russellville, AR 5/04 Art Non-Traditional Licensure Program Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services P-4 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - July 15, 2004 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Nathan Clayborn, Jr. Lakewood Middle School, PE/Social Studies/ Athletics BSE- Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR 5/03 Physical Education/Health Nettleton Intermediate School, Jonesboro, AR 1/03 - 3/03 Nettleton Jr. High, Jonesboro, AR 3/03 - 5/03 Dr. Ginger Wallace, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Michael Dean Lakewood Middle School, Social Studies BSE - Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, AR 12/90 Social Studies, Physical Education, Health, Driver's Education Beebe Jr. High, Beebe, AR 8/00 - 6/01 Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR 8/99 - 6/00 West Memphis School District, West Memphis, AR 8/95 - 12/98 Arkadelphia School District, Arkadelphia, AR 8/93 - 6/95 Dr. Ginger Wallace, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Mindi Disterdick Lynch Drive Elementary, Special Education BSE - UALR, Little Rock, AR 5/04 Early Childhood P-4, Special Education ALP Indian Hills Elementary, North Little Rock, AR 8/03 - 3/04 Susie Ballard-Jackson, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Jill Dillman NLRHS East Campus, Speech/Drama, Activities Director (.5) BSE- UALR, Little Rock, AR 5/95 Secondary Speech North Little Rock Schools, North Little Rock, AR 8/00 - 1/03 Cabot School District, Cabot, AR 8/98 - 6/00 Little Rock School District, Little Rock. AR 8/95 - 8/97 Ken Kirspel, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services P-5 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - July 15, 2004 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Shannon Duke (Recall from RIF) NLRHS West Campus, Speech/Drama BSE- Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, AR 12/97 Secondary Speech NLRHS East Campus, North Little Rock, AR 8/03 - 6/04 Gregg Thompson, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Kathryn Jill Gearhart Tri-District Early Childhood Program, Speech Language Pathologist BS - Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 5/01 MS - Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 5/03 Speech Language Pathology P-12 NWAESC Early Childhood, Springdale, AR 8/03 - 6/04 Thelma Jasper, Coordinator of Tri-District Early Childhood Programs Danny Reed, Administrative Dire\u0026lt;?tor of Personnel/Special Services Lacresha Gulley Seventh Street Fine Arts Elementary, Second Grade A BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/04 W Early Childhood Education P-4 Marguerite Vann Elementary, Conway, AR 1/ 04 - 4/04 Cabot Westside Elementary, Cabot, AR 9/03 - 11/4 Nancy Marshall, Principat Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Gail Hayden Poplar Street Middle School, Sixth Grade Math BSE - UALR, Little Rock, AR 8/87 Elementary Education K-6 Pulaski County Special School District, Little Rock, AR 8/96 - 6/04 Lonoke School District, Lonoke, AR 8/91 - 6/96 Sherwood Christian School, Sherwood, AR 8/90 - 6/91 North Little Rock Schools, North Little Rock, AR 1/88 - 6/90 Bill Bowers, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services P-6 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda- July 15, 2004 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Michelle Holt Seventh Street Fine Arts Elementary, Media Specialist BA - College of St. Catherine, St. Paul, MN 5/87 MA - School of Library Media Studies, Cedar Falls, IA 5/03 Media Specialist K-12 Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, IL 8/03 - 6/04 Nancy Marshall, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Alyssa Ivy Special Services Department, Speech Language Pathologist BSE - UALR, Little Rock, AR 5/94 MS - UAMS, Little Rock, AR 5/04 Middle School Social Studies, Elementary K-6, Speech Language Pathologist P-12 North Little Rock Schools, North Little Rock, AR 8/95 - 7 /0 I Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Karen Johnston Rose City Middle School, Special Education BSE - Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, AR 12/91 Elementary Education 1-6, l\\liddle School Social Studies. Special Education K-12 Alexander Youth Services. Al~xandi:r, AR I/ 04 - 6/04 Ft. Smith Schools, Ft. Smith. AR 6198 - I/ 04 Ft. Smith Christian Schools, Ft. Smith. AR 8/91 - 6/98 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Tina Kimbrell Crestwood Elementary, Third Grade BSE -Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR 5/91 MS - Arkansas State UniYersity, Jonesboro. AR 5/95 Elementary Education K-6. Elementary Principal Paragould School District, Paragould, AR Corning School District, Corning, AR Linda Wilson, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrati \\e Director of Personnel/Special Services P-7 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - July 15, 2004 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPER1ENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: Amy Lloyd Pike View Elementary, Special Education BSE - Hendrix College, Conway, AR 6/92 MS - UALR, Little Rock, AR 8/96 Elementary Education 1-6, Mildly Handicapped K-12 North Little Rock Schools, North Little Rock, AR 8/92 - 6/99 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Abbra Lee Mack NLRHS West Campus, Science BS - Louisiana Tech, Ruston, LA 5/03 Secondary Life/Earth Science Bernice High School, Bernice, LA 8/03 - 6/04 Gregg Thompson, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Sally Martin Tri-District Early Childhood Program, Speech Language Pathologist BSE - UALR, Little Rock, AR 5/96 A MS - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/98 W Speech Language Pathologist P-12 Playtime Children's Therapy, Sherwood, AR 8/98 - 6/04 Thelma Jasper, Coordinator of Tri-District Early Childhood Program Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Lora Matthey Elementary Art, Location Undetermined BS - Harding University, Searcy, AR 12/03 Art P-12 NLRHS West Campus, North Little Rock, AR I 1/03 - 12/03 Landmark Elementary, Little Rock, AR 9/03 - 10/03 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services P-8 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - July 15, 2004 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: Sandra Plante Elementary Art, Location Undetermined BS - Harding University, Searcy, AR 12/03 Art P-12 Harding Academy, Searcy, AR 9/03 - 12/03 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Marjean Rowe Tri-District Early Childhood Program - Speech Language Pathologist BA- UALR, Little Rock, AR 5/80 MS - UAMS, Little Rock, AR 1/85 Speech Language Pathology P-12 Harmony Grove School, Benton, AR 1/85 - 6/04 Paron Schools, Paron, AR 1/85 - 5/89 Bruno-Pyatt School District, Everton, AR 8/82 - 5/83 Thelma Jasper, Coordinator Tri-District Early Childhood Programs Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services  Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Melissa Sela Poplar Street Middle School, Math/Science BS -Texas Christian University, Ft. Worth, TX 5/97 Middle School Math/Science/Language Arts/Social Studies Non-Traditional Licensure Program Bill Bowers, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Ledena Stephens Lakewood Middle School, Math BS- Harding University, Searcy, AR 5/93 Middle School Math/Science, Early Childhood P-4 Cabot Middle School, Cabot, AR 3/ 04 - 5/04 Central Elementary, Cabot, AR 1/ 04 - 3/ 04 Dr. Ginger Wallace, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services P-9 North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - July 15, 2004 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: Sarah Taylor Elementary, Location Undetermined BSE - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/03 MS - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/04 Early Childhood Education P-4 Happy Hollow Elementary, Fayetteville, AR 8/03 - 5/04 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Bob Warford Lakewood Middle School, Math/Science BA - Arkansas Tech, Russellville, AR 1970 Middle School Science, Elementary 1-6 West Memphis Schools, West Memphis, AR 8/97 - 6/04 Hughes Schools, Hughes, AR 8/95 - 6/97 Quinlan/Bland ISD, Greenville, TX 8/90 - 6/93 Cross Country High School, Cherry Valley, AR 8/72 - 6/75 Killeen Public Schools, Killeen, TX 8/71 - 6/72 Yellville Public Schools, Yellville, AR 8/70 - 6/71 Dr. Ginger Wall ace, Principal Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Service. Christie Wilson Seventh Street Fine Arts Elementary, Second Grade BSE - Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR 4/04 Early Childhood Education P-4 Cabot Southside Elementary, Cabot, AR 1/ 04 - 5/04 Nancy Marshall, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director for Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services P-10 NORTLHIT TLER OCSKC HOODLIS TRICT * DIDN OTM EESTP ECIFICATIONS ** PARTO FA LLO RN ONBEI D *** NOTR ECOMMEDNUDETE ODQ UALITY **** LIMITECDO VERAGE ***** RECOMMENDED ****** RECOMMEUNPDOENRDE CEIPOTF S AMPLE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BIDN UMBE0R4: -07-072 PRESCHOPOLAL YGROUND SOURCOEF F UNDSP:R ESCHOGORLA NT LOCATIOGNL:E NVIELWE MENTARY. LYNCDHR IVEL EMENTANROYR.T H HEIGHTESL EMENTASERVYE. NSTTHR EET ELEMENTARY PACHEOCUOT DOEOQRU IPMENT NOLANCODN STRUCTION NOAHP'SA RKA NDP LAYGROUND PACHEOCUOT DOEOQRU IPMENT KYLRE ECREATIINOCN. BRUCEL'SA NDSCANPEDC ONST 42.442.28 42.000.00 39,424.00 31,079.08 30.299.42 30,000.00 ***** May 12, 2004 North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, AR 72 To Whom It May Concern: I would like to inquire about the possibility of using a space in the North Heights Elementary school building for meeting space for a new Girl Scout troop. As one of the English language acquisition specialists for the district, I have been able to establish a relationship with our Hispanic community. The new Girl Scout troop will be a Spanish language troop specifically targeting the Hispanic community. I have been aP,proved as a troop leader and will also be applying for a special grant (Del Suelo AI Ciel~- From Sidewalks to Treetops) to facilitate the involvement of our Hispanic girls1a nd their families. The three main goals of this program will be to provide positive natur~ experiences for Latinas in their own neighborhoods so that they may undertake coqununity service projects and champion the conservation of wildlife and natural resources, to promote science skills in girls and adults and t.o encourage collaboration with local Hispanic agencies, organizations and businesses. The dramatic increase in the Spanish-speaking population in central Arkansas has resulted in the need for programs for this population. It is my sincere desire, with the help of the school district, to provide an important Girl Scout experience for these young girls. We would like to begin recruiting girls and meeting as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Maria G. Touchstone ESL Teacher North Little Rock Schools tlNANCE/PURCHP1SI NG/AUDlT S1 #37 Goodwin Circle  North Little Rock, AR 721l4  501.945.2524  ctbarker@aristotle.net BarryKincl North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 Dear Mr. Kincl\nPlease accept this letter as a formal request of your permission to use the North Little Rock High School gym. My name is Crystal Barker and I am an alumnus of Northeast Senior High School class of 1987. I am serving as the founder of the Hilton Chandler scholarship fund. Coach Chandler served the North Little Rock School District for many years. As an athlete under his leadership, I had first hand experience of his sincere care, love and support/or all children, doing whatever he co'u/d to help them be successful That is the main reason I saw the need to present the idea of a scholarship in his honor to my church Young Adult Ministry. To begin our journey for this most worthy cause, I spoke with my pastor and we would like to host a benefit basketball game. The game would consist of two churches Eighth Street Baptist Church- NLR and SL Mark Baptist Church-LR. The reason we were hoping to utilize the gym/or this event is that Corliss Williamson of the Detroit Pistons is a member of SL Mark and Derek Fisher of the Los Angeles Lakers is a member of Eighth Street Baptist Church and the two have verbally consented to be the featured guest players. We realized with the two NBA stars we would need a nice size gym. The date we are looking at due to the schedules of the Derek and Corliss and the NLR Schools, is August 6, 2004. If you have any questions, please contact me at 749.5553 or 660.6886 ext 3208. Please speak to me directly in reference to this\nwe are not openly discussing Derek and Corliss until they have completed their NBA obligations for this year I am looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. cQ', e\nt, ~n J ~.O \u0026lt;:\n\u0026gt; f k .2,~f\"A S2 I ~ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Athletic Department 2700 Poplar St. - P.O. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115-0687 Phone: 501-771-8154 Fax: 501-771-8135 Danny Russell, Athletic Director June 28, 2004 Donna S. Anderson, Secretary MEMO TO: Barry Kine], Admin. Director Finance, Audit \u0026amp; Purchasing FROM: Danny Russell, Athletic Director)'t,-- SUBJECT: Tournaments The North Little Rock School District will be hosting the METRO Conference Volleyball and Basketball Tournaments for the 2004-05 school year. The METRO Conference is the conference that our middle and junior high schools participate in during volleyball and basketball. The volleyball tournament will be the last week in October and the basketball tournament will be February 14 - 17, 2005. Each tournament will use two of our gyms, which have not been determined at this time. The Wildcat Foundation will sponsor a boys basketball tournament November 25 - 27, 2004. We will have 4 out-of-state teams and 4 in-state teams participating. This will be held at the NLRHS Arena. The Wildcat Foundation will also sponsor a girls basketball tournament December 27 - 29, 2003. We will have 8 teams participating in the tournament also to be held at the NLRHS Arena. If you have any questions, please feel free to call my office. S3 ffoouc~ POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE OF NORTI-1 LITTLE ROCK L_.~ ~ 200 WEST PERSHING BOULEVARD PA L P.O. Box 17621 I    I NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 7 2 I I 7 ~~~ ~TIC\\.~ June 25, 2004 Danny Russell NLR School District Athletic Director NLR High School 101 West 22nd Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 Dear Mr. Russell, The Police Athletic League (PAL) of North Little Rock is requesting the use of the NLR High School West Campus Gymnasium. We are planning to partner with the Cheer Time Tigers All Star Cheerleading team to host the Jae Lynn Russell Cheerleading Competition. I have attended several cheerleading competitions over the past two years. I believe that PAL could use this type of event as a fundraiser. I approached Donnie Wolf ( cheer time tigers coach) with the idea. The volunteers of PAL are willing to work, but they do not have experience in hosting or recruiting teams for a cheerleading competition. Donnie Wolf has donated his time for several cheerleading camps for the children of PAL over the past two years. Last summer Donnie conducted the cheer camps for the North Little Rock High School 9th grade and N cheerleading squads. He also assisted with the varsity team free of charge. Many good things will come from this competition. We have committed $5000.00 to the Make A Wish Foundation. We are going to make a wish come true in the middle of the competition for a child that is terminally ill. Cheer Time is hoping to raise money for a scholarship in the name of Jae Lynn Russell. Jae Lynn was a Cheer Time cheerleader that was involved in a fatal vehicle accident this past year. PAL is wishing to raise funds to benefit the children of North Little Rock that participate in the PAL program. As you know, PAL is a non-profit crime prevention program that relies heavily upon athletics to give at risk children an opportunity to participate in organized and supervised activities free of charge. We are requesting the use of the gymnasium, sound system, and one concession stand for Friday night February 4th and Saturday February 5th . Ross Athletic Supply is sponsoring a spring floor at a fraction of the cost that they normally charge, due the Make S4 POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK 200 WEST PERSHING BOULEVARD P.O. Box I 7621 NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72 I I 7 A Wish Foundation involvement. Spring floors at competitions in Arkansas are rare and should attract many teams. We are requesting a few hours on Friday night to set up the floor. The floor is a foam spring board, which is wood with foam blocks underneath it. Under the foam will be a rubber pad to keep the floor from sliding and to protect the court. We are requesting the gymnasium for most of the day on Saturday. We would like the use of one concession stand. We do not require the use of any equipment inside the concession stand. PAL will provide police officers for security. We would incur any costs associated with janitorial services that you recommend. We anticipate a large crowd. We will have 10 different divisions for all-stars cheerleading, all-stars dance, jr. high cheer, jr. high dance, jv cheer, jv dance, high school cheer, and high school dance. We will also have an individual cheer and dance competition. Each team will receive a trophy and each participant will receive a medal. We would love to have all of the NLR school district cheer and dance teams participate without cost. This will be a great event for the city of North Little Rock. We expect teams from all over the state. We are also going to provide an opportunity for teams who do not normally get to perform in front of large crowds, such as the PAL cheerleaders and the Arkansas Special Olympics. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please Feel free to contact me, 744-4725, with any questions. elding L Board Vice-President S5 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT A \u0026amp; E HOME VIDEO A PLUS BAKERY A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC AAEA AAEA ABC SUPPLY CO. INC. ACADEMIC COMMUNICATION ASSOC. ACCESS CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC ACCESS CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC ACCESS CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC ACCESS SCHOOLS ACCU CUT ACE GLASS COMPANY, INC. ACE GLASS COMPANY, INC. ACT PUBLICATIONS ACTIVE PARENTING PUBLISHERS ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AEA AEA AEA AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AFFILIATED EQUIPMENT COMPANY AHA PROCESS INCORPOARTED AHA PROCESS INCORPOARTED AHA PROCESS INCORPOARTED AIMEE WRIGHT AIMEE WRIGHT ALAN CROWNOVER ALICIA YARBROUGH ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN T- 1 AMOUNT 24.90 108.64 829.20 2,187.74 520.40 9,986.39 90.00 159.66 45.00 548.75 224.40 201. 57 157.90 75.89 1,625.00 408.75 1,531.59 482.57 256.00 1,292.20 12,937.94 11,950.50 9,407.30 12,701.90 74.99 1,142.86 731.30 213 .12 213 .12 1,325.00 100.00 1,325.00 100.00 1,262.50 1,262.50 837.50 837.50 75.00 6,391.40 11,601.60 1,125.00 45.00 45.00 167.16 22.50 .00 .00 .00 .00 CHK. NO. 93321 93386 93433 93582 93867 94072 93345 93482 93720 94022 93634 93069 93680 93868 93798 93391 93112 93945 94015 93547 93103 93717 93788 93913 93183 93813 93663 93704 93766 92987 93086 93443 93601 93672 93693 93736 93755 93968 93346 93649 93861 93329 94042 93125 93383 92981 92993 92995 93064 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. ALIGN .00 93080 ALIGN .00 93089 ALIGN .00 93108 ALIGN .00 93165 ALIGN .00 93437 ALIGN .00 93449 ALIGN .00 93480 ALIGN .00 93497 ALIGN .00 93585 ALIGN .00 93595 ALIGN .00 93604 ALIGN .00 93657 ALIGN .00 93666 ALIGN .00 93678 ALIGN .00 93687 ALIGN .00 93699 ALIGN .00 93707 ALIGN :00 93718 ALIGN .00 93722 ALIGN .00 93730 ALIGN .00 93742 ALIGN .00 93744 - ALIGN .00 93745 ALIGN .00 93749 ALIGN .00 93761 ALIGN .00 93768 ALIGN .00 93772 ALIGN .00 93778 ALIGN .00 93789 ALIGN .00 93901 ALIGN .00 93943 ALISHA HERRING 169.40 93374 ALISON BUSSARD 186.40 93093 ALISON BUSSARD 84.65 93902 ALL ABOUT BOOKS 92.00 94050 ALL AMERICAN INC. 1,631.35 93114 ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORP 5,891.62 93109 ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORP 1,176.49 93450 ALL-STORAGE PRODUCTS INC 3,426.60 93830 ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY co. 1,878.06 93126 ALLIED THERAPY 630.00 93297 ALLIED THERAPY 1,470.00 93853 ALLISON CALLAHAN 148.68 93398 A1LTEL ARENA 2,321.74 93320 ALLTEL ARENA 7,945.00 93557 ALLTEL MOBILE 47.33 93502 ALLTEL MOBILE 793.71 93607 AMANDA STUCKEY 45.00 93338 AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AWARD 103.50 93305 T- 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL AMERICAN GUIDANCE SERVICE, INC AMY VOLLMAN ANDREA HAIN ANDRIA SMITH ANGIE COLCLASURE ANGIE COLCLASURE ANGIE HUTSON ANN KINCL ANN KINCL ANN KINCL ANNAN. VAMMEN ANNAN. VAMMEN ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCHILD, INC. ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS, INC. ARCOM SYSTEMS ARCOM SYSTEMS ARK DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ARKANSAS ACTE 2004 CONFERENCE ARKANSAS AP PROFESSIONAL ARKANSAS BAG \u0026amp; EQUIPMENT CO ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH ARKANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH ARKANSAS DEPT. OF EDUCATION ARKANSAS FLAG \u0026amp; BANNER, INC. ARKANSAS MEDICAL LABORATORY ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARTIS LOFTON ARTIS LOFTON ARTRONIX ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASHLEY HANAN T- 3 AMOUNT 11,590.00 400.00 11,615.00 375.00 8,455.00 8,455.00 5,795.00 5,795.00 4,870.61 70.28 45.00 126.28 45.00 45.00 199.88 45.00 38.09 45.00 24.92 4.65 1,067.52 1,056.13 989.78 2,248.86 348.73 487.50 740.00 1,995.00 3,723.50 575.00 560.00 1,050.00 1,314.19 118.90 115. 00 58.00 250.00 200.00 200.00 84.61 35.00 2,507.00 2,207.00 1,610.00 45.00 45.00 156.52 730.74 45.00 CHK. NO. 92986 93085 93442 93600 93671 93692 93735 93754 93119 93254 93378 93314 93242 94005 93139 93421 93579 94064 93324 93558 93157 93455 93516 93616 93962 93605 94074 93340 93561 93111 93352 93509 93581 93615 93803 93961 93267 93843 93473 93606 93472 93665 93706 93767 93300 94034 93276 93790 93377 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASPEN PUBLISHERS,INC. ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; ATC COMPUTER SERVICES INC B \u0026amp; D RADIATOR SERVICE BACKGROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS BAM INSTITUTIONAL SALES BAM INSTITUTIONAL SALES BAM INSTITUTIONAL SALES BANK CARD CENTER BANK OF AMERICA-FED INCOME TAX BANK OF AMERICA-FED INCOME TAX BANK OF AMERICA-FED INCOME TAX BANK OF AMERICA-FED INCOME TAX BANK OF AMERICA-FED INCOME TAX BANK OF AMERICA-FED INCOME TAX BANK OF AMERICA-FED INCOME TAX BANK OF AMERICA-FED INCOME TAX BANK OF AMERICA-PAYROLL ACCT. BANK OF AMERICA-PAYROLL ACCT. BANK OF AMERICA-PAYROLL ACCT. BANK OF AMERICA-PAYROLL ACCT. BANK OF AMERICA-PAYROLL ACCT. BANK OF AMERICA-PAYROLL ACCT. BANK OF AMERICA-PAYROLL ACCT. BANK OF AMERICA-PAYROLL ACCT. BARBARA EVANS BARBARA HARTWICK BARBARA HARTWICK BARBARA LYNN MALONE BAREFOOT BOOKS BARRY KINCL BARRY KINCL BARRY KINCL BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BAUDVILLE INC. BECKY WITCHER BELINDA BROWN BENEFITS-NLRSD BENEFITS-NLRSD BENEFITS-NLRSD BEVERLY KELSO BEVERLY KELSO T- 4 AMOUNT 6,584.71 303.55 188.00 1,660.28 5,931.69 1,290.12 279.15 381.04 145.75 214.50 914.33 1,051.00 109.29 647.12 151,137.86 16,466 .. 79 152,086.80 9,516.50 135,040.88 127,984.54 91,690.38 91,574.51 1,067,255.71 177,829.52 1,034,914.29 92,734.33 950,460.57 902,705.99 677,864.19 673,679.89 20.00 45.00 45.00 2,345.00 2.10 45.00 10.00 45.00 7 97. 15 1,740.75 69.50 43.85 129.64 17.10 1,082,468.10 862,730.21 626,123.82 45.00 45.00 CHK. NO. 93214 93826 93113 93130 93503 93608 937 94 93848 93272 94053 93364 93568 94047 93154 92983 93082 93439 93597 93668 93689 93732 93751 92982 93081 93438 93596 93667 93688 93731 93750 93278 93221 93996 93359 94055 93121 93793 93947 93129 93452 93949 93277 93239 93091 93658 93700 93762 93241 94004 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT BILL A BOWERS BILL A BOWERS BILL DUVALL BILL WHITTEN BILL'S OFFICE FURNITURE BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, L.P. BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BOARD OF ELECTRICAL EXAMINERS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBY ACKLIN BOBBY ACKLIN BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BRANDY YORK NESSELRODT BRENDA BUTLER BRENDA BUTLER BRENDA CREWS BRENDA PARKER BRIGHT APPLE BROMLEY PARTS \u0026amp; SERVICE BROMLEY PARTS \u0026amp; SERVICE BROUKE REYNOLDS BROUKE REYNOLDS BROWN JANITOR SUPPLY BROWN JANITOR SUPPLY BUCKEYE BUSINESS PRODUCTS INC. C.T.A. C.T.A. C.T.A. CALLOWAY HOUSE, INC. CAMP JOSEPH T ROBINSON CAPITOL STARTER SERVICE CAROL SOULSBY CAROL THORNTON CAROL THORNTON CAROLYN WHITESIDE CARRIER MIDSOUTH CATFISH YOUNGS RESTAURANT AND CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CENTER FOR EFFECTIVE CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CENTERS FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES CENTRAL ARKANSAS PEDIATRIC CENTRAL ARKANSAS PEDIATRIC CENTRAL ARKANSAS TRANSIT CENTRAL POLY T- 5 AMOUNT 45.00 45.00 73.44 23.63 1,337.93 58.80 150.00 75.00 75.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 3,164.28 933.53 4,965.02 155.68 45.00 45.00 111. 72 45.00 218.49 351.12 63.98 22.50 22.50 255.43 320.89 354.52 8,593.76 8,573.66 7,316.40 2,489.25 87.00 158.05 48.44 45.00 45.00 29.68 750.59 209.79 2,858.04 100.00 14,757.54 14,867.50 15,732.89 1,488.28 414.00 4,085.00 CHK. NO. 93285 94025 93134 93427 93116 93246 93135 93453 93791 93273 94021 93231 94000 93136 93504 93796 93399 93330 94043 93405 93410 93344 93454 93797 93322 94040 93138 93610 94073 93659 93701 93763 93611 94048 94065 93250 93281 94023 93387 93479 93253 93356 93147 93501 93162 93332 93859 94003 93560 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. CHANNING L. BETE CO., INC. CHARLIE JONES CHARLIE JONES CHARLOTTE BULL CHARLOTTE BULL CHERYL HALL CHILD CARE PROVIDERS FUND CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP CHRIS HOCKADAY CHRISTINE HICKMAN CHRISTINE HICKMAN CHRISTINE HICKMAN CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CLASSROOM DIRECT CLAUDIA MORAN CLEAR MOUNTAIN CLEAR MOUNTAIN CLEAR MOUNTAIN COCA-COLA USA, A DIVISION OF COCA-COLA/DR PEPPER BOTTLING COMCAST CABLEVISION COMMUNICATION PLUS+ COMPUTER AUTOMATION SYSTEMS CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTER CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRI CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRI COPCO ELECTRONICS CORA SMITH CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CROSS COUNTRY UNIVERSITY CROW BURLINGAME CO CRYSTAL EVANS CUMMINS MID SOUTH INC CUSTOM PRINTING CYNTHIA MELTON CYNTHIA MELTON DAN RUSSELL DAN RUSSELL T- 6 AMOUNT 359.25 1,405.98 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 50.00 23.99 316.80 45.00 992.00 45.00 213. 54 42.68 213.54 4,503.20 45.00 275.89 25.92 123.23 3,109.50 1,652.22 46.25 319.38 2,375.00 83.00 290.58 233.12 176.83 283.89 263.16 424.28 2,188.35 20.00 4,424.53 411.14 1,691.12 3,739.33 267. 66 318.00 73.43 118.44 110.57 38.88 117 .15 45.00 45.00 45.00 CHK. NO. 93284 93142 93282 94024 93144 93955 93261 93467 93953 93106 93426 93494 94069 93068 93484 93589 93318 93381 93302 93854 94035 93974 94011 93127 93255 93638 93306 93098 93712 93783 93908 93806 93969 93500 93375 93269 93548 93641 93844 94019 93403 93471 93552 93298 93149 93293 94031 93310 94039 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT DANA CHADWICK DANA CHADWICK DANA CHADWICK DANA MCCOY DANA SNOWDEN DANA SNOWDEN DANIEL MOVING \u0026amp; STORAGE DANNY REED DANNY REED DARCY PATTISON DARLENE HOLMES DARRELL MCCOY DATAMAX OF ARKANSAS DATAMAX OF ARKANSAS DATEK, INC. DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID MCPHERSON DAVID MCPHERSON DAWNE CARROLL DAWSON EDUCATION COOPERATIVE DAWSON EDUCATION COOPERATIVE DEANN ROACH DEBBIE DAVENPORT DEBBIE GREENE DEBBIE ROZZELL DEBORAH COKER DEBRA BUTLER DELI PARTNER'S DELI PARTNER'S DELI PARTNER'S DELI PARTNER'S DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS DIANA MATHIS DIANA MATHIS DIANA MATHIS DIANA MATHIS DIANE CRITES DIANE CRITES T- 7 AMOUNT 123.63 279.00 45.00 101.36 45.00 45.00 7,836.50 45.00 45.00 860.00 159.04 16 .11 30,577.50 23,170.85 88.45 1,161.78 5,287.66 811.35 5,341.60 3,620.14 20.00 20.00 49.28 427.95 73.75 45.00 20.00 71. 37 25. 98 16.38 37.24 197.31 185.78 467.68 285.60 50,960.94 40,101.23 30,191.20 50,930.62 141,814.12 114,240.47 80,989.00 704.77 328.80 328.80 328.80 328.80 45.00 45.00 CHK. NO. 93152 93513 93958 93400 93141 93952 94020 93290 94028 93536 93542 93954 93110 93944 93866 93065 93481 93586 93719 93769 93425 94068 93308 93249 93840 93382 93396 93315 93212 93348 93265 93232 93538 93831 94001 93097 93711 93782 93907 93660 93708 93779 93203 92997 93486 93682 93724 93429 94070 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT DICK BLICK DIRECT ADVANTAGE DIVERSIFIED COLLECTION DIVERSIFIED COLLECTION DOMINIE PRESS INC DOMINIE PRESS INC DONALD R. WATKINS DONALD R. WATKINS DONNA NAIL DOROTHY FARRIS DOROTHY M WILLIAMS DOROTHY M WILLIAMS DOYALENE WASSON DOYALENE WASSON DREW CAMP EDS SUPPLY CO. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION ETA CUISENAIRE ETA CUISENAIRE F \u0026amp; E CHECK PROTECTOR COMPANY FAITH JONES FAMILY SUPPORT FAMILY SUPPORT FAMILY SUPPORT FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT FAWNDA WHITE FERRELLGAS CENTER CENTER CENTER CENTER CENTER CENTER FINANCIAL DATA SERVICES INC FINANCIAL DATA SERVICES INC FINANCIAL DATA SERVICES INC FINANCIAL DATA SERVICES INC FINANCIAL DATA SERVICES INC FINANCIAL DATA SERVICES INC FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLEXBEN CORPORATION T- 8 AMOUNT 140.65 102.10 39.36 48.24 396. 00 795.08 45.00 45.00 243.00 127.40 104.82 65. 4 9 23.35 36.40 45.00 894.34 86.1'4 12.90 1,467.35 5,534.45 1,992.35 1,465.90 381,871.46 289,480.74 219,389.14 376,459.34 5,344.85 3,223.67 642.60 11. 76 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 84.56 31.98 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 3,842.47 58.32 45.36 352.22 5,259.67 CHK. NO. 93432 93319 93067 93588 93551 93642 93244 94007 93230 93328 93771 93872 93120 937 92 93430 93153 93514 93959 93160 93518 93155 93614 93102 93716 93787 93912 93161 93519 93211 93275 93000 93489 93685 93727 93748 93775 93404 93218 92992  93448 93677 93698 937 41 93760 93163 93965 93619 93966 92990 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT FLEXBEN CORPORATION FLEXBEN CORPORATION FLEXBEN CORPORATION FLEXBEN CORPORATION FLEXBEN CORPORATION FLEXBEN CORPORATION FLEXBEN CORPORATION FLEXBEN CORPORATION FLEXBEN CORPORATION FLEXBEN CORPORATION FLEXBEN CORPORATION FLEXBEN CORPORATION FLEXBEN CORPORATION FLIES FLOORCOVERINGS INTERNATIONAL FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FOURIER SYSTEMS INC FRAN JACKSON FRAN JACKSON FRANK WISE FRANKLIN COVEY FRANKLIN COVEY FRANKLIN COVEY FREYALDENHOVEN GREENHOUSE GARY BUNN GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION GEOLEG GINGER WALLACE GINGER WALLACE GLENDA TUCKER GLORIA SMITH GLOVERS TRUCK PARTS \u0026amp; EGUIP GRAINGER GREAT RIVERS ED SERVICE GREG BURL GREG DANIELS GREG DANIELS GREGG THOMPSON GREGG THOMPSON GRETCHEN MCCOY GUMDROP BOOKS GUMDROP BOOKS GWEN WIGGINS HANK'S FINE FURNITURE HARCOURT EDU. MEASUREMENT HARCOURT EDU. MEASUREMENT HARCOURT EDU. MEASUREMENT HAROLD D STARK T- 9 AMOUNT 2,184.93 166.58 5,259.67 2,184.93 166.58 4,341.17 2,184.93 4,341.17 2,184.93 2,811.41 1,768.68 2,811.41 1,768.68 2,200.00 2,727.00 80.07 84.58 4,807.00 45.00 45.00 34.08 2,934.00 96. 00 20.50 265.69 148.00 56.58 22,132.80 45.00 45.00 564.53 45.00 785.44 242.81 150.00 4.20 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 1,062.00 1,139.71 1,044.15 45.56 843.65 529.75 119. 60 1,936.49 45.00 CHK. NO. 92991 93088 93446 93447 93603 93675 93676 93696 93697 93739 93740 93758 93759 93650 93835 93073 93591 93132 93411 94058 93367 93167 93524 93810 93373 93549 93002 93508 93292 94030 93643 93428 93521 93632 93847 93256 93417 94 061 93412 94059 93406 93522 93971 94013 93832 93392 93576 93655 93420 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT HAROLD D STARK HAROLD GWATNEY CHEVROLET CO. HARPER SHEET METAL WORKS INC. HART PHYSICAL THERAPY SERVICE HARVEST FOODS #6249 HEINEMANN LIBRARY HEINEMANN LIBRARY HELPING HAND CHILDRENS HENDERSON STATE UNIVERSITY HENRY SCHEIN INC HICKS RENTALS-SUNNY HICKS HOBBY LOBBY STORES HOBBY LOBBY STORES HOBBY LOBBY STORES HOME DEPOT/GECF HOT SPRINGS TECHNOLOGY HOT SPRINGS TECHNOLOGY HOUGHTON-MIFFLIN CO. HUM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; FURNITURE CO. ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT IN DYER NEED ENTERPRISES INDEPENDENT TESTING ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS INNOVATIVE LEARNING CONCEPTS, INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIAT INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIAT J \u0026amp; B SUPPLY COMPANY J~ L. HEIN SERVICE, INC. JACK T CARTER COMPANY JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. T-10 AMOUNT 45.00 25.00 75.00 1,609.80 79.43 1,166.19 34.45 1,540.00 400.00 74.77 20.94 542.84 165.87 22.41 501. 52 1,890.00 90.00 436.99 84.71 290.00 290.00 192.83 350.00 2,843.33 425.00 2,843.33 425.00 2,513.33 2,513.33 1,555.00 1,555.00 2,994.50 5,598.89 3,091.67 54,605.46 4,324.81 7,281.75 136. 00 136.00 136.00 136.00 136.00 136.00 502.37 484.75 3,004.58 11,890.28 292.32 822.50 CHK. NO. 94063 93079 93458 93333 93288 93372 94049 93646 93802 93394 93074 93457 93620 93970 93537 93327 93559 93459 93168 93001 93490 93123 93862 92985 93084 93441 93599 93670 93691 93734 93753 93215 93309 93496 93555 93857 94038 92999 93488 93684 93726 93747 93774 93169 93811 93495 93574 93170 93973 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT JACKSONVILLE ATHLETICS JACQUELINE SUMLER JAMES W, WOODARD, JR JAMIE EUBANKS JANET E. THOMAS P.T. JANET FOSTER JANET GROSSMAN JANIS MASTERS JENNIFER HICKS JENNY OBANNON JERRY DOWDY JERRY MASSEY JERRY MASSEY JIST PUBLISHING JO-ANN FABRICS AND CRAFTS JO-ANN FABRICS AND CRAFTS JODY EDRINGTON JODY EDRINGTON JOHN GILLIAME JOHN HAYNIE JOHN HAYNIE JOSH SPILLYARDS JOSTENS, INC JOSTENS, INC JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JUST FOR KIDS THERAPY SERVICES KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAREN POWELL KATHY VANCE CHAMBERS KATIE BILLINGS KAYE LOWE KAYE LOWE KAYE LOWE KAYE LOWE KEELING COMPANY KEELING COMPANY KEITH FAULKNER KELLEYS UPHOLSTERY KENNETH A. KIRSPEL KENNETH A. KIRSPEL KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KIM PEARSON KIM REYNOLDS T-11 AMOUNT 901.85 45.00 45.00 2,012.50 1,204.00 218.12 45.00 1,125.00 3,067.50 45.00 97.30 120.06 72.84 54.69 23. 72 116. 52 45.00 45.00 1,344.00 114.84 45.00 104.00 73.34 11. 42 2,030.67 1,001.90 1,122.89 1,001.90 1,001.90 780.00 328.93 75.38 94. 92 32.00 45.00 111.37 272.48 45.00 5.62 77.01 105.71 105.84 45.00 45.00 68.69 268.21 2,846.06 139. 72 24.08 CHK. NO. 93220 93413 93415 93565 93228 93258 93385 93841 93358 93337 93408 93259 93541 93270 93505 93799 93257 94012 93511 93245 94008 93347 93331 94044 93072 93491 93590 93728 93776 93653 93172 93280 93271 93341 93140 93507 93800 93951 93173 93621 93076 93279 93418 94062 93434 93584 93397 93313 93143 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT KIM WILMOT KNOWLEDGE TREE KREBS BROS. SUPPLY CO., INC. KROGER #639 KROGER COMPANY/INDIAN HILLS KROGER COMPANY/PERSHING KYLE KALKBRENNER KYLE KALKBRENNER LACY CRITES LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LARA HUMPHRIES LAURA JENNINGS LAURIE PRATHER LCR-M CORPORATION LCR-M CORPORATION LEANN NANNEN LEARNING ZONE XPRESS LEASE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION LETITIA MARTIN LETITIA MARTIN LETITIA MARTIN LEWIS AND LEE DISTRIBUTING LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LINDA WILSON LINDA WILSON LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LINGUI SYSTEMS, INC. LINKAGES TO LEARNING INSTITUTE LITTLE CAESAR'S GENERAL OFFICE LITTLE ROCK DODGE, INC. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. LITTLE ROCK ZOO LOWE'S OF LITTLE ROCK LRP PUBLICATIONS LRSD-TEACHERS OF TOMORROW LYNN CHADWICK LYNN CHADWICK LYNN CHADWICK LYNN CHADWICK LYNN CHADWICK MB ELECTRONICS M J COMMUNICATIONS MAGIC SPRINGS MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE T-12 AMOUNT 45.00 16.13 118.75 128.44 227.26 19.63 108.00 136. 00 144.00 5,341.63 5,841.62 10,724.91 45.00 65.66 51.80 2,707.24 159.41 111: 61 1,033.66 1,747.97 45.00 96.00 45.00 1,738.20 317.47 45.00 45.00 999.00 101.57 201. 50 1,560.00 116.55 27.61 36,282.77 48.93 45.87 60.00 148.07 516.70 46.00 53.84 45.00 96. 00 26.92 45.00 353. 4 0 514.89 920.00 30,833.33 CHK. NO. 93326 93834 93460 93238 93174 93233 93146 93510 93571 93200 93628 93983 93379 93115 93355 93469 93544 93301 93563 93349 93414 93578 94060 93474 93178 93423 94066 93175 93812 93176 94056 93264 93177 93975 93185 93624 93545 93436 94018 93131 93094 93243 93539 93903 94006 93351 93435 93353 93946 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. MARCIA CHAPPLE-DEAN 10.08 93554 MARCIA VAN CLEAVE 237.38 93316 MARDEL CORPORATE OFFICE 126.40 93122 MARDEL CORPORATE OFFICE 3,750.96 93499 MARDEL CORPORATE OFFICE 385.77 93948 MARIE PIERCE 454.49 93224 MARLO JAMES 148.00 93577 MARSHA MAJORS 45.00 93299 MARSHA SATTERFIELD 92.01 93263 MARSHA SATTERFIELD 91.67 94016 MARTHA FEWELL 45.00 93188 MARTHA K ASTI 45.00 93393 MARTHA K ASTI 45.00 94051 MARTHA NORTON 2,227.50 93389 MARY BETH COX 213.99 93904 MAVIS CHERRY 45.00 93237 MAVIS CHERRY 45.00 94002 MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 3,175.00 93366 MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 6,350.00 93652 MEDICAL MANAGER HEALTH SYSTEMS 449.36 93247 - MEDICAL MANAGER HEALTH SYSTEMS 391.30 93635 MEDICAL MANAGER HEALTH SYSTEMS 192.43 93837 MELISSA CANNON 187.54 93260 MELISSA CANNON 68.71 93640 METRO BUILDERS \u0026amp; RESTORATION 9,552.36 93498 METRO FOODS 37,152.17 93468 MICHELLE KEATON 45.00 93380 MILFORD TRACK RESTAURANT 240.90 93343 MILFORD TRACK RESTAURANT 246.37 93648 MITCHS TIRE SERVICE 227.00 93339 MITCHS TIRE SERVICE 74.00 93475 MOLLY FLOYD 45.00 93388 MSS 1,658.62 93350 MUSEUM OF DISCOVERY 580.00 94026 N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY 135.09 93184 N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY 133.69 93623 N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY 681.96 93977 NAEIR 139. 00 93633 NANCY BRYAN 50.00 93801 NANCY C. GREEN 45.00 93283 NANCY MARSHALL 45.00 93181 NANCY MARSHALL 45.00 93976 NANCY MARTIN 312.37 93870 NANCY SHEEHAN 129.22 93187 NANCY STEWART 240.24 93289 NAPA AUTO PARTS 542.46 93164 NAPA AUTO PARTS 94.19 93456 NAPA AUTO PARTS 21. 38 93967 NASCO 128.10 93186 T-13 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY 3,760.60 93526 NATIONAL HOME CENTER 46.66 93189 NATIONAL HOME CENTER 281.73 93978 NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION 121.89 93644 NATIONAL SCHOOL PRODUCTS 102.01 93190 NATIONAL SCHOOL PRODUCTS 2,285.63 93814 NEWBRIDGE EDUCATIONAL 123.75 93520 NLR WELDING SUPPLY 18.31 93815 NLRSD ADMN OFFICE CHECKING 675.00 93077 NLRSD ADMN OFFICE CHECKING 367.12 93492 NLRSD ADMN OFFICE CHECKING 675.00 93593 NLRSD ADMN OFFICE CHECKING 2,881.72 94054 NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. 19,993.49 93828 NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. 8,009.83 93993 NLRSD WAREHOUSE 4,525.00 93865 NLRSD-BACKGROUND CHECK 45.74 93664 NLRSD-BACKGROUND CHECK 37.65 93705 NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE 9,030.67 93101 NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE 7,056.76 93715 NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE 5,317.07 93786 NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE 8,936.76 93911 NO. LITTLE ROCK EDUCATORS CRED 85,712.51 93661 - NO. LITTLE ROCK EDUCATORS CRED 62,050.16 93702 NO. LITTLE ROCK EDUCATORS CRED 39,887.00 93764 NORTH HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTER 350.00 9317 9 NORTH LITTLE ROCK DIESEL 1,242.00 93182 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL 292.51 93191 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL 4,052.30 93527 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL 1,237.50 93625 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL 188.86 93816 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL 81.40 93979 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. 258.79 93078 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. 479.52 93104 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. 585.70 93493 1-JORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. 454.13 93594 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. 658.44 93729 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. 437.67 93777 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. 85.44 93871 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. 6.09 93914 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL OF 78.76 93618 NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA 632.34 93192 NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES 5,386.93 93158 NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES 615.23 93517 NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES 111.58 93617 NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES 83,651.37 93805 NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES 4,325.10 93963 NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES 50.00 93964 N6RTH POINT FORD 54,052.00 93686 - NORTHCENTRAL ARKANSAS 46.00 93850 T-14 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT NOVA STAGGS NOVA STAGGS OAK GROVE SMOKEHOUSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION OLIVIA SHIPMAN ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY, INC. PACIFIC LEARNING PAGES OF PARENTING PAM HANDLOSER PAM WILCOX PAM WILCOX PAULA MCCARTHER PAULA MCCARTHER PAULA VASQUEZ PCI EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING PCI EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING PCI EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING PEDIATRIC THERAPY SERVICES PERMA-BOUND PERMA-BOUND PERMA-BOUND PERMA-BOUND PHELEISA WOODS PINNACLE POINTE HOSPITAL PINNACLE POINTE HOSPITAL PIP PRINTING PIP PRINTING POSITIVE PROMOTIONS PRESIDENTS EDUCATION AWARDS PRIMARY CONCEPTS PROCESS ONE PROCESS ONE PROMOTIONS PLUS PUBLIC SCHOOL VEHICLE PUBLISHERS QUALITY LIBRARY SER PURVIS BEARING SERVICE PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS T-15 AMOUNT 45.00 45.00 16.50 1,534.61 2,543.54 1,509.40 2,203.49 1,279.73 1,279.73 579.30 579.30 1,101.75 5,522.91 152.92 75.59 62,864.34 100.00 83.15 2,154.60 31.66 870.00 45.00 45.00 4,657.50 2,887.50 148.00 179.25 136.20 169.39 2,227.50 3,258.74 12,010.77 109.33 666.85 272.50 2,860.00 34,265.00 463.25 81. 31 215.88 64.50 16.95 77.45 67.73 913. 41 1,792.00 166.61 216. 72 2,548.32 CHK. NO. 93431 94071 93312 92994 93066 93483 93587 93679 93721 93743 93770 93248 93636 93839 94009 93105 93145 93995 93609 93234 93354 93296 94033 93240 93833 93572 93180 93525 93622 93654 93166 93523 93809 93972 93369 93546 94017 93235 93465 93849 93194 93336 93528 93818 93846 93506 93195 93362 93583 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. QUALITY PFG LITTLE ROCK 6,680.21 93461 RACHEL URTON 104.00 93371 RACHEL URTON 132.00 93570 REALLY GOOD STUFF INC 46.75 93335 REBECCA HARRIS 148.00 93566 REBECCA R CARR 3,261.23 93311 REBECCA REED 28.39 94057 RED BRICK LEARNING 138.54 93573 REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC 70.77 93198 REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC 17.78 93820 REGINA CASE 50.00 93151 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62. 61 92998 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62. 61 93487 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62. 61 93683 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62. 61 93725 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62.61 93746 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62.61 93773 RELLIA DILLINGER 45.00 93422 RELLIA DILLINGER 96.00 93580 RENAISSANCE LEARNING INC 187.51 93216 RENAISSANCE LEARNING INC 2,902.43 93534 RETAIL SERVICES 108.98 93360 - RETAIL SERVICES 1,072.38 93651 RETAIL SERVICES 239.69 93863 REXEL DAVIES 739.50 93156 REXEL DAVIES 320.74 93515 REXEL DAVIES 336.64 93960 RHONDA BANKS 45.00 93304 RICHARD COWEN PUBLISHING INC 188.80 93268 RICHARD COWEN PUBLISHING INC 371.86 93470 RICHARD WOODS 18.20 93128 RICKEY JONES 45.00 93252 RICKEY JONES 45.00 94010 RIVENDELL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH 1,540.00 93543 RIVENDELL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH 29,975.00_ 94014 RIVER CITY SIGNS 175.00 93836 RIVERSIDE PUBLISHING co 2,358.74 93535 ROBBI S CHAMBERS 531. 00 93317 ROBIN GRAY 31. 36 93323 ROSEMARY ESKRIDGE 50.56 93090 ROSIE COLEMAN 45.00 93207 ROSIE COLEMAN 45.00 93987 ROTO ROOTER PLUMBING \u0026amp; DRAIN 239.90 93984 ROY SPRADLIN 45.00 93196 ROY SPRADLIN 45.00 93981 RUSSELL CHEVROLET co. 21. 06 93202 RUSSELL CHEVROLET co. 13.81 93462 RUSSELL CHEVROLET co. 211. 77 93529 RUSSELL CHEVROLET co. 900.00 93821 T-16 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. SADDLEBACK EDUCATIONAL, INC. 740.91 93795 SAFE/T CLASSROOM PRODUCTS 402.26 93477 SAGEBRUSH CORPORATION 1,606.75 93556 SAGEBRUSH CORPORATION 2,349.46 93645 SAIED MUSIC CO 199.80 93856 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 1,642.45 93197 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 564.75 93627 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 376.74 93982 SAMS TECHNICAL PUBLISHING 63.81 93376 SANDERS SUPPLY 365.80 93390 SANDRA CAMPBELL 45.00 93419 SANDRA ROGERS 50.00 93150 SBC 2,833.66 93133 SBC 2,738.76 93950 SBC LONG DISTANCE 136. 68 93864 SBG-VAA 1,290.50 92988 SBG-VAA 25.00 93087 SBG-VAA 1,290.50 93444 SBG-VAA 25.00 93602 SBG-VAA 1,260.50 93673 SBG-VAA 1,260.50 93694 - SBG-VAA 1,135.50 93737 SBG-VAA 1,135.50 93756 SCHOLASTIC INC 15,723.63 93204 SCHOLASTIC INC 9,679.98 93530 SCHOOL SPECIALITY 2,366.85 93205 SCHOOL SPECIALITY 5,182.93 93531 SCHOOL SPECIALITY 1,620.19 93629 SCHOOL SPECIALITY 95.69 93822 SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP 541. 66 92989 SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP 541. 66 93445 SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP 541. 66 9367 4 SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP 541.66 93695 SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP 541.66 93738 SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP 541. 66 93757 SEIGGA TROPHIES 610.40 93159 SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION 99.91 92996 SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION 191.96 93071 SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION 240.71 93485 SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION 170.31 93681 SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION 170.31 93723 SETH SPEER 132. 00 93512 SHANNON OBERLAG 36.10 94052 SHARA BRAZEAR 69.76 93291 SHARA BRAZEAR 45.00 94029 SHARON ELDRED 104.52 93416 - SHAY FORTUNE 41.72 93401 SHEILA BESLY 20.00 93807 SHERRY RATLIFF 45.00 93236 T-17 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT SHERWIN-WILLIAMS SHERYLL SMITH SHERYLL SMITH SHIRLEY SCOTT SHRED-IT SHRED-IT SIMPLY THE BEST CATERING SOUTHWEST SPORTING GOODS CO SPEECH PATHOLOGY SERVICES INC SPORTIME ST. MARY'S SCHOOL STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STATE BUSINESS SUPPLY STATE BUSINESS SUPPLY STENHOUSE PUBLISHERS STEPHANY BARNETTE STERLING PAINT STERLING PAINT STERLING PAINT STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGIES SUMMER QUEST SUNBURST TECHNOLOGY CORP SUNDANCE PUBLISHING LLC SUNDANCE PUBLISHING LLC SUNDANCE PUBLISHING LLC SUSAN BIGGS SUSAN FAITH SUSAN HYDEN SUSAN MILLER SUSIE BALLARD-JACKSON SUSIE' BALLARD-JACKSON SUZZETTE PATTERSON SYSCO FOOD SERVICE OF ARKANSAS TARGET TAWANNA ROGERS TEACHERS VIDEO COMPANY TEACHERS VIDEO COMPANY TEACHING RESOURCE CENTER TELETOUCH THE BRIDGEWAY THE GRAD SHOP THE GRAD SHOP THE INSTRUMENTALIST COMPANY THE LIBRARY STORE THE MCGRAW HILL COMPANIES THE MCGRAW HILL COMPANIES T-18 AMOUNT 64.77 45.00 45.00 93.80 78.00 178.75 2 93. 4 0 802.15 5,810.00 1,606.96 150.00 26. 35 30.08 87.44 112. 65 353.68 116 .10 320.50 45.00 1-2 6. 8 9 656.01 747.10 1,303.99 125.00 131.89 368.63 51. 98 9.95 50.00 1,080.00 127.68 28.22 45.00 45.00 71. 36 4,223.52 212.67 125.00 568.73 412.05 6,611.73 105.37 4,\n\u0026gt;20.00 135.45 49.63 9.78 113.70 16,456.55 3,275.60 CHK. NO. 93208 93424 94067 93402 93325 94041 93199 93210 93395 93819 93823 93213 93532 93824 93988 93303 93855 93363 93384 93463 93825 93990 93851 93368 93631 93533 93630 93989 93804 93540 93171 93370 93206 93986 93295 93464 93991 93613 93287 94027 93266 93118 93550 93365 93569 93251 93286 93294 93553 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT THE MCGRAW HILL COMPANIES THE MCGRAW HILL COMPANIES THE PARENT INSTITUTE THE PARENT INSTITUTE THE SOUTHERN CO. NLR., INC. THE TIMES THELMA JASPER THERAPY PROVIDERS, P.A. THOMAS TALLEY THUOC MAI THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR TIME PLUS PAYROLL SERVICES TOP GUN PEST CONTROL INC TRANS AMERICAN TIRE COMPANY TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TURNER DAIRY TURNER DAIRY TWIN CITY PRINTING \u0026amp; LITHO INC TWIN CITY PRINTING \u0026amp; LITHO INC US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US FUEL US FUEL UALR UALR READING RECOVERY UCA NSSLHA UCA/UDA SUMMER CAMPWEAR UNISOURCE LITTLE ROCK UNITED ART \u0026amp; EDUCATION SUPPLY UNITED METHODIST BEHAVIORAL UNITED METHODIST BEHAVIORAL UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY UNIVERSAL CARD SERVICES CORP T-19 AMOUNT 1,576.53 460.02 473.04 4,175.44 143.22 56.00 195.20 13,867.50 17.10 25.00 58.63 182.50 945.00 3,350.80 12,094.53 2,312.34 1,403.35 17,753.83 299.76 30.24 3,599.40 2,996.70 2,256.45 3,546.90 5,228.50 3,534.60 2,403.20 5,101.20 13,239.92 9,304.34 6,889.98 13,017.88 86.91 249.40 122.23 824.88 25.00 150.00 241.37 101.09 574.43 1,760.00 16,005.00 49.70 2,500.00 1,391.77 868.87 699.58 5,418.22 CHK. NO. 93852 94032 93262 93842 93209 93992 93637 93639 93092 93808 93838 93409 93626 93137 93274 93845 93478 93656 93219 93994 93095 93709 93780 93905 93096 93710 93781 93906 93099 93713 93784 93909 93070 93307 94036 93334 93985 93229 93361 93117 93201 93567 94046 93827 93998 93662 93703 93765 93858 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 04 -- NOT FINAL ACCOUNT UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA UNUM LTFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA uses INCORPORATED uses INCORPORATED UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE WALCH PUBLISHERS WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WANDA HAWKINS WANDA HAWKINS WARD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WARDS NATURAL SCIENCE WARDS TURF EQUIPMENT REPAIRS WASTE MANAGEMENTO F ARKANSAS WEEKLY READER WES SULLIVAN WEST MEMPHIS PAPER COMPANY WESTERN FOODS WHITNEY FLETCHER WINSTON TURNER WINSTON TURNER WORLD ALMANAC EDUCATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION YOUTH HOME INC ZANER-BLOSER 501 TIRE AND WHEEL AMOUNT 1,679.44 5,039.90 4,214.00 2,974.60 4,774.10 108.52 109.76 6,915.70 573.33 5,695.70 31,042.95 575.00 34,607.95 575.00 29,049.45 29,049.45 18,627.79 18,627.79 885.60 5,608.75 1,309.28 710.33 367.63 1,442.03 428.40 78.09 52.50 265.21 12.23 4,039.36 5,134.18 740.15 25.00 2,032.24 12,865.89 20.00 45.00 45.00 197.84 2,743.44 2,743.44 7,091.95 218.93 11. 34 CHK. NO. 93124 93100 93714 93785 93910 93075 93592 93193 93817 93980 92984 93083 93440 93598 93669 93690 93733 93752 94037 93342 93476 93562 93647 93860 94045 93357 93564 93222 93223 93575 93451 93225 93612 93829 93466 93407 93148 93956 93217 93227 93999 93997 93226 93957 CHECK TOTALS FOR JUNE - NOT FINAL 12,722,341.48 T-20 RECEIVED AUG1 P 2004 OFFIoCi: E BOARD Of EDUCATJQNESEGREGATIGHntONITOR!NG NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Thursday, August 19, 2004 5:00 P.M. MEETING AGENDA NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Thursday, August 19, 2004 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. CALL TO ORDER, Teresa Burl, President II. INVOCATION, Randy Sandefur, NLRHS Head Baseball and Assistant III. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Teresa Burl, President Marty Moore, Vice President Trent Cox, Secretary Rochelle Redus, Parliamentarian Charles Hoskyn, Member Mable Mitchell, Member John Riley, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Superintendent's Honor Roll l. Greg Adams -Arkansas Children's Hospital Football Coach 2. Dr. Scott Harrington - Lakewood Family Medicine and NLRSD parent B. New Partners in Education Page 2 - Board Agenda August 19, 2004 I. Barnes and Noble Booksellers and the North Little Rock School District 2. Lyn Poinsett, State Farm Insurance Agent and the North Little Rock School District VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, July 15, 2004 5:00 P.M. (Regular) - Page A - I B. Thursday, August 5, 2004 5:30 P.M. (Special) - Page A - 5 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. Consider 2003 - 2004 North Little Rock Youth Health Survey - C. Grayson B. Consider Revision to Board Policy 4.35 - Student Medications - (Second Reading) - M.K. Asti - Page B - I C. Consider Analysis of Disciplinary Actions for 2003 - 2004 - F. Jackson D. Consider Arkansas School Boards Association Membership Fee - Page C - I E. Consider Resolution to Approve North Little Rock Parks and Recreation Grant Application - T. Kimbrell - Page D -1 F. Consider Texas Arkansas Purchasing System Resolution - B. Kine! - Page E - I G. Consider Substitute Pay Increase - D. Watkins Page 3 - Board Agenda - August l 9, 2004 H. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - T. Kimbrell 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - l 3. Consider bid items - Page R - 1 4. Consider building use requests - Page S - l 5. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - l. IX. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Labor Day Holiday - Monday, September 6, 2004 - All Schools and Offices Closed B. Board Meeting (Regular)- Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 5:00 p.m. X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS None XI. PERSONNEL HEARING XII. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES July 15, 2004 The North Little Rock School District Board met in regular session on Thursday, July 15, 2004 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. President Teresa Burl called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Yolanda Platt, Secretary to Administrative Director of Elementary Education, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Teresa Burl, President Marty Moore, Vice-President Trent Cox, Secretary Rochelle Redus, Parliamentarian Charles Hoskyn, Member Mable Mitchell, Member John Riley, Member Absent None Others Present Dr. Tom Kimbrell, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nDonald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services\nrepresentatives from the Personnel Policies Committees, PT A and press\nseveral other staff members\nand Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) and Jim Billings (video) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS None DISPOSITION OF MINUTES MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the minutes of the June 17, 2004 (Regular) meeting as printed. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None A-1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Extension of Superintendent's Contract through June 30, 2007 President Burl explained she had consulted with Paul Blume, our attorney, and he advised to change the beginning date of the Superintendent's three year contract from July l, 2004 to July 2, 2004 to avoid any conflict with the legislation prohibiting new contracts longer than one year in the state until after July 1, 2004. MOTION Trent Cox moved to change the contract of Dr. Tom Kimbrell as Superintendent of North Little Rock School District from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005 to July 2, 2004 through June 30, 2007. Marty Moore seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None Student Uniforms for Argenta Academy Dr. Kimbrell requested this item moved from New Business to Informational. Revision to Board Policy 4.35 - Student Medications - (First Reading) - Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Education, introduced the change to the Board and stated the change would replace the words \"other designated area\" to \"nurse's office\" in the last paragraph. Second and final reading on this policy revision will be at the August 19, 2004 Regular Board meeting. Consent Agenda Dr. Kimbrell presented the consent agenda as printed. MOTION Charles Hoskyn moved to accept the consent agenda as printed. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None A-2 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Student Uniforms for Argenta Academy Dr. Kimbrell requested the postponement of this proposal until Charles Jones, Principal at Argenta Academy, has the opportunity to meet with a committee of Argenta Academy parents, students, and staff. PERSONNEL HEARING Mr. Johnny Talley requested an open hearing concerning the termination of the coaching portion of his employment contract. The Board recessed at 5: 17 p.m. while waiting for the court reporter to arrive. The Board reconvened at 5:35 p.m. when the court reporter was ready for the hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, President Burl explained all of the procedural aspects. The Administration and Mr. Talley presented their positions on the aspects of the termination of the coaching segment of his contract. MOTION John Riley moved to enter into Executive Session to discuss the personnel matter. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, l loskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None The Board entered into closed session at 8:50 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 9:30 p.m. MOTION Trent Cox moved that the Board had found reason # 1 to be TRUE. Marty Moore seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, I loskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None Rochelle Redus moved that the Board had found reason #2 to be NOT TRUE. Mable Mitchell seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell. Moore, Redus and Riley None A-3 MOTION Charles Hoskyn moved that the Board had found reason #3 to be TRUE. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None Marty Moore moved that the B\u0026lt;?ard had found reason #4 to be TRUE. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None Charles Hoskyn moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to terminate the coaching portion of Johnny Talley's contract. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None ADJOURNMENT Trent moved to adjourn the meeting. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None Chairman Burl declared the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Teresa Burl, President Trent Cox, Secretary A-4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES August 5 - 6, 2004 August 9, 2004 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a special session on Thursday, August 5, 2004 and on Monday, August 9, 2004 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. President Teresa Burl called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. on August 5, 2004. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Teresa Burl, President Marty Moore, Vice President (Marty Moore entered the meeting at 5:35 p.m.) Rochelle Redus, Parliamentarian Charles Hoskyn, Member Mable Mitchell, Member John Riley, Member Absent Trent Cox, Secretary Others Present Dr. Tom Kimbrell, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nDanny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel\nand Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall taped (audio) the meeting. Also present were Valerie Baker and John Walker, her attorney. PERSONNEL HEARINGS Dr. Kimbrell explained Valerie Baker is being recommended for non-renewal of her employment contract with the district. Her attorney, John Walker, represented Ms. Baker. Ms. Baker requested that this hearing closed to the public. Mr. Paul Blume represented the District. The Board went into closed personnel hearing at 5:40 p.m. Mable Mitchell exited the meeting at 12: 15 a.m. on Friday, August 6, 2004. A-5 The Board recessed at I :30 a.m. Friday, August 6, 2004 ---scheduling to reconvene at 6:00 A p.m. on Monday, August 9, 2004. W The Board reconvened in closed session at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, August 9. 2004. Marty Moore entered the hearing on Monday. August 9, 2004 at 8:00 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at I 0:40 p.m. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to reject the Superintendent's recommendation for the non-renewal of Valerie Baker's employment contract. Mable Mitchell seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote (Trent Cox - absent) YEAS: Burl, Mitchell, Moore and Redus NAYS: Hoskyn and Riley  YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Hoskyn, Mitchell, Moore, Redus and Riley None ADJOURNMENT MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to adjourn the meeting. Marty Moore seconded the motion. President Burl declared the meeting adjourned at I 0:40 p.m. Teresa Burl, President Trent Cox, Secretary A-6 PROPOS~D (SECOND AND FINAL READING) 4.35-STUDENT MEDICATIONS Prior to the administration of any medication to any student under the age of eighteen (18), written parental consent is required. The consent form shall include authorization to administer the medication and relieve the Board and its employees of civil liability for damages or injuries resulting from the administration of medication to students in accordance with this policy. Unless authorized to self-administer, students are not allowed to carry any medications while at school. The parent or legal guardian shall bring the student's medication to the nurse, or in the absence of a nurse, to the principal's office. The student may bring the medication if accompanied by a written authorization from the parent or legal guardian. Medications, including those for self-medication, must be in the original container and be properly labeled with the student's name, the ordering provider's name, the name of the medication, the dosage, frequency, and instructions for the administration of the medication (including times). Additional information accompanying the medication shall state the purpose for the medication, its possible side effects, and any other pertinent instructions (such as special storage requirements) or warnings. Any change in medication dosages or administration schedules shall require new written physician and parent requests and new or newly labeled medication containers. Non prescriptive medications may be given to students upon the decision of the principal or the nurse. Such medications must be in the original container, clearly labeled and accompanied by a written authorization form signed by the parents or legal guardians that includes the student's name, the name of the medication, the dosage, and instructions for the administration of the medication (including times). Non prescriptive medications will not be given for more than one week without a written doctor's order. nurses office All medications must be administered in the school office or other designated area. The student must swallow the oral medication in the presence of the adult administering the medication. Inhalers must be used in the presence of an adult. The school is not responsible for any reactions caused by medications which are properly administered. If questions arise concerning a medication, school personnel have the right to call the doctor/pharmacist regarding the medication. The school shall not keep outdated medications or any medications past the end of the school year. Parents shall be notified ten (10) days in advance of the school's intention to dispose of any medication. Medications not picked up by the parents or legal guardians within the ten ( l 0) day period shall be destroyed by the nurse with a witness present. Reference: Arkansas State Board of Nursing: School Nurse Roles and Responsibilities Date Adopted: 12/19/95 Last Revised: 12/18/03 PROPOSED (SECOND AND FINAL READING) p, - 1 -- Arkansas School Boards Association 808 Dr. Martin Luther King Drive Little l\\ock, Arkansas 72202-3646 (501) 372-1415 or 1-800-482-1212 e-mail \u0026lt;arsba@arsba.org\u0026gt; Statement of Annual ASBA Membership Fee (For the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005) School District North Little Rock Schools County __ P_u_l_a_s__k _i _ Amount Due $ 1,830.00 ---'--....__ _________ _ The ASBA Membership Fee is based on the expenditures published in the \"Annual Statistical Report of the Public Schools of Arkansas,\" Arkansas Department of Education. The scale consists of ten brackets: DISTRICT BUDGET MEMBERSHIP FEE County Boards, Vo-Techs, Co-ops $300.00 $300,000 to $500,000 $480.00 $500,000 to $1 million $580.00 $1 million to $1.5 million $685.00 $1.5 million to $2.5 million $770.00 $2.5 million to $3.5 million $975.00 $3.5 million to $7.5 million $1,160.00 $7.5 million to$11.5 million $1,330.00 $11.5 million to $16 million $1,580.00 $16millionand up $1,830.00 C - 1 RESOLUTION The North Little Rock School Board of Directors hereby authorizes and supports the City of North Little Rock's Park and Recreation Department's application for an Outdoor Recreation Grant from the Arkansas State Park Department this 19th day of August, 2004. Also, in approving this resolution, it is our understanding this grant would fund the reconstruction of a new swimming pool at the location of the North Heights Community Center on Allen Street in North Little Rock on the property owned by the North Little Rock School District. Board of Education President Board of Education Secretary Superintendent of Schools D- l STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTYOF p~    RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF North, U,ttle,R,o-clv SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of North, Lu:tl.,e,R, o-clv School District of North, Lu:tl.,e,R, o-clv. Arkansas desires to enter into an lnterlocal Cooperation Agreement to participate in the TAPS cooperative purchasing program offered by the Dawson Education Cooperative, and WHEREAS the Board is of the opinion that participation in this program will be highly beneficial to the district through the anticipated savings to be realized\nand WHEREAS the District and Dawson Education Cooperative are authorized to enter into such agreement by the Arkansas lnterlocal Cooperation Act, IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board of directors of the North, Lu:tl.,e,,Ro-clv School District does hereby authorize and approve of entering into the lnterlocal Cooperation Agreement with Dawson Education Cooperative for participation in the TAPS cooperative purchasing program for the purposes state therein. Adopted this 190,, day of A~. 2004, by the Board of Directors of the North, Lu:tl.,e,,Ro-clvS chool District.,_ By: Teresa Burl President, Board of Directors Trent Cox Secretary, Board of Directors This legal document will remain current on file until either party severs the agreement. E-1 Y-T-D SUMMARYO F FUNDS FUND 1-SALARY FUND 2-0PERATING FUND 4-DEBT SERVICE ( FUNDS 1 + 2 + 4 I FUND )-BUILDING FUND 5-CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND 6-FEDERAL FUND 8-FOOD SERVICE TOTAL ALL FUNDS - MONTHLYS UMMARYO F FUNDS F'und I-Salary Fund 2-0perating Fund 4 Debt Service Fund )-Building Fund 5-Capital Outlay Fund 6-Federal Fund 8-Food Service TOTAL MONTHLY FUNDS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT JULY, 2004 BEGINNING Y-T-D BALANCE REVENUE .00 .00 3,068,891.33 97,737.53 1, 5 97,982.00 1,912,732.62 4,666,873.33 2,010,470.15 3,424,284.45 6,200.00 992,538.44 3,973.78 2,105,832.22 236,693.22 22,796.77 5,029.26 11,212,325.21 2,262,366.41 MONTH REVENUE .00 97,737.53 1,q12,732.62 6,200.00 3,973.78 236,693.22 5,029.26 2,262,366.41 0 - 1 Y-T-D CURRENT EXPENDITURES BALANCE 657,620.BB 657,620.B8CR' 1,348,023.84 1,818,605.02 .00 3,510,714.62 2,005,644.72 4,671,698.76 .00 3,430,484.45 49, 37B. B5 947,133.37 163,862.07 2, 17B, 663. 37 63,059.26 35,233.23CR 2, 2B1, 944. 90 ll, 192,146.72 MONTH REVENUE EXPENDITURES OVE:R/UNDER EXPENSE 657,620.BB 657,620.88CR l,34B,023.B4 I, 250, 2B6. 3ICR . 00 I, 912,732. 62 .00 6,200.00 49,378.85 45,405.07CR 163,862.07 72,831.15 63,059.26 58,030.00CR 2,281,944.90 l9,578.49CR REVENUE FUND 1 SALARY nJND Transfers FUND 2 OPERATING nJND LOCAL REVENUE Current Taxes Pullback Delinquent Taxes Land Redemption Interest Soft Drink Sales Spec Ed Preschool Local Misc Local TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE STATE REVENUE State Equalization Aid State Incentive Funding Sp Ed Supv/ESY/Res/Cat Special Ed Preschool K-1 Proverty Aid ABC Preschool M-to-M Program Hagnet/H-to-H Trans General Facility Fund Debt Service Funding Deseg-Teach Retire/Insu Miscellaneous State TOTAL STATE REVENUE TRANSFERS TOTAL OPERATING nJND nJND 4 DEBT SERVICE Current Taxes Delinquent Taxes Other Transfers TOTAL REVENUE nJNDS 1, 2, 4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT JULY, 2004 BUDGETED COLLECTED REVENUE THIS MONTH .00 .00 12,150,000.00 .00 6,150,000.00 .00 1,375,000.00 39,323.63 200,000.00 18,072.48 175,000.00 10,549.94 100,000.00 1,002.97 452,000.00 .00 403,482.00 28,788.51 21,005,482.00 97,737.53 33,304,168.00 .00 .00 .00 195,742.00 .00 544,729.00 .00 .00 .oo I, 157,000.00 .00 3,775,000.00 .00 800,000.00 .00 163,062.00 .00 280,851.00 .00 1,300,000.00 .00 4,459,019.00 .00 45,979,571.00 .00 .00 .00 66,985,053.00 97,737.53 .00 1,894,219.20 .00 12,742.32 .00 5,771.10 .00 .00 66,985,053.00 2,010,470.15 0 - 2 COLLECTED BUDGET % COLLECTED TO DATE BALANCE TO DATE .00 .00 .oo, .00 12,150,000.00 .00% .00 6,150,000.00 .00% 39,323.63 1,335,676.37 2.85\\ 18,072.48 181,927.52 9. 03% 10,549.94 164,450.06 6.02% 1,002.97 98,997.03 1.00% .00 452,000.00 .00\\ 28,788.51 374,693.49 7.13\\ 97,737.53 20,907,744.47 .46\\ .00 33,304,168.00 .00\\ .00 .00 .00\\ .00 195,742.00 .00\\ - .00 544,729.00 .00% .00 .00 .00\\ .00 1,157,000.00 .00\\ . 00 3,775,000.00 .00\\ .00 800,000.00 .00\\ .00 163,062.00 .00\\ .00 280,851.00 .00\\ .00 1,300,000.00 .00\\ .00 4,459,019.00 .00\\ .00 45,979,571.00 .00% .00 .00 .00\\ 97,737.53 66,887,315.47 .14\\ 1,894,219.20 l,894,219.20CR .00\\ 12,742.32 12, 742.32CR .00\\ 5,771.10 5,771. lOCR .00\\ .00 .00 .00% 2,010,470.15 64,974,582.85 3.00\\ - REVENUE (CONTINUED) r'UND 3 BUILDING r'UND Interest Other TOTAL BUILDING r'UND FUND 5 CAPITAL OUTLAY Current Taxes Pullback Delinquent Taxes Other TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND 6 FEDERAL REVENUE ROTC TITLE IV-B 21st Century TITLE TITLE Reading First TITLE V-B Charter Schoo - Reading Excel lance Vocational Carl Perkins TITLE VI-8, PL 94-142 Special Ed Pre-School Medicaid TITLE II-A Improve Teac Miscellaneous rederal TOTAL FEDERAL REVENUE r'UND 8 FOOD SERVICE Sales Federal Reimbursement Other TOTAL FOOD SERVICE TOTAL REVENUE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ,INANCIAL REPORT JULY, 2004 BUDGETED COLLECTED REVENUE THIS MONTH 30,000.QO .00 60,000.00 6,200.00 90,000.00 6,200.00 725,000.00 .00 620,000.00 .00 150,000.00 3,973.78 5,000.00 .00 1,500,000.00 3,973.78 110,000.00 .00 468,620.00 .00 2,735,000.00 .00 234,444.00 236,594.39 .00 .00 381,216.00 .00 190,774.00 .00 1,795,791.00 .00 702,956.00 . 00 305,000.00 98. 8 3 671,199.00 .00 5,000.00 .00 7,600,000.00 236,693.22 870,000.00 39.96 2,200,000.00 .00 130,000.00 4,989.30 3,200,000.00 5,029.26 79,375,053.00 2,262,366.41 0 - 3 COLLECTED BUDGET % COLLECTED TO DATE BALANCE TO DATE .00 30,000.00 .00% 6,200.00 53,800.00 10.33% 6,200.00 83,800.00 6.88\\ .00 725,000.00 . 00\\ .00 620,000.00 . 00% 3,973.78 146,026.22 2. 64% .00 5,000.00 . 00% 3,973.78 1,496,026.22 . 26% .00 ll0,000.00 . 00% .00 468,620.00 . 00\\ .00 2,735,000.00 .00% 236,594.39 2,150.39CR 100.91\\ .00 .00 . 00\\ .00 381,216.00 . 00\\ .00 190,774.00 .00\\ .00 1,795,791.00 .00\\ .00 702,956.00 . 00% 98.83 304,901.17 . 03% .00 671,199.00 .00\\ .00 5,000.00 .00% 236,693.22 7,363,306.78 3. 11\\ 39. 96 869,960.04 .00% .00 2,200,000.00 .00% 4,989.30 125,010.70 3.83\\ 5,029.26 3,194,970.74 . 15\\ 2,262,366.41 77,112,686.59 2. 85\\ EX PEND I TURES BY FUNCTION FUND 1 SALARY FUND Regular Programs Special Education Workforce Education Compensation Education Other Instruct Program Student Support Instruct Staff Support General Adrnin Support School AdJnin Support Business Support Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation Transportation Central Office Other Support TOTAL SALARY FUND 2 OPERATING FUND Regular Programs Special Education Workforce Education Compensation Education Other Instruct Program Student Support Instruct Staff Support General AdJnin Support School AdJnin Support Business Support Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation Transportation Central Office Other Support TOTAL OPERATING FUND FUND 4 DEBT SERVICE FUND Other Support TOTAL DEBT SERVICE TOTAL FUND 1, 2, 4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT JULY, 2004 BUDGETED EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES THIS MONTH 18,846,396.00 190,985.95 5,870,497.00 24,835.07 1,384,255.00 36,944.07 504,571.00 .00 1,670,905.00 28,343.18 2,936,339.00 62,819.09 1,646,749.00 84,144.63 357,165.00 43,204.02 2,566,935.00 140,092.53 93,280.00 10,842.50 87,275.00 10,352.11 69,835.00 2,424.98 228,572.00 22,207.75 7,200.00 425.00 36,269,974.00 657,620.88 5,654,135.00 61,526.11 1,921,696.00 7,216.33 360,073.00 7,910.12 171,180.00 .00 659,500.00 8,014.80 2,615,061.00 39,664.14 1,696,186.00 62,762.48 556,765.00 32,304.31 1,761,827.00 84,169.18 465,595.00 58,807.02 5,454,030.00 770,871.55 3,324,497.00 113,098.75 1,234,721.00 101,425.03 2,031,723.00 254.02 27,906,989.00 1,348,023.84 1,937,559.00 .00 1,937,559.00 .00 66,114,522.00 2,005,644.72 0 - 4 EXPENDITURES BUDGET % OF TO DATE BALANCE BUDGET 190,985.95 18,655,410.05 1.01% 24,835.07 5,845,661.93 .42% 36,944.07 1,347,310.93 2. 66% .00 504,571.00 . 00% 28,343.18 1,642,561.82 1. 69% 62,819.09 2,873,519.91 2 .13% 84,144.63 1,562,604.37 5.10% 43,204.02 313,960.98 12. 09% 140,092.53 2,426,842.47 5.45% 10,842.50 82,437.50 11. 62% 10,352.11 76,922.89 11.86% 2,424.98 67,410.02 3. 47% 22,207.75 206,364.25 9. 71% 425.00 6,775.00 5.90% 657,620.88 35,612,353.12 1. 81% - 61,526.11 5,592,608.89 1.08% 7,216.33 1,914,479.67 . 37% 7,910.12 352,162.88 2. 19% .00 171,180.00 . 00% 8,014.80 651,485.20 1.21% 39,664 .14 2,575,396.86 1.51% 62,762.48 1,633,423.52 3.70% 32,304.31 524,460.69 5. 80% 84,169.18 1,677,657.82 4. 77% 58,807.02 406,787.98 12.63% 770,871.55 4,683,158.45 14 .13% 113,098.75 3,211,398.25 3. 40% 101,425.03 1,133,295.97 8. 21% 254.02 2,031,468.98 .01% 1,348,023.84 26,558,965.16 4.83% .00 1,937,559.00 . 00% .00 1,937,559.00 .00% 2,005,644.72 64,108,877.28 3. 03% - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT JULY, 2004 - EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION BUDGETED EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES BUDGET % OF EXPENDITURES THIS MONTH TO DATE BALANCE BUDGET FUND 6 FEDERAL FUNDS Regular Programs 260,591.00 78,170.06 78,170.06 182,420.94 29.99% Special Education 1,400,851.00 7,272.80 7,272.80 1,393,578.20 . 51% Workforce Education 165,014.00 2,709.67 2,709.67 162,304.33 1. 64% Compensation Education 929,712.00 2,839.11 2,839.11 926,-S72.89 .30% Other Instruct Program 443,487.00 5,157.39 5,157.39 438,329.61 1.16% Student Support 1,114,790.00 ll, 546.02 ll,546.02 1,103,243.98 1.03% Instruct Staff Support 838,164.00 41,842.01 41,842.01 796,321.99 4. 99% General Admin Support 52,360.00 8,045.88 8,045.88 44,314.12 15.36% School Admin Support 4,484.00 .00 .00 4,484.00 .00% Business Support .00 .00 .00 .00 .00% Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation .00 .00 .00 .00 .00% Transportation 5,000.00 .00 .00 5,000.00 .00% Central Office Support 36,666.00 5,943.44 5,943.44 30,722.56 16.20% Other Support 23,175.00 335. 69 335.69 22,839.31 1. 4 4 % TOTAL FEDERAL FUNDS 5,274,294.00 163,862.07 163,862.07 5, llO, 431. 93 3.10% FUND BUILDING FUND 220,224.00 .00 .00 220,224.00 .00% FUND 5 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,972,500.00 49,378.85 49,378.85 1,923,121.15 2.50% FUND FOOD SERVICE 3,133,752.00 63,059.26 63,059.26 3,070,692.74 2. 01% - ALL FUND, FUNCTION TOTALS REGULAR PROGRAMS 24,761,122.00 330,682.12 330,682.12 24,430,439.88 1. 33% SPECIAL EDUCATION 9,193,044.00 39,324.20 39,324.20 9,153,719.80 .42% WORKFORCE EDUCATION 1,909,342.00 47,563.86 47,563.86 1,861,778.14 2. 49% COMPENSATION EDUCATION 1,605,463.00 2,839.11 2,839.11 1,602,623.89 . 17% OTHER INSTRUCTINAL ED 2,773,892.00 41,515.37 41,515.37 2,732,376.63 1. 4 9% STUDENT SUPPORT 6,666,190.00 ll4,029.25 114,029.25 6,552,160.75 1. 71% INSTUCT STAFF SUPPORT 4,181,099.00 188,749.12 188,749.12 3,992,349.88 4. 51% GENERAL ADMIN SUPPORT 966,290.00 83,554.21 83,554.21 882,735.79 8. 64 % SCHOOL ADMIN SUPPORT 4,333,246.00 224,261.71 224,261.71 4,108,984.29 5. 17% BUSINESS SUPPORT 858,875.00 69,649.52 69,649.52 789,225.48 8.10% MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; OPERATION 6,426,055.00 822,870.01 822,870.01 5,603,184.99 12.80% TRANSPORTATION 3,622,932.00 115,523.73 ll5, 523. 73 3,507,408.27 3.18% CENTRAL OFFICE 2,015,683.00 137,308. 72 137,308. 72 1,878,374.28 6. 81% OTHER SUPPORT 7,401,409.00 64,073.97 64,073.97 7,337,335.03 . 8 6% ALL FUNDS TOTAL EXPENDITURES 76,715,292.00 2,281,944.90 2,281,944.90 74,433,347.10 2. 97% - 0 - 5 EXPENDITURES BY OBJECT FUND 1 TEACHERS SALARY Salaries Fringe Benefits Salaries Fringe Benefits Purchased Services Supplies Capital Outlay Othec TOTAL OPERATING FUND FUND 4 DEBT SERVICE Principal Interest Fees TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 3 BUILDING FUND Purchased Services Supplies Capital Outlay Othec TOTAL BUILDING FUND FUND 5 CAPITAL OUTLAY Purchased Services Supplies Capital Outlay Other TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT JULY, 2004 BUDGETED EXPENDITURES AMOUNT THIS MONTH 33,506,977.00 650,172.14 2,762,997.00 7,448.74 9,974,529.00 568,320.23 10,345,905.00 277,835.58 3,555,191.00 379,434.37 3,699,747.00 101,633.16 273,331.00 .00 58,286.00 20,800.50 64,176,963.00 2,005,644.72 972,480.00 .00 960,079.00 .00 5,000.00 .00 1,937,559.00 .00 70,283.00 .00 54,115.00 .00 95,826.00 .00 . 00 .00 220,224.00 .00 598,157.00 24,009.86 452,593.00 24,761.05 635,100.00 607.94 286,650.00 .00 1,972,500.00 49,378.85 O - 6 EXPENDITURES BUDGET I OF TO DATE BALANCE BUDGET 650,172.14 32,856,804.86 1.94% 7,448.74 2,755,548.26 .26% 568,320.23 9,406,208.77 5.69% 277,835.58 10,068,069.42 2. 68% 379,434.37 3,175,756.63 10.67% 101,633.16 3,598,113.84 2. 74% .00 273,331.00 .00% 20,800.50 37,485.50 35.68% 2,005,644.72 62,171,318.28 3.12% .00 972,480.00 .00% . 00 960,079.00 .00% .00 5,000.00 . 00% .00 1,937,559.00 .00% . 00 70,283.00 .00% - .00 54,115.00 .00% .00 95,826.00 .00% .00 .00 .00% .00 220,224.00 .00% 24,009.86 574,147.14 4.01% 24,761.05 427,831.95 5.47% 607.94 634,492.06 .09% .00 286,650.00 .00% 49,378.85 1,923,121.15 2.50% EXPENDITURES BY OBJECT .UND 6 ,EDERAL .UNDS Salaries rringe Benefits Purchased Services Supplies Capital Outlay Other TOTAL ,EDERAL .UNDS .UNO 8 rnoD SERVICES Salaries tringe Benfits Purchased Services Supplies Capital Outlay Other - TOTAL rooo SERVICE ALL fUNDS TOTALS SALARIES rRINGE BENE,ITS PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER TOTAL ALL fUNDS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ,INANCIAL REPORT JULY, 2004 BUDGETED EXPENDITURES AMOUNT THIS MONTH 3,201,273.00 107,199.24 599,896.00 20,868.67 1,009,562.00 35,760.86 296,390.00 33.30 150,383.00 .00 16,790.00 .00 5,274,294.00 163,862.07 1,518,850.00 33,612.01 556,827.00 24,630.03 34,170.00 1,950.28 1,020,405.00 2,866.94 3,400.00 .00 100.00 .00 3,133,752.00 63,059.26 48,201,629.00 1,359,303.62 14,265,625.00 330,783.02 5,267,363.00 441,155.37 5,523,250.00 129,294.45 1,158,040.00 607.94 2,299,385.00 20,800.50 76,715,292.00 2,281,944.90 0 - 7 EXPEND I TORES BUDGET , or TO DATE BALANCE BUDGCT 107,199.24 3,094,073.76 3. 34% 20,868.67 579,027.33 3. 47% 35,760.86 973,801.14 3.54% 33.30 296,356.70 .01% .00 150,383.00 . 00% .00 16,790.00 .00% 163,862.07 5,110,431.93 3. 10% 33,612.01 1,485,237.99 2.21\\ 24,630.03 532,196.97 4.42% 1,950.28 32,219.72 5.70% 2,866.94 1,017,538.06 .28% .oo 3,400.00 .00% .oo 100.00 .00% 63,059.26 3,070,692.74 2. 01 % 1,359,303.62 16,842,325.38 2.82% 330,783.02 13,934,841.98 2. 31% 441,155.37 4,826,207.63 8. 37 % 129,294.45 5,393,955.55 2. 34 \\ 607. 94 l, 157,432.06 . 05\\ 20,800.50 2,278,584.50 . 90\\ 2,281,944.90 74,433,347.10 2. 97\\ Lynn Chadwick Diedra Gaskalla Gina Barrett-Smith Raquel Barton Karyl Bearden Sherry Berry Marye Jane Brockinton Sharon Burrall Kasey Cathey Cindy Cook Mitch Crunkleton NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Board Agenda - August 19, 2004 ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES From Administration, Middle Level Supervisor To Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Supervisor of Special Projects and Charter Schools From Assistant Principal, Ridgeroad Middle Charter School To Poplar Street Middle School, Special Education CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CHANGES AND TRANSFERS From Lakewood/North Heights, Elementary Music To Lakewood/Pike View, Elementary Music From Rose City Middle School, Vocatinnal Business Education To North Heights Elementary, Media Specialist From Lynch Drive, Literacy Coach To Tri-District Literacy Specialist From Amboy/Indian Hills, Elementary Music To Indian Hills/Glenview, Elementary Music From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Language Arts To Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Science From NLRHS West Campus/Poplar Street Middle, Vocal Music To NLRHS West Campus/Amboy Elementary, Vocal Music From Belwood Elementary, Special Education To Seventh Street Elementary, Reading Recovery From Pike View Elementary, Second Grade To Pike View Elementary, Media Specialist From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Social Studies To NLRHS East Campus, Social Studies P-1 Barbara Davis Diana Daniels Bryan Deaver Melissa Douglas Emily Evatt Pam Ferguson Christy Gieringer Kathy Hale Sharon Haver Michael Huels Leslie Joshua Mary Matthews Jan Mayor Ramona McGee North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 19, 2004 From Indian Hills Elementary, Second Grade To Pike View Elementary, First Grade From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Teachers Aide To Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Math CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CHANGES AND TRANSFERS From Lynch Drive/Crestwood Elementary, Elementary Music To Lynch Drive, Elementary Music/RCMS Band Director From NLRHS East Campus, Half-time Special Education To NLRHS East Campus, Business Education From Park Hill/Crestwood/Belwood, Elementary Music To Park Hill/North Heights, Elementary Music From NLRHS West Campus, Special Education To NLRHS West Campus, Special Ed./Cheerleader Sponsor From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School. Math To Lakewood Middle School, Math From Argenta Academy/Glenview Elementary, Guidance Counselo\u0026amp; To Meadow Park/Glenview Elementary, Guidance Counselor W From Boone Park Elementary, Third Grade To Poplar Street Middle School, Language Arts From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Special Education To Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Social Studies From Seventh Street Elementary, First Grade To North Heights Elementary, First Grade From Rose City Middle School, Art/Special Education To Crestwood/Amboy, Elementary Art From Seventh Street, Elementary Art To Seventh Street/Belwood, Elementary Art From Pike View, Special Education /Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Athletics To Poplar Street Middle School, Physical Education /Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Athletics P-2 Michael Mueller Jill Murdock Vandy Nash Andrea Neville Laura Ralston Brouke Reynolds Wilene Rigsby Randy Sandefur Marilyn Scott Anita Smith Abby Stone Paul Taylor Roy Katheryn Walts Mike White Pilar Woody North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 19, 2004 From NLRHS West Campus, Speech/Drama To NLRHS West Campus, English From North Heights Elementary, Media Specialist To Crestwood Elementary, Kindergarten From Lynch Drive Elementary, Third Grade To Indian Hills Elementary, Third Grade From Park Hill Elementary, Third Grade To Indian Hills Elementary, First Grade From Lynch Drive Elementary, Fourth Grade To Crestwood Elementary, Fourth Grade From NLRHS West Campus, Work Study/EAST Lab To NLRHS West Campus, Business Education From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Science To Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Special Education From NLRHS East Campus, PE/ Athletics To NLRHS East Campus, PE/ Athletics - Head Baseball Coach From Rose City Middle School, Guidance Counselor To Rose City Middle School/Argenta Academy, Guidance Counselor From Seventh Street Elementary, Kindergarten To Park Hill Elementary, Reading Recovery From Lynch Drive Elementary, Special Education To Lynch Drive Elementary, First Grade From Poplar Street/Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Band Director To NLRHS East Campus, Head Band Director and NLRIIS West Campus, Assistant Band Director From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, English To Lakewood Middle School, English From Seventh Street Elementary, Music To Seventh Street/Belwood, Elementary Music From North Heights Elementary, Second Grade To North Heights Elementary, Reading Recovery Benjamin Belton Shannon Black Dora Bradley Deborah Cox Beth Davis Kelly Denny John Gilliame Christy Glagola Gena House Sharon Klippert Mindy LeBlanc Darlene Little Anna Lloyd Diana Macklin Shawn McCracken North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 19, 2004 CERTIFIED PESONNEL RESIGN A TIO NS AND RETIREMENTS Rose City Middle School, Social Studies/ Athletics Effective 7/29/04 Boone Park Elementary, Fifth Grade Effective 7 /3 0/04 Lakewood Middle School, Social Studies Effective 8/9/04 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, English Effective 8/ l /04 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Math Effective 7/19/04 Glenview Elementary, BA-Regular Class Effective 8/2/04 NLRHS East Campus, Science Effective 7 /14/04 Lakewood Middle School, Special Education Effective 8/2/04 Boone Park Elementary, Kindergarten Effective 8/6/04 Lakewood Middle School, Math Effective 7/27/04 NLRHS West Campus, Special Education Effective 8/2/04 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Special Education Effective 7/27/04 Boone Park/Meadow Park, Elementary Music Effective 8/2/04 Pike View Elementary, Fifth Grade Effective 8/2/04 NLRHS East Campus, Band Director Effective 8/2/04 P-4 - - North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 19, 2004 CERTIFIED PESONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS CONTINUED Amber Runsick Shirley Scott Brenda Steinsiek Amy Sullivan Crystal Taylor Pam Thompson Fawnda White Sharon Williams Brenda Wilson Richard Wiseman Melissa Atkins Hope Baker Angela Bernard Pike View Elementary, Media Specialist Effective 8/2/04 Tri-District Early Childhood, Speech Language Pathology Effective 7/20/04 From Seventh Street Elementary, Third Grade Effective 8/6/04 Park Hill Elementary, Third Grade Effective 7/19/04 Meadow Park Elementary, Kindergarten Effective 7/27/04 Lakewood Middle School, Social Studies Effective 6/2/04 Tri-District Early Childhood, Speech Therapist Effective 7/8/04 Seventh Street Elementary, Fourth Grade Effective 7/27/04 Lakewood Middle School, F ACS/Special Education Effective 8/2/04 Rose City Middle School, Band Director Effective 7/9/04 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL North Heights, Kindergarten Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 0, Days 190 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Language Arts Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step I, Days 190 Tri-District Early Childhood, Occupational Therapist Effective 8/5/04, Category I, Step 7, days 200 Petra Bland Rhonda Brown Joyce Cleveland Samantha Curran Krystal Fulmer Rick Holbrook Meredith Holcomb Deborah Hreczkosij Cathie Huey Laura Hutchings Karnes, Sheila Darlene Kelly Amy Kelton Pat Larson North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 19, 2004 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED Rose City Middle School, Special Education Effective 8/12/04, Category IV, Step 16, Days 190 Lakewood Middle School, Family and Consumer Science Effective 8/9/04, Category I, Step 10, Days 195 Lynch Drive Elementary, Fifth Grade Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 13, Days 190 Tri-District Early Childhood, Speech Language Pathologist Effective 8/12/04, Category IV, Step 3, Days 190 Meadow Park/Boone Park, Elementary Art Effective 8/12/04, Category l, Step 0, Days 190 Poplar Street Middle School, Math/Science Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 1, Days 190 Poplar Street Middle School, Choral Music Effective 8/12/04, Category l, Step I, Days I 90 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Language Arts/Social Studies A Effective 8/12/04, Category l, Step 4, Days 190 w, Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, English Effective 8/12/04, Category IV, Step 13. Days I 90 Meadow Park Elementary, Kindergarten Effective 8/I 2/04, Category I, Step 0, Days 190 Boone Park Elementary, Kindergarten Effective 8/12/04, Category II, Step 0, Days I 90 Indian Hills Elementary, Second Grade Effective 8/ I 2/04, Category I, Step I 2, Days I 90 Redwood Early Childhood Program, Pre-Kindergarten Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 2, Days 190 Boone Park/Meadow Park Elementary, Elementary Music Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 8, Days 190 P-6 - Rebekah Lewis Karen Long Michael Marsh Megan Mattox Susan McSpadden Patrick Miller Hailey Nash - Natalie Rhodes Jennifer Lassiter Morgan Setzler Meredith Shipman Lynda Sisco Alisa Strang Jane Ann Tillery Kevin Tucker - North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - August 19, 2004 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED Lakewood Middle School, English Effective 8/12/04, Category IV, Step 0, Days I 90 Poplar Street Middle School, Special Education Effective 8/ 12/04, Category II, Step I, Days 190 Rose City Middle School, Social Studies/Athletics Effective 8/4/04, Category VII, Step I 0, Days 200  North Heights/Park Hill Elementary, Elementary Art Effective 8/12/04, Category I, Step 0, Days I 90 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, S\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_1780","title":"Court findings concerning motion by Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) for permission to utilize portable buildings on a temporary basis and to reconfigure certain buildings, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and PCSSD's Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2004-07/2004-08"],"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","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School facilities","School enrollment","School integration","African Americans--Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Finance","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Court findings concerning motion by Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) for permission to utilize portable buildings on a temporary basis and to reconfigure certain buildings, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and PCSSD's Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1780"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["74 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; District Court, motion for permission to utilize portable buildings on a temporary basis and to reconfigure certain buildings; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of motion regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement; District Court, letter inviting comment on order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Joshua intervenors' motion regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, second letter inviting comment on order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROC;K SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PUIASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * 4:82CV00866 NOTICE RECE\\\\JED JUL o 8 200~ Off\\CE Of DESEGREG~i\\OK UON\\iOl\\lMG 1. Ms. Ann Marshall is retiring as Director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Her retirement begins on August 31, 2004, although she will be leaving the office before that date. 2. My staff and I wish her the best of luck in her new endeavors. 3. A nationwide search for a replacement will commence Tuesday morning, July 6, 2004. cP_ DATED THIS /). ti;_day of July, 2004. u.~,~~ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. ,. RECEiVED JUL O G 2004 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OFFICE OF EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION raoNITORING WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO UTILIZE PORTABLE BUILDINGS ON A TEMPORARY BASIS AND TO RECONFIGURE CERTAIN BUILDINGS The PCSSD for its motion, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. For various reasons which will be described herein, the PCSSD seeks permission to make temporary use of portable buildings at several of its campuses, and to reconfigure several buildings. All of the schools described below are and will remain within current racial balance guidelines. 2. Pine Forrest Elementary School in Maumelle has been chronically overcrowded and will remain so until the new Maumelle Middle School opens in 2005-2006. Upon its opening, the sixth grade at Pine Forrest will niove to the middle school freeing up three classrooms for K-5 students. Accordingly, the PCSSD seeks permission to utilize a two classroom portable at Pine Forrest for the 2004-2005 school year only. These portable classrooms will not be utilized to house special education students. 509825-v1 -- ------- - --- - -- ---- - 3. A similar situation is presented at Crystal Hill Elementary School just outside Maumelle. Crystal Hill is projected to be above capacity for 2004-2005. Again, the opening of the Maumelle Middle School will free up the current sixth grade classrooms at Crystal Hill. This will provide four additional classrooms in the future for K-5 students at Crystal Hill. Accordingly, for the 2004-2005 school year only, the PCSSD requests permission to utilize a two classroom portable at Crystal Hill. These portable classrooms will not be utilized to house special education students. 4. Although not dealing with portables, the District desires to reconfigure certain classrooms at North Pulaski High School that will increase the capacity of the school from 1,050 to 1,060. The principal at North Pulaski High School has concluded she needs more regular classrooms and fewer \"small rooms\" as North Pulaski High School makes the transition to mainstream special education students in regular classrooms. Further, the reconstruction reflects the abandonment of two regular classrooms and a special education classroom in the basement area of North Pulaski High School because of environmental and safety concerns. 5. North Pulaski High School desires to convert the existing Shop area into four regular classrooms including converting two rooms now used for special education into a single classroom. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, this reconfiguration will result in only a ten student increase in overall building capacity. 6. This Court previously authorized the temporary use of a portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School until such time as a new band room was completed. It does not currently appear that the new band room will be ready for the impending school year. 509825-v1 2 Accordingly, the PCSSD seeks Court permission to continue the use of the current portable building until the new band room is completed. 7. Robinson Middle School continues to experience enrollment increases. The District desires to convert the existing Shop area into an art room and one regular classroom. This would increase the recommended building capacity from 650 to 670. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court approving the portables requested above and the reconfiguration of school facilities described herein and for all proper relief. 509825-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 0) ounty Special 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July_:]__, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 509825-v1 4 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 RECEiVED IFlfLEu EA.sr~tB~ 8\\H~g co~R, ARi\u0026lt;ANSAS JUL 1?. 2004 - OFFICE OF JUI- D~n t'.'1.u\"a '5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co@s W. MccoR \\1 .  DESEGREGATION fnONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS I ACK, CLf:t~K WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRlCT CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT REGARDING LRSD'S AND PCSSD'S M TOM DISAGREEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to set an evidentiary hearing with respect to the pending Majority to Minority (M to M) disagreement between the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Joshua also respectfully requests that such hearing be preceded by a report to the Comi regarding the matter from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). For cause, Joshua respectfully shows the Court: 1. On or about June 7, 2004, PCS SD filed a Motion and Memorandum regarding Majority to Minority transfer concerns. 2. On June 17, 2004, LRSD filed its response. 3. The LRSD and PCSSD parties have not involved Joshua or the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), on information and belief, regarding the controversy. 4. The Joshua Intervenors understand the conflict as follows: a. White students are being allowed to transfer into majority black schools in PCSSD. Their transfers into those schools result in reinforcement of racially segregated gifted and talented and academically enriched programs. For example, at College Station Elementary, white students are allowed entry thereto for the gifted and talented (GT) program. The result is that GT is overwhelmingly white, but the school is disproportionately black. LRSD white students thus have more academically enriched options than LRSD black students who are not allowed to transfer into that substantially segregated program. A second example is reflected at the high school level. Mills High also has a school within a school. The specialty school is disproportionately white. It has a separate staff as well, although the school principal is African American. LRSD African American students are denied trai;lsfer from Little Rock into the Mills specialty program, while white students are allowed transfer. b. LRSD administration promotes continuation of segregated programs, practices and activities by its refusal to allow African American students to transfer from the LRSD into strong academic settings which its makes available to white students. This is a continuation of LRSD's emphasis upon promoting educational advantage for white students while not doing likewise for African American students. 5. LRSD effectively takes the position that when a school enrollment in PCS SD reaches 50% African American, LRSD African American may not attend the PCS SD school. LRSD interprets the M to M transfer provision to require return of those African American students to LRSD who, by their presence in Fuller, Mills and College Station, cause racial imbalance. PCSSD, on the other hand, would allow such students to remain in specialty schools throughout their academic careers. The effect ofLRSD's position is to take higher achieving African American students who have op:ted for specialty programs in PCS SD from PCS SD and place 2 them back into lower level academic programs within the LRSD. LRSD thus appears to promote continuation of stronger academic programs for its white students through their assignment to such programs in PCSSD but not for its African American students. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to have the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to prepare a monitoring report regarding the situation and subsequent to such report, set the matter for evidentiary hearing. Thereafter, the Court is requested to provide appropriate relief including but not limited to modifying the M to M stipulation to reflect the intended plllpose and then to allow African American students entry into the disproportionately one race \"schools within schools\" at College Station Elementary, Fuller Middle, and Mills High schools. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Lexington, MA 02421 862-781-1955 Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 501-374-3 758 501-374-4187 (fax) / \\ i r ) / I, / f ~\":; ,:-::/:--.' t,,1; / :\"-:.-- - V John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been served on all counsel of record on this 8th .day of July, 2004. ,,,...\\ . / /  I : / I I : / .. , , ' ,I I ',\\ I ...._  j ,/ ~~!, (V' - if I ; '_,/_)+:. ~t4_)1 ~ .- - : 1 , , , ....__ ,., .J RECEIVED JUL 1 ?. 2004 ~Sr~/;!1.. ~ ~ tv Dis r1r,ffe: (:J r1r,c r co OFFICE OF .;, JU, r ~1rt1rr DESEGREGATION !~ONITORING [j~M\"s ~ fl 8 ,v 8~s IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~- ~ \"1cc 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 0,9M-1c WESTERN DIVISION If, Cl \"1r, D- if \u0026lt;::P C LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF L1.,R,r CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT, ET AL. DEFENDANT JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MEMORANI\u0026gt;UM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REGARDING LRSD'S AND PCSSD'S M TOM DISAGREEMENT The Joshua Intervenors submit that the relief which they seek by their Motion herewith is authorized by the 8th Circuit, Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et. al. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394. (1990) That Court created the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) so that it could effectively monitor the implementation process. It is the primary monitor in this case. Neither it nor the Joshua Intervenors have been significantly involved in the subject controversy. Joshua interests is obvious. The ODM's role is to provide useful information to the parties and to the Court. An ODM report to the Court with respect to the subject issue should therefore be commissioned. Joshua's concern is twofold, i.e., educational and segregational. The educational advantage under the parties plan enures to white students. For African American students are not allowed entry into the subject programs unless they are from outside the PCSSD. But now, LRSD proposes to retain LRSD students in its schools, although they may be in more heavily one race situations, than to allow them to attend and remain in the specialty programs at College Station, Fuller and Mills. LRSD effectively proposes to require return of African American students from the far more desegregated PCSSD schools on a technical basis, i.e., the school has become majority African American. The law of the case required maximization of desegregation within a context where educational disparity is reduced rather than enhanced. A hearing on the matter is appropriate. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Lexington, MA 02421 862-781-1955 Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) / / . I I . /l /; .--; / ' I . , .' /_,- . (\\ /L,. / /;  ' -x \"Ii} t\";/ / ' / / ; lJ..,, 1J_j;; {L,-.___ ~1., ' (./ ~ /' :,'   ..,~-u:ll Le.:\u0026gt;---.... /j~:W.,Walke; - ,. I \"/ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been served on all counsel of record on this 8th day of July, 2004. 2 RECEIVED JUL 1 (. 2004 - OFFICE OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3325 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 12 2004 DESEGREGATION r,lONITORING BILL WILSON JUDGE (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 -~~:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK DEP CLERK Mr. Chris Heller By Fax - 501-376-2147 Mr. Sam Jones By Fax - 501-376-9442 Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Guy Murphy By Fax - 501-375-1027 Mr. Mark Burnette By Fax - 501-375-1940 July 12, 2004 Mr. John Walker By Fax - 501-374-4187 Mr. Robert Pressman By Fax - 781-862-1955 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark Hagemeier By Fax - 501-682-3643 Mr. Will Bond By Fax - 501-982-9414 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. Dear Counsel: I have heard only from Mr. Walker. Since the school defendants pick up the tab for the ODM employees I want to make sure that you have an opportunity to comment on my order, the proposed advertisement, Mr. Walker's letter, or anything else you deem pertinent to the ODM issue. If you want to make any comment, please do so by fax by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, July 13 (fax copy to other counsel, original to the clerk). Cordially, /k,{ ~  1Uv Wm. R. Wilson,Jr. ~J Original: Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk of the Court Dictated from out-of-state by Judge Wilson. Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 de Case: 4:82 - cv- 00866 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION REGARDING LRSD'S AND PCSSD'S M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT The PCSSD for its response states: JUL 2 o 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION r,iONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Joshua's motion is in actuality a response to PCSSD's motion. 2. The PCSSD sought unsuccessfully to involve the ODM in a resolution of this dispute. 3. The PCSSD has not heretofore involved Joshua believing this to be a simple dispute with the LRSD over interpretation of long-standing rules. 4. LRSD black students are allowed to exercise M-to-M transfers into the PCSSD specialty program so long as those schools are eligible for M-to-M transfers . 5. PCSSD denies any remaining allegations contained in the \"motion\" to the extent that those allegations questioned practices or motives as regards M-to-M transfers. 249234-v1 - WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the \"motion\" be denied and for all proper relief. 249234-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 19, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 249234-v1 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blacl\u0026lt;stock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 2 3 2004 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~cCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By~~ WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2001t OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION t,JONITORING DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff Little Rock School District appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the Memorandum Opinion of the district court entered June 30, 2004. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 ~ BY:~ Christoph=le~ ---- Page 1 of 2 I EB 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of this Notice of Appeal has been served on the following people by depositing a copy in the United States mail on the 23rd day of July, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 2 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS F' LED RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOU~sTMRi g1 I iiRIcT COURT 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 RICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 JUL 2 3 20(1', JAMES WM .By:_  cCORMACK, CLERK BILL WILSON JUDGE July 23, 2004 RECEIVED JUL 2 7 200; Mr. Chris Heller tJmf.'i?'aF Mr. John Walker By Fax - 501-376-2147 \"8'fGREGATlt, . .,,0111TOA\"mtt By Fax - 501-374-4187 Mr. Sam Jones By Fax - 501-376-9442 Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Guy Murphy By Fax - 501-375-1027 Mr. Mark Burnette By Fax - 501-375-1940 Mr. Robert Pressman By Fax - 781-862-1955 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark Hagemeier By Fax - 501-682-3643 Mr. Will Bond By Fax - 501-982-9414 .l./: fJ.. { J/ 0 0 ( 6 {:; Wl(W DEP CLERK Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. Dear Counsel: I assume from your comments, or lack thereof, that none of the lawyers for the districts object to the August 31 , 2004 date for Ms. Marshall 's official retirement (August 31, 2004). If this assumption is incorrect, please advise me by return fax. Cordially, I Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk of the Court 8 8 9 ,, 1  ..,; .-  .,.'._, '.....,1~, .:., .. L- ,~t - , , - - , FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 2 6 2004 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ________ _____ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2004 omcEoF DESEGREGATION r,lONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Regardless of an appeal, LRSD is required to continue full speed ahead, on all points, with respect to the compliance remedy set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004 (Doc. No. 3875). As was noted in the June 30 Memo, LRSD is required to do only what it - volunteered to do. I assume that I am stating the obvious, but, as folks are wont to say nowadays, I wanted to make sure that we are \"all on the same7 p1a!g e.'\" ., IT IS SO ORDERED this Lb- day of July, 2004 THiS G0CUi. i :::f~ l 1:::i:.; ..: , , ~ ,. 0, -,  ,OCKET '.\"-:i H[::t'T !,; C() ;,i,- .. ir ,,,Jc ;- Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. DEP CLERK Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU . UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -1071  (501) 6824475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director July 30, 2004 Mr. M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED t\\L3 - 2 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION f1lONITOIHNG Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of July 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, (,: (; }/c \" J/ ~ \u0026lt;...\u0026amp;6tt~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier - STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair- JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia An Equal Opportunity Empl~yer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for July 2004. Respectfully Submitted, sj~fil' General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on July 30, 2004, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED AC3 - 2 2004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION :;iONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2004 Based .. on. the information available at June 30, 2004, the ADE calculated ,the Equalization Funding for) =:_)' 03/04,subject to perioqic_adjustments.   8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 1 3 2004 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: _______ D;:;;E=;:;PI/C:;--;LE=;:R;;;-K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for Pem1ission to Utilize Portable Buildings on a Temporary Basis and to Reconfigure Certain Buildings (Doc. No. 3879). No party has objected, and the time for doing so has passed. For good cause shown and because no party has objected, PCSSD's Motion for Pem1ission to Utilize Portable Buildings on a Temporary Basis and to Reconfigure Certain Buildings is GRANTED. --/t IT IS SO ORDERED this;J___;ay of August, 2004. Tia D0CUUENT ENTERED ON lJNtITffiSJTATES~DISTR.E ~ WM. R. WILSON, JR. a92 I ; EAST~fW~sA AU6 2 7 2004 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By_ -------:D::-::,E-=:-P~CL-::-E=RK ':---- ---- --- ----~ -- \" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL.  . . ; ' . RECEIVED .AUG 3 o 2004 DEFENDANTS DESEGREG~:c: ~~NITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final figures for the 2003-2004 school year and proposed budget for the 2004-2005 school year. The MRC communicated the budget to the Court in a letter dated July 30, 2004 (attached). I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the MRC's final budget for the 2003-2004 school year and proposed 2004-2005 budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. 1.-,-lh..   . IT IS SO ORDERED this,;._-,_ aay of August, 2004. ':, .  THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON OOCKET SHEET IN~ ~imi~ ~B TESDISTRICTTuoGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. ........... .. '. ' _:''.?t. ', .- e : r :.  Magnet Rel\"'l~W Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114  (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (50l) 758-5366 {Fax} .. magnet@magnetsc,hool.com {E-mail} .;. July'30, 2004 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. Judge, U. S. District Court .... . . . ,, . Eastern District of Arkansas ,,   . ,'   : 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220 I -Dear Judge Wdson: On July 28, 2004, Mark Milhollen, Little Rock School District Manager of Financial Services, provided the Magnet Review Committee with the final figures for the 2003-04 budget, as well as the proposed budget for the 2004-05 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 2) and was forwarded to MRC members prior to taking a telephone vote on Thursday, July 29, 2004.  TheMagnet Review Committee, by fomial motion and unanimous vote of6-0, with all Committee representatives present for the telephone vote, approved the final budget for the 2003-04 school year, as well as the proposed budget for 2004-2005. FINAL 2003-2004 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $24,689,351.00, is based on a per-pupil expenditure of$6,364.00, calculated from the three quarter average enrollment of 3,879.26 students. Actrial attendance records of3,867.15 students set the final budget figure at $24,722,797.00, and the final. budget's per pupil expenditure at $6,393.()0, or $29.00 more per pupil than originally budgeted: This final 2003-2004 document reflects actual figures and talces into account the variables (salary, teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in July, 2003. Included in the Summary portion of the budget information are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State during this time period. \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" The Honorable W~ R. Wilson, Jr. -2- July 30, 2004 PROPOSED 2004-2005 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET '  The total proposed budget for the 2()04-2005 school year is $27,964,934.00, based on a proposed Average Daily Membership of3,864.00, which resuhs in a per-pupil expenditure of $7,237.00 and an increase of $844. 00 over the 2003-2004 actual. rate. This proposed budget has taken into account increased salaries, :fringe benefits, insurance and teacher retirement. Included in the Summary portion of Draft 2 are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State. The Magnet Revtew Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and ~pproval of the 2003-2004 finalized budget in the amount of $24,722,797.00, with a per pupil expenditure of$6,393.00, as well as the proposed 2004-2005 budget, both attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the quality of the Stipulation magnet schools. We will continue fo work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to .achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. e,  Sincerely, e Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments: Actual 2003-2004 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 2) Proposed 2004-2005 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 2) cc: Office ofDesegregatior( Monitoring ~-~l~~~m!!~~~!:~1 :::::':'::::::::::::::':: :::~;~::::::::::::;!::ea::::::::::::::;:;:!::::::::::::: ;::~::J;:: ::::::::Pi!:;;;::::::: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $79,168 $81,376 1.0 $94,335 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $163,308 $168,580 3.0 $190,292 03 Soecialists 3.4 $145,369 $130,614 3.4 $135,869 04 Counselors 3.0 $152,084 $156,281 3.0 $172,922 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $54,599 $56,124~ - 1.0 $61 ,583 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music o.o $0  $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. . 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational .. 2.6 $149,656 $142,116 2.6 $152,554 10 Special Education 2.0 $71,477 $87,607 2.0 $85,872 11 Gifted  0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 49.8 $2,173,375 $2,229,338 49.8 $2,444,329 13 Substitutes 0.0 $60,000 $60,526 0.0 $64,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 65.8 $31049,035 $3,112562 65.8 $3,401,755 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries . 5.0 $123,104 $117 813 5.0 $135,216 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $34,243 $35,211 1.0 $40,000 17 Custodians . 6.0 $89,629 $80 038 6.0 $110,000 18 Information Services 0.2 $9,585 $9,775 0.2 $10,918 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $34,305 $34,869 1.0 $25,000 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $35,745 $50,412 2.4 $78,162 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ : $869,280 $845,623 ~ : $1,108,720 TOT AL SUPPORT SALARY 15.6 $1,195,891 $1,173,741 15.6 $1,508,016 TOTAL (10-20)  , :/J $4,244,926 $4,286,303 ~if $4,909,771 URCHASED 22 Utilities ~ : $164,500 $204,925 ~ : $197,000 SERVIGES _.23_,T_r_av_e_l _______~ ...:.: .,. .~...:.: ,'.,.:.,. . .:. .. ____$4 _,_ 5__ 00--+-___$_ 6 ,_ 1_. .,.5_3- toieJ.o,..o:.: o .'o.:.'o. \u0026lt;.\u0026lt;. .X. .:,. ..:, ,.,;:i ,------$_2, 0__.. ,..00--t (30) _.24_,M_a_in_t_en_a_n_ce_A_g1r_ee_m_e_n_ts _. _.:..:.. . :.. . .~.:.. ... . .:.:.c.  .. . _____$ 0--+-_____$ 0.:.. .:. ,.:-::.. ... :~.... .:.., :,:; i,------$0--t 25 Other ~ : $62,782 $51,666 ~ j $60,735 TOTAL (30) ~ : $231,782 $262,745 ~ : $259,735 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office ~ j $0 $0 ~ : $0 SUPPLIES t--27_.R-teg-u~la-r -C-la-ss-r-oo-m----:'.~,.:,.~.o,..\"\".,\",:.:+---$-1-8-3,--6-16--+---$,-1_9_9_,4-.,5:.,'.,5.::\"-\"-.t,-\u0026lt;.\"\"~:'\":'1: ---$,-1-2-9,-6-00--t (40) 28 Media ~ : $11,675 $3,613 ~K $6,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other $6,638 $5,943 ~ : $6,000 TOTAL (40) ~ : $201,929 $209,011 ~ : $141,600 30 Equipment ~ ' $206,526 $208,208 ~ : $26,000 31 Building Repair, etc. -:, $0 $0 ~ $0 32 Other TOTAL(50)     \\ $206,526 $208,208 ~ ' $26,000 33 Dues and Fees ~ ' $600 $1,516 ~ j $3,000 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ ' $600 $1 ,516 ~ j $3,000 TOTAL (30-60) ~ : $640,837 $681,480 ~ : $430,335 TOTAL (10-60) 81 .4 $4,885,763 $4,967,784 81.4 $5,340,106 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) ~ : $416,479 $436,139 ~ j $469,490 :::::,:,:::~AANttto.tA.L.::t :::::n:::: .mmt: :t:,:,:::,::$$130.ta.42 ::uti::$$;@3ls2.3': uxiboot: ,:,,,,,:,,::nJsi\u0026gt;~'s96 : u .. ~ :~ ~~+:y:::::n:Y:::H ::t~r.~~e~H\\ ':::t~~~i:::r.: ::::w.~~~:Ht -.ii~:::ttt::::nr:t::::n::cu::=: 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 Stioends $1,300 $730 OtherObiects . $0 $0 $CL - Indirect Costs $361 ,240 $366,129 $411,529 Vocational $14,117 $14,287 $14,287 Athletics $31 ,413 $46,482 $35,217 Gifted Proarams $0 $0 $0 Plant Services $7,081 $7,167 $7,122 Readino $111 $112 $111 Science $0 $0 $0 'Enolish $332 $336 $334 Soecial Education $885 $896 $890 xxxxxx Total Line Items $416,479 $436,139 $469,490 ~,jJp!f(;o~/t)H\\U:HU: 'HU)2()~~f :i ,::::)~!~K\u0026gt;if :::= r::~~$.iH\\i 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. . 858.44 866.17 860.00 Total Costs $5,302,242 $5,403,923 $5,809,596 :e.~UPllP~/\\):::!:r::::: \\?{::) $.$Wft :n=Ytii?$$~~i: ....... ::::r$$i7.~ 1  ~~!-~!lf~~~~P~),,,;,;,;,;,;,:,;,;,;,:.;,:: ~~~:.:.. :.:.:.:~;=~:.:.:.: :.:.:.:.:.:.:,::. ~;;:. ,.,:'~;::;d''.:=: CERTIFIED 01 Princioal 1.0 $90,516 $93,000 1.0 $105,050 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 4.0 $268,928 $275,163 4.0 $298,904 03 Specialists 9.8 $432,457 $461,002 9.8 $486,691 04 Counselors 4.0 .$209,72.1 $21a,509 4.0 $226,317 05 Media Scee. 1.0 $44,084 $45,993 1.0 $50,499 06 Art-PerfJProd. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music . 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreian Lana; 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 5.0 $248,272 $249,703 5.0 $275,310 10 Special Education  1.0 $53,213 $54,700 1.0 $60,020 11 Gifted 0.0 .  $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 52.6 . $2,443,816 $2,610,349 55.1 $3,043,074 13 Substitutes. 0.0 $65,000 $58,910 0.0 $63,000 14 Other-Kinderaarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SA~Y 78.4 $3,856,006 $4,067,328 80.9 $4,608,865 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6.0 $195,722 $203,299 6.0 $221,944 . STAFF 16 Nurses . 1.0 $39,818 .$40,963 1.0 $45,878 17 Custodians 9.5 $167,781 $172,961 9.5 $198,000 18 Information Services 0.2 $9,574 $9,764 0.2 $10,905 19 Paraprofessionals~Other 5.0 $134,716 $138,563 5.0 $186,167 20 Other-Aides 3.0 $55,762 $81 ,545 3.0 $87,505 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ i $1,198,108 $1,119,797 ~ i $1,531,743 TOTAL SUPPQRT SALARY 24.7 $1,801,481 $1,766,892 24.7 $2,282,142 TOTAl:'(10:-20) , ~ ! $5,657,487 $5,834,220 ~ \\ $6,891,007 PURCHASED ~2~2:;...+,;U~ti~liti~e~s _______.~ ~~'::=~:=::~=\\~~\u0026gt;:~ ___$ ~1~7~3,~6~00c+---~$~17~4~,9~9~8+:'~:':\"~~::/=~::~'::~: __~ $1~6~8~,o~oo-=-i SERVICES 23 Travel ;;,... ~ ; , $19,000 $29,179 ~ ( $24,800 (30) 24 Maintenance Adreements .    : : $0 $0 ~  $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other ~ ! $59,242 $105,810~\\ $94,300 TOTAL (30) 26 Princioal's ()(lice 27 Reaular Classl oom 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL (40) 30 Eauioment 31 Buildina Reoair; :etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees  34 Other Xioo( $251,842 $309,987 ~   $281,100 . ~ : $0 $0~ $0 ~ : $196,900 . $137,516 ~  $180,145 ~  $12,700 $14,680 ~  $13,400 ~ j $9,080 $4,842 ~  $5,000 #xi9oijf $218,680 $151,038 ~ n $198,545 ~ !: $22,000 $30,901 ~  $23,000 ~  $0 $0~ $0 ~ !: $0 $0 . $0 ~ib.ii( $22,000 $30,901 ~  $23,000 ~ : $1,300 $2,998~/: $2,500 TOTAL(60) ~ j $1,300 $2,998 ~ i $2,500 TOTAL(30-60) ~ : $493,822 $500,925 ~ j $511,145 TOTAL(10-60) 103.1 $6,151,309 $6,335,145 105.6 $7,402,152 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) ~ j $554,987 $547,661 ~ : $621 ,488 ::r\u0026gt;GAANtt1cttAtu::\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ~ i =uuitito$;Z9Si :::r:::$s~csa2;so~i: ~  :::::$Oi2l;6.4o:: - , : --- - - - t~'ffiim'Qi$.T:':::::::':''''''''''' ::::ffiAA;~~:'::: :':':':''Mt~~r:':''''' .':'':~rnpq~::::: ~~w.= u.=..u. . . .u. .t\\ 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 Stipends  $5,500 $9,775 $5,500 Other Ob1ects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $478 099 $474,438 $539,772 Vocational $18\\683 $18,513 $.18;513 Athletics $41 :576 $33,906 $46,609 Gifted Proarams :;: $0 $0 $0 Plant Services ,: $9,372 $9,288 $9,342 Readini:i $146 $145 $146 Science .  $0 $0 $0 English $439 $435 $438 Special Education \" $1,172 . $1,161 $1,168 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $554,987 $547,661 $621,488  . P4tf~~i_eq.~-++=:::=:=:::=:::n:i N:=:~Q~:t\u0026gt; =:=:=:2.3;o4=::::_ . H:=~.ti95:?c 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 1,136.14 1,122.40 1,128.00 Total Costs ;'.' .$6;706;295 $6,882,806 $8,023,640  P'4it'Pumf ~ijs(=U\\\\.'\\/'/:/ :/t\".''H$$;1Mllf1 .'\".'.\\?i$6J~: ,:::::::::=_:_:':i$.7k'\"J1:J: -~~~!F~!t~~~{~~~!:!:!!!!!~!:!!!!:!!:!:!!!!: :::.i~:::::: ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::=::::::::::: :::~;:j::: ::::::::~o::~1:1:::: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 82,856 $ 85,136 1.0 $ 94,975 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 62,345 $ 64,085 1.0 $ 70,337 03 Specialists 7.0 $ 321 ;524 $ 330,958 7.0 $ 363,816 04 Counselors 2.0 $ .. 100,459 $ 105,298 2.0 $ 116,229 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 36,587 $ 37,638 1.0 $ 42,588 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $ 114,504 $ 117,741 3.0 $ 132,463 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 gn Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 2.0 $ 107,932 $ 110,993 2.0 $ 121,944 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 48,389 $ 49,737 1.0 $ 54,561 12 Classroom 30.6 $ 1,425,005 $ 1,455,417 30.6 $ 1,513,308 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 50,000 $ 40,386 0.0 $ 45,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 6.0 $ . 254,782 $ 243,325 6.0 $ 238,380 TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 54.6 $2,604,383 $2,640,714 54.6 $2,793,601 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $ 45,540 $ 40,619 2.0 $ 48,344 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 50,785 $ 42,463 1.0 $ 46,709 17 Custodians 4.0 $ 67,969 $ .. 69,113 4.0 $ 81,000 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,585 $ 9,775 0.2 $ 10,918 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $ 110,895 $ 105,036 6.0 $ 127,773 21 Frinae Benefits(20l $ 779,619 $ 719,933 $ 910,605 TOT AL SUPPORT SALARY 13.2 $1,064,393 $986,939 13.2 $1,225,349 TOTAL (10-20) ~\\ $3,668,776 $3,627,653 ~ j $4,018,950 70,800 $ 72,082 7,500 $ 2,763 $0 $0 .$ . 73,000 $ 5,000 $0  URCHASED 22 Utilities ~ ' $ ~ : SERVICES 23 Travel ~ j $ ~i( 1----+-----------------------------------t  (30) 1--24-+M_a_in_t_en_a_n_ce_A=-gr_e_em_e_n_ts _- -H::;.;~,'.\".'..';.;\"''.';,;i,;'a;.':/+--,----------t--,---------+,.:,-;;;~\".;'.);,;;,';,:,';;,;,,\",::; t~------,-1 25 Other ~ : $ 21,565 $ 30,456 ~ : $ 31,440 TOTAL (301 ~ : $99,865 $105,302 ~ : $109,440 MATERIALS, t,....;;.26--+-P-'-ri...;n\"'-'ci.L.pa;;...l'..;..s...;O_ffi...;1c...;.e_ ____. ...., ...,  ..~ . \u0026gt;. , .__ ___ __:$_0-+-____$ .._..0.. ..-. ,+... -..~ ,_. .: . ,_____$. .. 0. --1 SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom ~ : $ 108,429 $ 119,831 ~ : $ 90,381 (40) 28 Media ~ : $ 9,500 $ 9,065 ~ : $ 9,500 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ i $ 4,180 $ . 2,920 ~ : $ 3,100 TOTALC40l ~ : $122,109 $131,816 ~ : $102,981 30 Eauipment 22,244 $ 9,269 ~ : $ 12,000 31 Building Repair, etc. $0 $0 ~  $0 32 Other ~ : $0 $0 ~ $0 TOTAL (50) ~: $22,244 $9,269 ~ : $12,000 33 Dues and Fees ~ : $ 500 $ 572 ~ : $ 2,500 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ : $500 $572 ~ : $2,500 TOTAL (30-60) ~ : $244,718 $246,959 ~: $226,921 TOTAL (10-60) 67.8 $3,913,494 $3,874,612 67.8 $4,245,871 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~' $280,118 $267,258 ~  $308,060 t~~~m:~$~ftti::::::r:tn ::t:#.f~ij:::::: ::::::::J~ij~~~:::::u :11:::,tfi.)p~~J::1 ~ij~~ijfHH:i\\:HHH/i\\'/H\\/lH. 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 Stipends .$12,500 $4,409 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $261 ,369 $256,722 $291,898 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0  Gifted Programs $165 $159 $163 Plant Services $5,t24 $5,026 $5,052 Reading $80 $79 $79 Science $0 $0 $0 English $240 $236 $237 Special Education $640 $628 $631 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $280,118 $267,258 $308,060 d~ijpjft~it::::::::::::rn::::::::: ;:::\\.P.~:!U::! :::::::::~@~~:::::::: :J\\jp@@!'i!i1!! 3rdQtr. ADMorProj. 621 .11 607.34 610.00 Total Costs $4,193,612 $4,141,870 $4;553,930 p~ijijp1f q(iijJ:::1::1::n:11i1:::::1::: n:::::1:::::::::$$.;r~:: ::::::::::::::::::$~;~~: :::::::::::::::::1$t.#i~:: =~~~~~~!ffll.~tqMfflt~l::rn:::nn:::::::::::: ::i;~_: ::::::::;::: ::: ::::;:~: 1 ::: ::.~. : ::::~a::~ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 81 ,356 $ 83,636 1.0 $ 93,186 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 1.0 $ 60,845 $ 64,085 1.0 $ 70,337 03 Soecialists 8.0 $ 359,784 $ 374,877 8.0 $ 415,685 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 89,580 $ 94,974 2.0 $ 106,208 05 Media$oec. .1.5 $ 72,104 $ 74,1tQ 1.5 $ 81,290 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0  $0 $0 0.0 $0 =::.~t 08 Foreian Lana.- 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Soecial Education 1.0 $ 40,763 $ 41 ,935 1.0 $ 47,284 11 13ifted 1.4 $ 67,507 $ 69,629 1.4 $ 77,258 12 Classroom. 2U $ 868,840 $ 875,063 21 .3 $ 928,539 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 35,000 $ 36,279 0.0 $ 38,0.00 14 Other-Kindergarten 5.0 $ 228,689 $ 237,985 5.0 $ 265,011 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.2 $1,904,467 $1,952,572 42.2 $2,122,798 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $ 77,542 $ 79, 170 3.0 $ 88,824 STAFF . 16 Nurses 1.0 $ . 33,693 $ 34,661 1.0 $ 38,127 17 Custodians . 4.0 $ 60A84 $ 62,828 4.0 $ 76,000 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,585 $ 9,775 0.2 $ 10,918 19 Paraprofessionals-Other . 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 4.4 $ 95,726 $ 74,925 4.4 $ 86,934 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $ 596,247 $ 576,134 ~ . $ 716,338 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 12.6 $873,277 $837,493 12.6 $1 ,017,141 TOTAL (10-20) .  .. ': $2,777,745 . $2,790,065 ~  $3,139,939  PURCHASED 22 Utilities .,.,.,.,.,.,, $ 52,200 $ 54,308 ~ : $ 58,500 SERVICES 23 Travel ~  $ ' 5,000 $ 10,783 ~  $ 5,000 ' -... ,\"J (30) 24 Maintenance AQreements $0 $0 ~  $0 25 Other 24,475 $ 17,691 ~  $ 27,210 TOTAL (30) 81 ,675 $ 82,782 ~  $ 90;110 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office $0 $0 ~  $0 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ~  $ 64,500 $ 86,619 ~  $ 64,500 (40) 28 Media 9;000 $ 8,070 ~  $ 9,000 29 Other 8,033 $ 3,560 ~  $ 4,000 TOTAL (40) 81 ,533 $ 98,249 ~  $ 77,500 CAPITAL 30 Equipment 10,000 $ 1,648 ~  $ 10,000 OUTLAY   31 Building Repair, etc. $0 $0 ~  $0 (50) 32 Other $0 $0 ~  $0 TOTAL (50) ~ : $ 10,000 $ 1,648 ~  $ 10,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ~  $ 1,541 $ 639 ~  $ 1,541 (60) 34 Other TOTAL(60) ~ . $ 1,541 $ 639 ~ j $ 1,541 TOTAL (30-60) ~ j $174,749 $183,318 ~  $179,751 TOTAL (10-60) 54.8 $2,952,494 $2,973,384 54.8 $3,319,690 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) \" ~  $223,415 $223,403 ~  $253,368 .. I ,'  u,wn~\"f (i~~ij:;;.)/)/HHL \u0026gt;J~~~ft \u0026lt; :U?nlA~~fHH :J:ffl'qp~~~HH Ccri:y~t .U.' u::: .: . : .. U L:.'.C \u0026gt; U 2003--04 2003-04 2004-05 Stipends $10,000 $5,313 $9,057 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $208,431 $213,007 $239,261 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 ,Gifted Programs i $131  $132 $133 PlantServices  $4,086 $4,170 $4,141 Reading $64 $65 $65 Science $0 $0 $0 English $192 $195 $194 Soecial Education $511  $521 $518 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total L:ine Items ,, $22a,415 $223,403 $253,368 ~fl\u0026gt;:i#Wti.:\u0026gt;jij/ ::YHHH\\:::. ::::@QW::n :nn::~@~if =::: :::)::~Qii.ii~t::i: 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 495.31 503.92 500.00 Total Costs $3;175,908 $3,196,786 $3,573,058 ~t~.-.nWPos.tH/'it::n:::t:C' ::t'i'i::C/$.tM,t  .:t/UH!f$$l3M. t::::=t,::::$M4$:' : I ~~m~~~;~~Jl~~~~~~~!:~~;;;:;:;;;:::::;;;;;:;;';: :,::~~:.,:, ,,,:,:,:~::~:,:,:,:, :.:,:,:,:,:=~,:,:,:,:,:, :,:i'r:.,,:: (:::~4::e.\u0026lt;i:,;,;,;  CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 79,528 $ 81 ,736 1.0 $ 93,172 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 03 Specialists 6.8 $ 268,588 $ 251,436 6.8 $ 282,959 04 Counselors 1.0 $ 34,000 $ 46,422 1.0 $ 52,310 05 Media Spec. .1.0 $ 54,599 $ 56, 1~- 1.0 $ 61,583 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreion Lano. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Soecial Education 2.0 $ 73,754 $ 77,320 2.0 $ 87,536 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 48,389 $ 49,737 1.0 $ 54,561 12 Classroom 16.5 $ 722,635 $ 724,307 16.5 $ 797,878 f3 Substitutes 0.0 $ 20,000 $ 26,659 0.0 $  28,000 14 Other-Kinderoarten 2.0 $ 91,551 $ 94,140 2.0 $ 104,560 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31 .3 $:1,393,043 $1,407,882 31.3 $1,562,559 SUPPORT '15 Secretaries . 1.4 $ 32,952 $ 32,681 1.4 $ . 36,665 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 39,818 $ 40,963 1.0 $ 46,288 17 Custodians 3.0 $ 52,728 $ 51,513 3.0 $ 65,000 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,585 $ .. 9,775 0.2 $ 10,918 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 3.2 $ 64,585 $ 68,402 3.2 $ 77,786 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ : $ 435,295 $ 411,660 ~ : $ 528,767 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 8.7 $634,964 $614,995 8.7 $765,423 TOTAL (10-20) ~ :  $2,028,007 $2,022,877 ~ : $2,327,983 PURCHASED 22 Utilities . ~ : $ 26,300 $ 31,972 ~ : $ 33,800 SERVICES ....2 _3_T_ra-v_e_l -..- -------)900()00(X..,.:'::\".. :\".: . .':.' \":\"::' +-'-$---3-'-.o-oo--t--'$---1\"\"\"'2.'-99_9_XlOO.O.:.\" \"O':':'\":O\"''.,. \u0026lt;:.,. : X.,.::\" :'\" ..$.. __3. .. ., -00-0'---I (30) ' 1--24-+M_a_i_nt_e_na_n_c_e_A.0 ..1. r_e_em_en_ts _. ....,.'. ..:.~.  ..,'. .,.::.. .::.:. :. ______$ '-0-+-____. .._$0'. :-:. +.:. . ~.. ,..:...,,.:..: .: . ____ _,_$0- . \u0026amp;t-____ ._.:;;;25\"-+0th\"-=e.;;.;r_--==~=-~--+~;;;,;:.,:;.:;;.:;,;:;;:.:~$--,,,.;2~7c-'c,4~5;..;1+$;.__~1\"'\"4,'-::7~66';:;;;,-:: .+,;~:. :F.,!,.':;: ;; t...::$;.__~2~9,\"'\"14..;..;0:::...i W- TOTAL (30) ~ : $56,751 $59,736 ~ : $65,940 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office ~ : $0 $0 ~ j $0 SUPPLIES i--27-+R-teg_u. l.a.. -r -C-la-ss-r-oo_m_ ____ ..,.,.~,,_,.,.,.,.,.,+--$---1o -1-,0\"\"\"'1'-6-+-$---9-1,-4---25--+-.io..o.\". '.\":o''.o,.c:\"x\"x:x\"\"\"''\"::. :, .-$---5-0,-78-'-4---4 (40) 28 Media : .. \u0026gt;. $ 3,000 $ 3,162 ~ : $ 1,795 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ : $ 2,185 $ 1,786 ~ : $ 2,000 TOTAL (40) 30 Eouipment 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other ~ : $ 106,201 $ 96,373 ~  $ 54,579 $ 137,899 $ 19,262 ~; $ 136,519 $0 $0 ~ : $0 ~ ; $0 $0 ~ : $0 ~ ; $ 137,899 $ 19,262 ~ $ 136,519 ~ : $ 500 $ 280 ~ : $ 500 .. . : . , $0 $0 ~ : $0 TOTAL (60) ~ j $ 500 $ 280 ~ : $ 500 TOTAL(30-60) ~ : $301 ,351 $175,651 ~ : $257,538 TOTAL (10-60) 40.0 $2,329,359 $2,198,528 40.0 $2,585,521 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) ~ : $132,980 $136,175 ~ : $151 ,496 \\((:'H~AANt'ft(ttAti:t\\H( ~ : \u0026lt;Y/$.tAitJag: / '))$Z)~;w2:= ~ : ')i:)$.Z.73!'i0.16 ' - . f : ~ J~mlCij~~:+::::u::::ut:: HA~~~::::: n:n::::A~~1:nn:: ::tW4P~~)H ~-w~Vif Ui)H{(?H?Y\u0026gt; 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 Stioends $1,000 $1,842 $1,000 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $128,898 $131,202 $147,385 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proarams $81 $81 $82 Plant Services $2,527 $2,568 $2,551 Reading $39 $40 $40 Science $0 $0 $0 Enalish $118 $120 $120 Soecial Education $316 $321 $319 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $132,980 $136,175 $151,496 11ef P:~mi:ci;,$'i:H::::i1  1:::;::::::\u0026gt;::: HH:::~~~4itf! n::::2~;ij1J:t1  :: 1t~Q~::j::: 3rd Qtr. ADM orProi. 306.31 310.39 308.00 Total Costs $2,462,339 $2,334,702 $2,737,016 P!EttP.-ifu11eo$.t/ ::::t]t/1::+ :r:1:;::J$.8iQ~~r ,/jn,:t::nt:r;s~: H/!trsa~i~ej: . ;w1~,-~1i1~mmm0m~i!1111iiiii!ii1!!1!!!:!!i! ::::i:w::: ::::1::::::1:::::: ::1:::::::::::::::::1:J:l ::::r~l:i :::;::::::::~::::::: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 84,256 $ 84,256 1.0 $ 93,576 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 62,345 $ 64,085 1.0 $ 70,337 03 Specialists 5.0 $ 251,669 $ 258,689 5.0 $ 283,809 04 Counselors 1.4 $ 60,481 $ 66,266 1.4 $ 76,124 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 47,612 $ 48,910- 1.0 $ 54,443 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0  $0 08 Foreian Lana. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.5 $ 45,694 $ 46,973 1.5 $ 54,633 11 Gifted 2.0 $ 104,001 $ 93,326 2.0 $ 108,026 12 Classroom 20.0 $ 875,968 $ 875,571 21 .0 $ 1,010,387 13 Substitutes  0.0 $ 35,000 $ 28,223 0.0 $ . 30;000  14 Other-Kinderaarten 3.0 $ 134,835 $  134,089 3.0 $ 1'53,344 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.9 $1,701 ,860 $1,700,388 36.9  $1,934,678 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $ 66,531 $ . s70,173 3.0 $ 77,566 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 52,742 $ ~.199 1.0 $ 60,086 17 Custodians 3.5 $ 55,801 $ 51,057 3.5 $ 68,278 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,585 $ .. 9,775 0.2 $ 10,918 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 4.8 $ 59,991 $ 46,384 4.8 $ 55,023 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ : $ 530,698 $ 448,173 ~ : $ 650,230 TOTAL SUPPORT.SALARY 12.5 $775,348 $679,761 12.5 $922,100 TOTAL(10-20) ~  $2,477,208 $2,380,149 ~ : $2,856,777 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ : $ 50,200 $ 58,942 ~ : $ 60,000 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ . $ 3,000 $ 5,446 ~  $ 3,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements , 25 Other $ 19,479 $ 16,584 ~ : $ 24,527 TOTAL (30) ~  $ 72,679 $ 80,972 ~  $ 87,527 MATERIALS, 6 ir,cipal's Office $0 $0 ~  $0 SUPPLIES Regul r Cl ss oom ~  $ 76,100 $ 90,914 ~ : $ 73,500 (40) 8 ei $ 4,600 $ 4,532 ~ : $ 7,100 0 her $ 3,527 $ 3,099 ~ : $ 3,200 o-AI (40) $ 84,227 $ 98,545 ~ : $ 83,800 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $ 4,300 $ 4,260 ~ : $ 4,300 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. $0 $0 ~ : $0 (50) 32 Other $0 $0 ~ : $0 TOTAL (50) ~ $ 4,300 $ 4;260 ~  $ 4,300 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 1,500 $ 670 ~  $ 1,500 (60) 34 Other ~ : $0 , $0~ $0 TOTAL (60) 1,500 $ 670 ~  $ 1,500 TOTAL (30-60) ~  $162,106 $184,447 #ioot~iW $111,121 TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) 48.4 $2,639,914 $2,564,596 49.4 $3,033,904 $209,041 $198,114 \u0026gt;OOOOOOCX $233,789 UM'Jt~m=Costi$?iH:t:::\u0026gt;ii:i. i:::~r.6ririjeti:H::: :::,:::::::A~uar::::::=:i =:::P.r.osfosediii= Wiillains=?\\(:/(:::)/YY/ 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 Stipends $10,000 $360 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $194,393 $193,144 $219,163 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proarams $123 $120 $122 Plant Services $3,811 $3,781 $3,793 Reading $60 $59 $59 Science $0 $0 $0 English $179 $177 $178 Special Education $476 $473 $474 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $209,041 $198,114 $233,789 ~et~iin1I:to$.f ::=:::::=,f ::i::=::,::. ::::n:20~a+o4::::n,: ===:n,:23~t:= ::,:::~C10+.o.S'::::i: 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 461.95  456.93 458.00 Total Costs $2,848,955 $2,762,710 $3,267,693 P.~f ~u\u0026amp;1ttos.ti(\\i::r=t:nt::: :::::,::::::::) $$A~t: ::::=::::::::$U~it$i :::::::::,:::::::$\"M3$i CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $497,680 $509,140 6.0 $574,294 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $617,771 $635,997 10.0 $700,207 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 03 Specialists 40.0 $1 ,779,390 . $1,807,576 40.0 $1,968,829 Counselors 13.4 $646,324 $687,751 13.4 $750,109 Media Soec. 6.5 $309,584 $318,91tt 6.5 $351,986 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $114,504 $117,741 3.0 $132,463 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 Foreian Lana. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 Vocational 7.6 $397,928 $391,819 7.6 $427,864 Special Education .9.5 $392,832 $419,528 9.5 $457,289 Gifted 5.4 $268,286 $262,429 5.4 $294,406 Classroom 190.8 $8,509,638 $8,770,044 194.3 $9,737,515 Substitutes 0.0 $265,000 $250,982 0.0 $268,000 Other-Kinderaarten 16.0 $709,857 $709,538 16.0 $761,295 TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 308.2 $14,508,795 $14,881,446 311 .7 $16,424,256 15 Secretaries 20.4 $541,391 $543,754 20.4 $608,558 16 Nurses 6.0 $251 ,099 $248,460 6.0 $277,088 17 Custodians 30.0 $494,391 $487,510 30.0 .$598,278 18 Information Services 1.0 $57,500 $58,641 1.0 $65,494 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $169,021 $173,432 6.0 . $211,167 20 Other-Aides 23.8 $422,705 $426,705 23.8 $513,183 21 Frinae Benefits(20) ~  $4,409,247 $4,121,319 ~ : $5,446,402 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 87.1 $6,345,354 $6,059,821 87.2 $7,720,170 TOTAL (10-20) x#\u0026gt;.\u0026amp;ic~k $20,854,149 $20,941,267 ~ : $24,144,426 22 Utilities 537,600 $ 597,227 ~ : $ 590,300 23 Travel 42,000 $ 67,324 ~ : $ 42,800 24 Maintenance Aareements $0 $0 ~ : $0 25 Other 214,994 $ 236,974 ~ .. $ 267,352 TOTAL (30) 794,594 $ 901 ,524 ~  $ 900,452 26 Principal's Office $0 $0 ~ .. $0 27 Reaular Classroom 730,561 $ 725,761 ~ , $ 588,910 28 Media 50,475 $ 43,122 ~ : $ 46,795 29 Other 33,643 $ 22,150 ~  $ 23,300 TOTAL (40) 814,679 $ 791,032 ~  $ 659,005 30 Equipment 402,970 $ 273,549 ~ : $ 211,819 31 Buildina Repair, etc. $0 $0 ~  $0 32 Other $0 $0 ~  $0 TOTAL (50) 402,970 $ 273,549 ~  $ 211,819 33 Dues and Fees 5,941 $ 6,675 ~  $ 11,541 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~  $5,941 $ 6,675 ~ j $ 11,541 TOTAL (30-60) ~ : $2,018,184 $ 1,972,781 ~ j $ 1,782,817 TOTAL (10-60) 395.3 $22,872,332 $ 22,914,048 398.8 $ 25,927,243 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) ~  $1,817,019 $ 1,808,749 ~ j $ 2,037,691 - ' : MagnetBudget0203MAGBK05 w,~,rnc.ro:c~f r,:::,::m:m::::::: ::::u\u0026gt;,~c;,0.Q~~n t::n:::MtwR+:n:: un~r:q~~~n::: $~~~JV1//?::/U/HHHHH 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 Stipends .. $40,300 $22,428 $35,557 Other Obiects $0 $0 ,_ - $0 Indirect Costs $1 ,632,430 $1,634,641 $1 ,849,008 Vocational $32,800 $32,800 $32,800 Athletics $72,989 $80,388 $81 ,826 Gifted Proarams $500 $492 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Reading $500 $500 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 EnQlish $1 ,500 $1 ,500 $1 ,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 xxxxxx JOO()()()( Total Line Items $1,817,019 $1 ,808,749 $2,037,691 . p~~Jiijii,1J:(:'t)si::::r:1:H1  11 ::c::: , H::12!M)J;tj4'1: :n:~Q0.$04.:HH: 1:200.4~5. ....... . 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3,879.26 3,867.15 3,864.00 Total Costs 24,689,351.09 24,722,797.01 27,964,933.81 Per:Fci~tin~:uH:t::ntH n+rn:t$;jQ nn::n:,~~3 H1=HH\u0026gt;H$t;iat  Fi)~i~a$.ijij\u0026amp;:~n:\u0026lt;n: n:P.~oD,Q~~ ...... H:::::MJijH =1i\u0026gt;,jiqp~~~ $~rn~N//\\/HH/U//U 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 State of Arkansas $12,344,676 $12,361 ,345 $13,982,467 LRSD $7,806,773 $7,819,929 $8,842,512 PCSSD $2,960,253 $3,062,183 $3,352,996 NLRSD $1,577,650 $1 ,479,340 $1,786,959 Total Costs $24,689,351 $24,722,797 $27,964,934 MagnetBudgeto203MAGBK05 . ' CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $79,168 $81,376 1.0 $94,335 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $163,308 $168,580 3.0 $190,292 03 Specialists 3.4 $145,369 $130,614 3.4 $135,869 04 Counselors 3.0 $152,084 $156,281 3.0 $172,922 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $54,599 $56,124 1.0 $61,583 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreian Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 2.6 $149,656 $142,116 2.6 $152,554 10 Special Education 2.0 $71,477 $87,607 2.0 $85,872 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 49.8 $2,173,375 $2,229,338 49,8 $2,444,329 13 Substitutes 0.0 $60,000 $60,526 0.0 $64,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 65.8 $3,049,035 $3,112,562 65.8 $3,401,755 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries , 5.0 $123,104 $117,813 5.0 $135,216 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $34,243 $35,211 1.0 $40,000 17 Custodians 6.0 $89,629 $80,038 6.0 $110,000 18 lnfom,ation Services 0.2 $9,585 $9,775 0.2 $10,918 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $34,305 $34,869 1.0 $25,000 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $35,745 $50,412 2.4 $78,162 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $869,280 $845,623 ~  $1,108,720 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.6 $1,195,891 $1,173,741 15.6 $1,508,016 TOTAL (10-20) ~ ; $4,244,926 $4,286,303 ~  $4,909,771 PURCHASED 22 Utilities .~ : $164,500 $204,925  $197,000 SERVICES 23 Travel ~  $4,500 $6,153 ,,,,;.:-:: : :: :- ~ ; $2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements :~  $0 $0 ~  $0 25 Other .~ : $62,782 $51,666 ~  $60,735 TOTAL (30) ~ : $231,782 $262,745 ~  $259,735 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office ~  $0 $0  $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom ~ $183,616 $199,455 ~ . $129,600 (40) 28 Media ~  $11 ,675 $3,613  $6,000 29 Other ~  $6,638 $5,943 ~ : $6,000 TOTAL (40) ~  $201,929 $209,011 -. -: -:- :-:. :- : -:-:-: ~ ; $141 ,600 CAPITAL 30 Eauipment ~  $206,526 $208,208 ~  $26,000 OUTLAY 31 Buildina Repair, etc. ~ ; $0 $0 ~  $0 (50) 32 Other ~  $0 $0 ~  $0 TOTAL(50) ~  $206,526 $208,208 ~  $26,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $600 $1,516 ~  $3,000 (60) 34 Other ..##= $0 $0 ~  $0 TOTAL (60) .~ $600 $1,516 ~  $3,000 TOTAL (30-60) .~ : $640,837 $681,480 ~  $430,335 TOTAL (10-60) 81.4 $4,885,763 $4,967,784 81.4 $5,340,106 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~  $416,479 $436,139 ~  $469,490  :=:GMNPt:O.tAL:= H'   ib.txib.txit 4$.031i2Wi4t JHJ:=$S.4\u0026lt;l3(9Z3 ib.txib.td: ?\\ ) $$)80!t$9ij) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED ~....,r~.;',;) 1 -- 2004 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION\\1 10MITORIMG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for August 2004. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-422 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on August 31, 2004, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-151 O Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 I trSm~:h- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2004 Based on the information available at July 31, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding fo_r FY 03/04; subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1057","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004-07"],"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/1057"],"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 JUL 2. 2004 OFFICE OF DE EGREGATIO l,,ONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting JULY 2004 :- n-.. .\u0026gt; ::m0 r- rr..-.. 3- : Oz o\u0026gt;\n:o\n:o c-\u0026lt; m..,\n:o C: -z\n:on o-\u0026lt; F~ n\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; \u0026gt; F ..,\n:o g ~m mC r- C: on,.~... ~~ :l m\n:o (I\u0026gt; !:ti\n:o nm =1:1: ~i Z\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; en..,\n:o 0 :I: I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING July 22, 2004 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. President's Welcome to Guests Ill. 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 IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Update: Judge Wilson's Ruling and Recommendation for Appeal - Attorney Chris Heller C. Student Assignment Report D. Budget Update E. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects F. Internal Auditors Report G. Technology Update H. School Opening Progress Report V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Action: Eighth Circuit Appeal of Judge Wilson's Ruling of 06-30-04 B. Minutes: Regular Meeting - 06-24-04 C. Personnel Changes o-,:, \u0026gt;\nc ~ ~ ..... 3:: Oz o\u0026gt;\nc\nc c-\u0026lt; m-n\nc c:: -z\nc 0 o--\u0026lt; r-~ r-z 0\"' \u0026gt; F .\n=,, g ~m mC r- c:: 0~ 0 r- ~ ~ ~ m\nc \"' Regular Meeting July 22, 2004 Page2 VI. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Purchase of School Buses B. Memorandum of Understanding: Staffing Issues from June 24, 2004 Board Meeting C. Financial Report VII. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Presentation of First Draft Superintendent's Entry Plan: The First 100 Days 2. Dates to Remember 3. Special Functions VIII. ADJOURNMENT o-.. . m:n ,,-- ,_... :C Oz o  :n :n C -\u0026lt; m-.. :n C: -z :n n o-\u0026lt; F\noen ,- ,- .\n.=, :n g ~m mC ,- C: n~ 0,- ~~ =I m :n en ?' :n nm =i 31: ,:::\n~ m\n,: Zen en.., :n 0 31: I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS C. LRCTA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: July 22, 2004 To: From: Re: Board of Education Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Decision Regarding Judge's Ruling on Compliance Remedy As discussed in the Board's agenda meeting on July 8, 2004, Attorney Chris Heller will be present to review the recent ruling from Judge Wilson and to make recommendations for the Board's consideration. bjg ~ .... mn :c z 0  -\u0026lt; C:\n!I ~ m fl !!l C: C :,:,m mZ ~\n..,..: ,.\",,' C) z ~ m ~ !=' a, C: g !:!l C: ~ m '\n.411 Individual Approach to a W,,.orld of K11011 1/edge\" July 22, 2004 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D., Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer fu SUBJECT: July 2004 Construction Report The Architect/Engineer Selection Committee met recently, and architects were chosen for the following projects: Media Center Addition- Carver: Herron \u0026amp; Horton Two (2) Classroom Addition- Fair Park: Woods-Caradine Addition \u0026amp; Remodel- Forest Heights: Borne Firm 5 Classroom Addition-Gibbs: Roark Perkins Perry \u0026amp; Yellvington Remodel-Meadowcliff: Herron \u0026amp; Horton ew Windows-Oakhurst (Adult Education): Herron \u0026amp; Horton The final construction days for this summer are winding down. Several schools have been undergoing major construction projects and are due to be completed before the return of students in August. Baseline Elementary, Wakefield Elementary, McClellan Magnet High, Pulaski Heights Middle and Pulaski Heights Elementary are nearing completion. The architects and contractors for these projects are in the process of doing their final punch lists. Please call me at 44 7-1146 if you have any questions about construction at any of our schools. 810 \\'\\'. t-.larkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  W\\\\'\\.v.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 !I' I: z .C..:. emn Facility Name Baseline B-oo-ker- -- Booker - Brady Central Central - Central -- Chicot Chicot Dodd ----- Dunbar J. A. Fair Henderson r-- Mablevale Elem f- - McClellan McDermott -- Mitchell - Parkview Pulaski Hgts. Elem Pulaski Hgts. M-S-- Southwest Wakefield_ __ - Washington Western Hills Western Hills CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 22, 2004 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I Proiect Description I Cost I t:st. 1,.\nompletion Date Renovation --- $953,520 Aug-04 ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-04 -- - $48,52_5_ _ G m Roof Sep-04 Addition/renovation $973,62_1_ _ Sep-04 Renovation - Interior $10,200,~ ~ -05 HVAC Renovation - Band Area $225,000 Dec-04 Reflecting Pond $50,000 Sep-04 Drainage $64,700 ~ g-04 Sound Attenuation $43,134 Jul-04 --Fire Alarm Upgrade --- -- $9,200 Aug-04 Renovation/addition $6,149~ __Se p-04 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music_ __ room addition $3,155,640 Jul-04 --Lockers ---- - - $80,~ Aug-04 Fire Alarm Upgrade - - --- $12,000 Aug-04 ~ - Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Jul-04 Fire Alarm Upgrade $7,700 ~ Sep-04 Building Remediation - $165,000 Jul-04 Addition $2,121 ,226 ~ ep-04 Renovation -- $1 ,193,25_9_ _ Aug-04 Renovation $3,755,041 Aug-04 Addition $2,000,000-- ~ g-04 Rebuild $5,300 .~~p-04 Fire Alarm Upgrade $11 :600 Sep-04 ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-Qi Fire Alarm Upgrade $8,400 Sep-04 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - SUMMER/ FALL 2004 Facility Name I Project Description I Cost 1 1::st. c..\nompletIon Date Mitchell Renovation $2,212,493 Auo-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I t:st. 1,.\nompIeuon Date Booker Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Carver Media Center Expansion I $167,490 Unknown Chicot Electrical Upgrade I Unknown Unknown Cloverdale Elementary Addition I $520,750 Aug-05 Fair Park I Addition I $799,ooo I Unknown Forest Heights I Remodel I $1 ,547,000 Unknown Garland ____._ Remodel I Unknown Unknown Gibbs !Addition I $705,670 Unknown Meadowcliff Remodel - I $164,150 Unknown Oakhurst (Adult Education) 1 New Windows I $215,000 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS  Energy monitoring system installation I Unknown Unknown Rightsell Renovation $2,494,000 Aug-06 Scott Field Renovate Track $200,000 Unknown Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $640,000 Aug-05 Woodruff Parking addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD JULY 22, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost I 1::st. L\nompIetIon Date Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Mar-03 Administration -- Fresh air system $55,000 Aug-03 --- ~ Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Aug-03 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation --=- May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr.  Energy efficient lighting _I_ $82,000 ' Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestosabatement --1- $237,2~---Jul=O'f Badgett Fire alarm --- $18,250 Aug-02 Bale , Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Dec-02 Bale Energy monitoring system --I Mar-02 Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Dec-01 Bale HVAC ~ -- $664,587 Aug-01 Booker __E.nergy efficient lighting I $170,295 - Apr-01 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Oct-01 - -- - Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 Booker --~ealarm -- $34,501 Mar-02 Brady ~ Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 Carver Energy monitoring ~s~m installation $14,480 Ma_y-_Q_1 Carver , Parking lot $111,742 Aug-03 Central Parking Student parking - $174,000 - Aug-03 Central/Quigley 1Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 --Aug-03 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement-- $38,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigle Irrigation System - -~I- $14,500 Aug-03 - Central Purchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 Central ~of \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 I Dec-02 Central Ceiling and wall repair I $24,000 Oct-01 Central I Fire Alarm System Design/Installation I $80,876 Aug-01 Central I Front landing tile repair $22,470 Aug-01 -- IE nergy efficient lighting $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale Elem. Cloverdale MS I Energy efficient lighting $189,743 I Jul-01 Cloverdale MS M ajor renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Nov--02 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 . Aug-01 Dodd I Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile I $156,299 Jul-01 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC I $215,570 I Aug~ Facilities Service Interior renovation I $84,672 Mar--01 Facility Services ,Fire alarm $12,000 Aug-03 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 I Apr-02 Fair Park I Energy efficient lighting I $90,162 Aug-01 Fair Park , Asbestos abatement-ceiling I $59,310 I Aug:Q!_ J. A. Fair i Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784  Nov-00 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 I Jun-01 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 I Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 I Aug-03 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 I Nov-03 Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 I Aug-03 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 I May-01 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463  Jun-01 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation I $11,950 Aug-Ql_ Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 I Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 I Sep-02 Fulbright Roof repairs I $200,000  Oct-02 2 ~ .... ~ ::c z 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: ~ m !D\ni: z .C..:. m CJ\u0026gt; CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 22, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Descriotion I Cost I Est. Completion Date Franklin Renovation $2,511 ,736 Mar-03 Geyer Springs - Roof Repair __$ 161 ,752 ----Jun-04 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Apr-01 Gibbs -- Energy monitoring system installation ... .. $11,770 Jul-01 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition --- - $8,637,709 ~ 03 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Aug-01 --- - - -- - Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Jul-01 Energy efficient lighting -+ Hall ------- -- $296~ Apr-01 Hall ~ astructure improvements $93,657 _Aug-01 Hall -- - - -- Intercom T Feb-01 - Security cameras - - - $10,600 -- Hall Jun-01 --- - 4 -- -- Henderson _ Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Jul-01 Henderson Roof replacement gym --T $107.~ May-01 Henderson --- -- Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,0~ ~ g-01 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 --- Henderson -- - $250,000 Aug-02 IRC Energy efficient lighting $109,~ - Jul-02 --- Asbestos abatement -- 4 Jefferson -- - -- $43,6~ Oct-01 T --$1 ,630,000 --- Jefferson ---- Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm Nov-02 Laidlaw Parking lo_t _  - $269,588 Jul-01 Mabelvale Elem. - Energy monitoring system installation $12:150 Aug-01 Mabelvale Elem. - Replace HVAC units -- $300:000 ~ g-02 Asbestos Abatement - - Mabelvale Elem. $107,0~ - Aug-02 Mabe-lva-le E-lem. --Energy efficient lighting-- $106,598 --i5ec-02 Renovate bleachers -- ---T Mabelvale MS $134,793 --Aug-01 Mabelvale MS - -- -- Renovati~ $6,851T21 - Mar-04 --+----- Mann Partial Replacement $11 ,500,000 Apr-04 Mann Asphalt walks -=-h he total $1 .8 mi~ ---Dec-0 0 1 -Ma-nn Walkway canopies -- is what has been Dec- 1 Mann Boiler replacement used so far on the Oct-01 - --- -- Mann __ _fencing projects listed ~ p-01 Mann -- _Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann..:._,_ ~-01 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement ------ $38,000 Jul-03 $14,7~ - McClellan Irrigation System I Jul-03 McClellan Security cameras I $36,300 Jun-01 McClellan  Energy efficient lighting I $303,~ May-01 McClellan Stadium stands repair $235,000 Aug-01 McClellan Intercom I $46,000 Feb-02 McDermott 1 Energy efficient lighting I $79,411 I Feb-01 McDermott I Replace roof top HVAC units I $476,000 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Fire alarm i $16,175 Jul-01 Meadowcliff Asbestos abatement I $253,412 Aug-02 Meadowcliff 1 Engergy efficient lighting I $88,297 Dec-02 Metropolitan I Replace cooling tower I $37,203 I Dec-00 Metropolitan Replace shop vent system I $20,000 May-01 Metropolitan I Energy monitoring system installation I $17,145 I Aug-01 Mitchell !Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Apr-01 Mitchell , Energy monitoring system installation I $16,695 I Jul-01 Mitchell !Asbestos abatement i $13,000 Jul-01 Oakhurst IHVAC renovation I $237,237 Aug-01 Otter Creek Energy monitoring system installation I $10,695 May-01 Otter Creek I Energy efficient lighting I $81 ,828 Apr-01 Otter Creek ,Asbestos abatement I $10,000 ! Aug-02 Otter Creek Parking lot I $138,029 I Aug-02 Otter Creek 6 classroom addition $888,778 I Oci=02 Otter Creek Parking Improvements $142,541 I Aug-03 3 CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD JULY 22, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Descriotion I Cost I Est. Completion Date Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 -- Jun-02 Parkview Roof replacement -~ $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 I ~ ug-01 Parkview Energy efficient lighting I $315,000 Jun-01 Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 Procurement ~ alarm-- I - $25,000 I Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground $17,000 Dec-02 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting --- $84,898 __Ap r-01 Rockefeller _Jnergyefficient lighting $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Aug-01 Rockefeller Parking addition $111,742 Aug-02 Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Apr-02 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Mar-03 Security!Transportation Bus cameras ---- - I $22,500- Jun-01 Southwest - Asbestos abatement i $28,138 Aug-00 Southwest New roof $690,000 --Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Jan-02 Southwest 1 Drainage I street widening I ~50,000 Aug-03 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation I $4,830 Aug-02 Student Assignment Fire alarm I $9,000 Aug-0~ Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Dec-01 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II I $3,679,000 I ---- Jun-04 Technologi.!Jpg_!ad_e ____ Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data : Nov-02 Terry Energy efficient lighting I - --$73,850 Feb-01 - Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking I - $83,484 Aug-02 Terry Media Center addition I $704,932 Sep~02 Wakefield -- Security cameras I $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting I $74,776 , Feb-01 Wakefield i Demolition/Asbestos Abatement I $200,000 I Nov-02 Washington Security cameras I $7,900 Jun-01 Washington I Energy efficient lighting I $165,281 Apr-01 -Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Jul-01 Watson Asbestos abatement I $182,241 Aug-01 Watson I Energy efficient lighting I $106,868 I Aug-01 Watson jAsbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $800,000 I Aug-02 Western Hills !Asbestos abatement i $191,946 Aug-02 Western Hills !Intercom i $7,100 Dec-01 Western Hills I Energy efficient lighting I $106,ooo I Jul-01 Williams I Renovation I $2,106,492 . Mar-04 Williams Parking expansions I $183,717 I Dec-03 Williams I Energy efficient lighting $122,719 I Jun-01 Wilson I Renovation/expansion I $1 ,263,876 Feb-04 Wilson Parking Expansion I $110,000 I Aug-03 Woodruff I Renovation I $246,419 Aua-02 4 :\" z m-\u0026lt; :x,~ m\u0026gt; \"llr- ~~ -\u0026lt; 0 =I 0 :x, CJ) p m-\u0026lt; C') :c z 0  -\u0026lt; C:\ng ~ m \"ll :c :x,' gl!l :x, :c ~8 :x, rm O c3~ :x,z -\u0026lt; z C)\n,,, :\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\na no -\u0026lt; C: i5 =:! .z. zm ?\n~ \"ll::::1 ~m r- :x, CJ) !%' !I:: z C: m-\u0026lt; CJ) Date: June 24, 2004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR.KA SAS To: Board of Directors ~ From: Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - July This is the fifty-seventh communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two middle schools and three elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Facilitating technology upgrade in cooperation with the English Department for Yearbook and Newspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. .f,l, m\n,\n, ~ z z m,.... n ::,: ~ C) m V) p ... m n ::,: z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m .,, ::,:\n,\n, . 2!{l\n,\n,::,:\ng\n,\n,,mo c3 ~\n,\n,Z ... z C) -,-,:\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\n,\n, no ..... C: 5::::! z. . zm .~,, i...:.. ~ ..... ,-m\n,\n, V) !l' 3: z .C...:. m V) Audit Report - July 2004 Page 2 of2 Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of uts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Implementing in coordination with Human Resources. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. c) Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. d) Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. e) Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. f) Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. g) Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. h) Reviewing leave accountability system. a) Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. b) Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. c) Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2004) and on planning committee for 2005. 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, ARKA SAS 72201 Date: July 22, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Information Services THROUGH: Dr. Roy Brooks, Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Technology Report  Staff from Instructional Technology and Computer Information Technology have moved to the new Technology Center on the campus of Metropolitan Career and Technical Center.  Technology training for teachers will be held every day the last two weeks in July in the training rooms at the new Technology Center. These classes are funded through the EETT (Enhancing Education Through Technology) grant. All classes are full.  We have received notification from the organization that administers the E-rate program that $1.1 million in program funds have been released to Alltel for our telecommunications costs for 2002-2003. Alltel will then reimburse us this amount. These are funds we applied for in January 2002.  Technicians are spending every day in the schools getting machines ready for the return of teachers and students. All district computers are being checked for the lasted virus protection and system updates. 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 June 25, 2004 - July 22, 2004 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. f..l, m\n,, V, 0 z z mrn ~ z C) m V, '?\" ...,s c \n,, a, nc ::c VJ \u0026gt;z Vim mv,  V, ~ V, 5 !B 0~ r-m a, VJ C V, m V,\ng~ g~ ~::c V, 0 V, 0\n,, rm O\n-gril\n,,Z -\u0026lt;z C) !D :I: z .C.. . m V, To: From: LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF SCHOOL SERVICES 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS Little Rock School District Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D~ Superintendent of Schools Prepared by:'{sadie Mitchell, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent - School Services Subject: Date: School Opening/Closing Committee School Opening Progress Report Thursday, July 22, 2004 The School Services Division, along with all other departments in the district, is working collaboratively to ensure that the schools are prepared to open their doors for our children on Thursday, August 19. A School Opening/Closing Committee comprised of a representative from each department meets every Wednesday at 1 :30 P.M. in the boardroom to discuss critical issues and make decisions regarding school opening. An oral report will be presented so that board members will be well informed about activities being implemented prior to the first day of school. The appropriate staff will be available to answer questions. The following topics will be shared: a) Start-Up Dates and Times b) Summer School c) Student Assignment and Registration d) StaffDevelopment e) Staffing for Certified and Non-Certified Employees t) Status Report on Assistant Principals g) Status of Facilities h) New Four Year Old Classrooms i) Supplies, Materials, Equipment, Books If you have additional questions, please contact Sadie Mitchell at 447-1133. \u0026gt; r\u0026gt; \"0 m\n,\n:, ~ zz ,m... n $\nz C\u0026gt; m u, :.,,s C: .\n,\n, a, n c: :z: U\u0026gt; 1:\nz m~ ' U\u0026gt; ii: u, 5~ o\u0026lt; .... ~ a, u, C: gi u, ?' I: 0 C: !!l ..\u0026gt;..,, z C\u0026gt; ?' I: z .C..:. m u, School Opening Progress Report 2004-2005 Thursday, July 22, 2004 5:30 P.M. Start-Up Dates and Times All building principals are back on contract Assistant principals will return Monday, July 26 Teachers return on August 11 (EYE -August 2) Students return on August 19 (EYE -August 9) Summer School Summer school ends July 22. Summer school for middle school students is held at Forest Heights Middle School. Ms. Regina Ezell is principal. Forest Heights Middle School has an enrollment of 369 students. 285 students received tuition waiver 84 students paid Summer school for high school students is held at Hall High school. Mr. Jerome Farmer is principal. Hall High School had an enrollment of 396 students the first session and 564 the second session. 549 students received tuition waiver 347 students paid Student Assignment and Registration 1. \"Check-In\" dates are scheduled at each school site August 5 th from 10:00 A.M.- 7:00 P.M .. and August 6th from 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. School starts Thursday, August 19th. 2004. 2. Extended Year Elementary Schools (Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Mitchell, Stephens, and Woodruff) will hold \"Check-In\" from 10:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. on July 28 th and 29th . EYE schools' first day of class will be August 9 th  3. New P4 Classes Additional P4 classes have been created as a result of increased state funding for early childhood education. Classes were added at Brady, Chicot, Dodd, Forest Park, Fulbright, Jefferson, Mabelvale, McDermott, Otter Creek, and Terry. Head start Four Year Old classes were converted to LRSD P4 classes at Meadowcliff, Wakefield, and Washington. Approximately 1100 Four Year Olds have been assigned to classes as ofJuly 15th with 150 district-wide vacancies now available. Families with Four Year Olds may continue to register in the Student Registration Office at 501 Sherman. 4. LRSD Student Assignment Committee Three (3) Community Forums are scheduled: Tuesday. July 20th Little Rock Neighborhood Resource Center 3805 W. 12th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 6:00- 7:30 Thursday, July 29h Dee Brown Library 6325 Baseline Road Little Rock, AR 72209 6:00- 7:30 Tuesday, August 10th LRSD Board Room 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 6:00- 7:30 r..\u0026gt;, m\n,o en 0 z z m,... n :::c ~ C) m en .,. ..,s C: .\n,o a, nc: :::c en ~mrzn ' en ~en ::cm 8~ r-m a, en C: en m en ?' ii: 0 C: ~ ..\u0026gt;..,, z C) .,. :c \u0026gt;\n,o no .... C: oz::z:! .. m ~.., ~=l ~,... m\n,o en ?' ii: z C...:. rn Staff Development {Attachment A \u0026amp; B) Training for Principals - July 26-29 Quality Foods \u0026amp; Greater Second Baptist Church August 9 - Orientation for new elementary teachers August 10 - Orientation for new secondary teachers Training for Teachers - Building-level staff development on August 11 Special sessions on August 12 - 13 Staffing for Certified and Non-Certified Employees (Attachment C) Assistant Principals Central High School - recommendation coming to the board Fulbright Elementary School - pending Otter Creek Elementary School - pending McClellan High School- interviewing Status Report on Assistant Principals (Attachment D) ( see attachment) Status of Facilities {Attachment E) Trailers to be moved in preparation for additional classrooms: Two doublewide trailers to support adding a PreK, Kindergarten and third grade classroom to Fulbright completed Two doublewide trailers to support adding one second, third and PreK classroom to Terry completed One doublewide trailer to support adding a second and PreK classroom to Chicot One doublewide trailer to support adding a third and PreK classroom to Forest Park One trailer to support eliminating a split class at Dodd completed Wakefield will be moving into the new facility on Friday, July 23. Mitchell will be moving to Badgett Elementary School after Wakefield has vacated the building. New Four Year Old Classrooms (Attachment F) ( see attachment) Supplies, Materials, Equipment, Books Fifth, sixth and ninth-twelfth grade \"health\" books Sixth-twelfth grade \"Family and Consumer Science\" books Computers are being ordered from the technology bond money by Lucy Neal for schools adding teachers. f) .,, m\n,c (J\u0026gt; 0 z z ,m.... n :,: ~ c\n, m (J\u0026gt; .,,. ..,s c:\n'\n,ca, nc:: :,:V\u0026gt; ~% m~ ' (J\u0026gt; ~(J\u0026gt; 5!ll 0~ r-m a, (J) c:: (J\u0026gt; m (J\u0026gt; !I' I: 0 c:: ~ ..\u0026gt;..,, z c\n, !I' I: z c..:.:. m (J\u0026gt; Attachment A Teachers' Professional Development Schedule August 2 through August 14, 2004 On April 15, 2004, a district-wide planning meeting was held with representatives from the School Services Division and the Curriculum and Instruction Division to plan and coordinate efforts for our teachers' professional development opportunities for the pre-school professional development days and for the school year. The representatives diligently worked all day to coordinate a teacher professional development calendar that would maximize the designated professional development days for district and building use, and that would address the needs of teachers in this district. After much discussion, it was decided that the primary emphasis for the preschool professional development would be on strategies and techniques that would facilitate improved student achievement and teaching in the areas of math, literacy, and science. Attached is a calendar that outlines the specific days when professional development will be observed by our teachers in this district for both regular schools and the extended year schools. Little Rock School District 2004-05 Pro/essional Development Dates Type of Professional Development August 2, 2004 A.M.-Campus Level P.M-District Level-Division of Exceptional Children Issues August 3, 2004 Literacy Summit (EY) August 4, 2004 Campus Level (EY) August 9, 2004 New Teacher Orientation (Elementary Teacllers) /RC August 10, 2004 New Teacher Orientation (Secondary Teacl,ers) /RC August 11, 2004 A.M.-Campus Level P.M.-District Level-Teleconference August 12, 2004 District Level * see attacl,ment August 13, 2004 District Level * see attacllment AUf!USt 16, 2004 Campus Level August 17, 2004 Campus Level September 24, 2004 District Level (EYE) Content Specific October 1, 2004 Elementary-District Level Secondary-Campus Level October 11, 2004 Parental Involvement (EYE) Campus Level October 22, 2004 Parental Involvement Campus Level November 4, 2004 AEA/Joint Conference/ District Level \u0026gt; fl \"'0 m\no ~ z z .m.... (\") ~ C') m (J) :..,s C: \no a, (\") C: :r (J) ~z m~ ' (J) ~(J) 5!ll o\u0026lt; ..... ~ a, (J) C: (J) m (J) !Ji :I: 0 C: .~., z C') !Ji :I: z .C..:. m (J) November 5, 2004 AEA/Joint Conference/ District Level March 25, 2005 Campus Level April 15, 2005 Campus Level {EYE) June 29, 2005 Campus Level (EYE)  EYE - Extended Year Schools.  District Level-Professional Development will be provided by the dislrict.  Campus Level-Professional Development will be provided by the local campuses. Principals' Leadership Institute July 26-29, 2004 Attachrent B As the district focuses on six primary standards for effective leadership this year, every effort will be made to connect the district's professional development for principals and assistant principals to the six standards as listed. 1) Instructional Leadership 2) Organizational Leadership 3) Management Leadership 4) Community Leadership 5) Ethical Leadership 6) Environmental Context Leadership The topics that will be addressed at the July Institute were determined at a district-wide planning meeting held on April 15, 2004, where personnel from the Curriculum and Instruction Division and the School Services Division met all day to identify critical topics and needs for both teachers and administrators. The needs for principals were captured in a survey that was administered to principals in order to ascertain their input. The topics that will be addressed throughout the year have been identified by the building leaders as critical to their professional development, instructional competency, and professional growth. Other topics that will be addressed this year are as follows: Motivating the Staff/Faculty to Maximize Performance Using the Palm Pilot to Monitor the Classroom Walk-through Dealing with Difficult People: Leadership Skills and Interoffice Difficulties Data Analysis and Review: A Closer Look at 2004 Benchmark Results Managing and Dealing with the Difficult Parent (Dr. Todd Whitaker) Instructional Strategies Follow-up Session with Dr. Marcia Tate De-escalating Incidents and Difficult Situations Assessing the Professional Growth Plans: Year II Managing and Investigating Incidents and Allegations with Confidence Preparing for the Arbitration and Grievance Hearing What Every Leader Needs to Know: Student Due Process and IDEA No Child Left Behind Update Using the PTAS Rubrics to Score Teaching Performance Understanding the Context for Leadership: My Leadership Style First Things First: Time and Stress Management Leading, Supporting, and Assessing Reading and Writing Practices Managing the High-Dollar School Budget and Financial Resources \u0026gt; .f.\u0026gt;, m :a is zz ,m... n I C) m u, :.,,s c ::a tD nc ::c UJ 1\nz mrn . u, ~ u, :cm 8~ r-m tD UJ C u, m u, !J' I: 0 C .~,, z C) !J' I: z C.. . rn Tentative Principals' Leadership Institute 2004-05 Calendar DATE SESSION CATEGORY FACULTY LOCATION TIME July 23 , 2004 Safety \u0026amp; Management Robert Jones Washington Security and Margo Magnet 8:30- 10: 15 Health Issues Bushmiaer Discussion 10:30- 3:30 on-Title I Instructional Leon Adams Washington (pre-registered Schools and Leadership Lionel Ward Magnet slots of time) ACSIP Computer Labs Training Management July 26, 2004 A Discipline Instructional Dr. Linda Quality Foods Model: Leadership Watson 8:00-4:00 Aggression Replacement Organizational Dr. Sara Training Leadership Salmon, Trainer \u0026amp; Management Consultant Breakfast Served Leadership (7:30 - 8:00 A.M.) July 27, 2004 What Every Instructional Dr. L. Watson GSBC Leader Needs Leadership Barbara 8:30- 12:00 to Know: Due Barnes Process of Organizational Students \u0026amp; Leadership IDEA 1:00-4:00 Latest Changes Environmental GSBC and State Context Updates with Leadership Janinne NCLB Riggs, Breakfast served Arkansas (7:45 - 8:20 A.M.) Dept. of Education July 28, 2004 Understanding Instructional the LRSD Leadership 8:30 - 4:00 Curriculum and Test-Data Breakfast served Review (7:45 - 8:20) July 29, 2004 PN Instructional Agreement: Leadership 8:30 -12:00 Teacher Policy Review and PTAS Organizational Leadership 1:00-4:00 Strategically Management Planning for Leadership the Year with Breakfast served Your School (7 :45 - 8:20) Team Dennis GSBC Glasgow Dr. Ed Williams Beverly GSBC Williams Dr. L. Sain Dr. Sain GSBC Dr. Mitchell Dr. Price Dr. Lacey Mrs. Jones \u0026gt; !\"\u0026gt; \"ti m\n:o ~ zz ,m... n i\nz C'l m V, :.,s c\n:o a, nc ::c V, l'\n2 mm ' V, V, V, nm ::C\n:o 0\u0026lt; oc5 r-m a, V, C V, m V, !JO I: 0 C V, --\u0026lt; ..\u0026gt;,,,, z C'l .,,.~ \u0026gt;\n:o no --\u0026lt;c 5z::z:! .. m ~i \"0::1 ~,... m\n:o V, !JO I: z C -m-\u0026lt; V, AttachrEnt C '54..n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" July 15, 2004 To: Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services Frnm~everly Williams, Di,ectm ofHuman Resources RE: Vacancies The table below reflects all vacancies in the schools that the Human Resources Department is aware of as of 11 :00 a.m. today. Obviously with most elementary principals just returning from vacation this week, job offers / recommendations are just now being made. The positions below reflect openings that the HR staff has not received recommendations for hire and thus cannot declare the position as filled. I hope this information is of assistance to you. Areas Number of Vacancies Elementary Art 2 Counselor Music 2 Classroom 1-5 20 Kindergarten 2 GIT 1 Literacy Coach 2 Reading 2 Total Elementary 32 Secondary Physical Education English 7 Science 2 Physics Spanish 5 Total Secondary 23 Special Education 23 Nurse 1.5 Security Officer 5 Aide (Instructional/Special Educ.) 24 District Total 53.5 GRAND TOTAL FOR DISTRICT 108.5 There are other positions open as well as for administrators, secretaries, custodians, and maintenance workers. C: HR Staff 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 Attachrent D Assignment of Assistant Principals In an effort to examine how other neighboring or large school districts determine the employment of assistant principals to schools, we conducted research efforts via phone interviews. District representatives were asked to discuss to what extent they comply with state and orth Central Accreditation (NCA) standards in hiring and placing assistant principals in their elementary and secondary schools. Attached are the results of what we learned about how schools determine the employment of assistant principals. You will also find below the state, NCA, and LRSD guidelines for the employment and placement of assistant principals in schools. State Standard  A school with an enrollment exceeding 500 students will employ a full-time principal and at least one of the following: 1)  time assistant principal or 2) instructional supervisor or 3) curriculum specialist North Central Association (NCA)  An elementary or secondary school with over 250 students will employ a full-time principal.  An elementary school with over 800 students shall employ a  time assistant principal.  Middle schools that have over 500 students shall employ a  time assistant principal.  A secondary school that has over 1,000 students shall employ a full-time assistant principal. Little Rock School District  An elementary school with over 500 students will receive a full-time assistant principal. However, some consideration is given to schools with special program needs (i.e., CBI, TAP).  Middle schools traditionally have received two assistant principals regardless of their enrollment size. A middle school that has a population exceeding 700 students will receive an additional half-time assistant principal who is a part-time teacher in the building. However, some consideration is given to schools with environmental or special programming needs in placing additional assistant principals.  For every 350 students, a high school receives an assistant principal. However, some consideration is given to schools with environmental or special programming needs in placing additional assistant principals. \u0026gt; !.,\",' m ~ z z ~ C') ::,: ~ C') m \"' :..,s c  ::ca, nc :,:en \u0026gt;z mm m. u\",' ~\"' :,:m 8~ r-m a,\"' C \"m' \"' !JI I: 0 C ~....,, z C') .,,.~ \u0026gt;::C no -\u0026lt;c oz::z:! .. m ~.,, ~.... !I:! .... ,-m ~ !JI I: z C... . m \"' School Contact Person Standard Current Additional District Compliance Practice on Information on Hiring APs Hirin!:! APs Rogers Dr. Jane Wesson, Used to Present Twelve of School HR Director employ the accountability their 13 District state standard, and demands elementary but the on school schools have a expanding role principals full-time of the principal forced the principal. The caused the district to middle district to place full- schools have 2 abandon. time assistant assistant principals in principals. the buildings. Van Buren Mr. Lonnie Complies with K-6-The The district School Myers, Assistant the state district has basically District Superintendent regulation embraces the hired only. The Teacher additional elementary Advancement personnel that schools only Program and support have a full- encourages teaching and time principal. more faculty learning. support employment At the two than middle schools administrator (500 students), employment. they do have an assistant Junior High - principal. Curriculum Design At the two Coaches were junior high employed to schools (700 support the students), they curriculum have an and assistant instruction principal. efforts. High schools (1,150 students)- The district employs three APs. Fort Smith Dr. Johnny Complies with Of the 19 School Owens, Deputy the state elementary District Superintendent standard but schools, only looks at other 6 schools factors/formula have an AP. (i.e., socio- At the junior economic high (600- factors, ESL 800 students, enrollment), enrollment, \u0026amp; two assistant mobility). We principals. use a formula At the two to determine high schools, the assignment they have of additional three assistant assistant principals. principals. Springdale Mr. Hartzell Uses the state Currently, all School Jones, Deputy standard as a of their District Superintendent .. mm1mum elementary guideline in schools (500- assigning 700 students) assistant have an AP. principals. The two middle schools (close to 1,000 students) have two APs. The three junior highs (700-800 enrollment) have two APs. The one high school (2, 800) has one AP. Each year, the district examines the needs of schools, enrollment, and the resources to determine the assignment of an AP. Other factors such as teacher evaluation, school accountability, safety, special education monitoring and compliance, and NCLB demands warranted an AP in most of their schools regardless of the enrollment. \u0026gt; f) .,, m :a is zz m,.... n ~ C) m en :.,,s c::: \nt,a:J nc::: :z: en \u0026gt;z enm men  en ~ en 6 !B 0~ r-m a, en c::: en m en !I' E 0 c::: e..n.. ..\u0026gt;..,, z C) ~~ \u0026gt;\nic no -\u0026lt;c::: oz:z:! .. m t.,~,~ ~m r-\n,c en !I' E z c..:.::. emn Benton Mr. Dan Jordan, Complies with This year, the one School Assistant state district will District Superintendent of regulations but hire an AP Personnel/Student this past year, for the 4 Services two APs were elementary hired to work schools who half day in two will serve as assigned AP half day elementary and as a schools. The curriculum secondary coordinator schools have 2 for a half day. APs. Pulaski Mrs. Susan Does not At the The district County Alford, comply with elementary believes it Special Administrative the state level, a does better School Assistant regulations school with than the state District because of the an enrollment standard. small between 325- enrollment. 600 gets an AP. Regardless of enrollment, the If it exceeds secondary 600, the schools will school gets an have an AP. additional AP. At the secondary level, they all have one AP. Schools with 500-899 enrollment will have an additional AP. A school that exceeds 900 will get an additional AP. North Mr. Danny Reed, Uses the state No specific Little Rock Administrative andNCA rubric or School Director of standards as written District Personnel/Special the minimum guidelines are Services requirement\nestablished. however, some The district of your smaller places APs schools under based on 500 enrollment special do have AP. program needs, size, and school improvement status. Special program needs and school improvement status may affect the placing of additional assistant principals in some schools. \u0026gt; r, \"0 m\n,c Cl) 0 z z I!! n ::c ~ C) m Cl) :.,s c \n,c CD nc :CC/) \u0026gt;z \"m'm\"'  Cl) ~Cl) :cm 8~ r-m CD Cl) C ~ Cl) !XI\nI: 0 C C_l,) ..\u0026gt;,,,, z C) !XI\nI: z C_ , m Cl) School HIGH SCHOOLS Central Fair Hall McClellan Metro Parkview MIDDLE SCHOOLS Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heiqhts Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heiqhts Southwest ELEMENTARY Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Sprinqs Gibbs Jefferson Assistant Principals Little Rock School District Enrollment Present October 1, 2003 2111 2424 1023 1149 1327 1392 1006 1046 1131 1132 791 708 757 799 781 711 663 661 654 647 868 882 725 705 519 529 325 328 298 281 606 633 338 327 501 512 485 477 382 351 205 216 206 181 347 387 384 376 503 560 314 290 314 311 403 423 FTE's 6 3 4 4 0 4 1 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 3 2.5 2 1 1 1 School Enrollment October 1, 2003 King 584 Mabelvale 249 McDermott 371 Meadowcliff 327 Mitchell 255 Otter Creek 452 Pulaski HeiQhts 285 Rightsell 292 Rockefeller 393 Romine 277 Stephens 547 Terry 514 Wakefield 347 Washington 466 Watson 497 Western Hills 296 Williams 461 Wilson 283 Woodruff 257 Present FTE's 611 1 235 385 312 181 524 290 217 462 1 333 475 1 583 1 395 574 1 469 263 465 1 270 202 \u0026gt; r..,, m\n,o Cl) 0z z m r(\") :z: ~ G') m Cl) :.is C: .\n,o CD (\") C: %Cl\u0026gt; \u0026gt;z cnm mcn  Cl) \"\u0026lt;\"'\u0026gt;\"m' :Z:\n,o 0\u0026lt; 0\u0026lt;'5 r- m CDCI\u0026gt; C: Cl) m Cl) ?\u0026gt; :\u0026lt; \u0026gt;::O \u0026lt;\"\u0026gt;0 ... C: 5z::z::! .. m .~., I..:. ! ... .... ~ Cl) !D 31: z .C..: m Cl) Attachrent E Directorate of Facility Services, 3601 S Bryant, Little Rock, AR 72204 To: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent, School Services From: Douglas Eaton Director, Facility Services Subject: School Update Date: 7/15/04 Attached is an update of significant activities in preparation for the 04-05 SY. For clarification, notes: stating \"no work\" refers to schools with no capital projects, \"general cleaning\" refers to normal custodial preparation, \"gym\" refers to floor refinishing. If you have any questions, please let me know. ls/Doug SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SITE SCHOOL 1 CENTRAL Construction ongoing, 2/3 cent flr, gym complete late summer, start 1st flr S 8 J.A FAIR Construction complete, finishing details, gym flr refinish\n7/15-7/18 2 HALL No construction, general cleaning , gym refinish 7/9-7/10 12 MCCLELLAN Construction onaoing, complete late summer, resurface park lot, early fall, gym floor done 5 PARKVIEW Construction onQoina, comp fall, gym refinish 7/18-7/22, paint bid late fall, resurface park lot 4 METROPOLITAN Construction complete. Doino details, general cleaning MIDDLE SCHOOLS 15 CLOVERDALE No construction, Qeneral cleaninQ 7 DUNBAR Construction ongoinQ, media center comp. late summer, gym done 9 FOREST HEIGHTS No construction, general cleaning, gym refinish 7n-7!8 13 HENDERSON No construction, install lockers early fall, gym done, general cleaning 16 MABELVALE No construction, gym done, general cleaning, movinQ portables, resurface parking lot summer 3 MANN No construction, minor details finish up, general cleaninQ. 10 PULASKI HEIGHTS Construction onaoina, media center comp. late summer, gym done 11 SOUTHWEST Construction onaoina, complete late summer, gym 7/11-7/14 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 19 BADGETT Moving Wakefield staff out/Mitchell in 17 BALE No work general cleaninQ 22 BASELINE Construction ongoing, complete late summer 6 BOOKER Construction replacing gym roof, complete July 04 18 BRADY Construction ongoing, new add complete late summer, room hvac/ceilings ongoing to early fall 21 CARVER no work aeneral cleaning 28 CHICOT Exterior construction complete, insulation complete late summer. Ins portable, fire alarm uDQrade 31 CLOVERDALE No work Qeneral cleanina 32 DODD No work Qeneral cleanina. Install portable, uDQrading fire alarm 23 FAIR PARK No work general cleaning, start design for bond projects 24 FOREST PARK No work general cleaning, installing portable 25 FRANKLIN No work general cleaning 48 FULBRIGHT No work aeneral cleanina, installina portables 26 GARLAND No work aeneral cleanina 37 GEYER SPRINGS No work Qeneral cleaninQ 27 GIBBS No work general cleaning , start design bond project 30 JEFFERSON No work general cleaning 35 KING No work general cleanina 46 MABELVALE No work aeneral cleanina, uparadinQ fire alarm 20 MCDERMOTT No work Qeneral cleaninQ, uDQrading fire alarm 33 MEADOWCLIFF No work Qeneral cleaning, start design bond project 34 MITCHELL Construction ongoing for remediation, complete late summer 50 OTTERCREEK No work general cleaning 38 PULASKI HEIGHTS Construction ongoing, complete late summer, except parking lot. 39 RIGHTSELL No work aeneral cleanina 36 ROCKEFELLER No work aeneral cleanina 40 ROMINE No work Qeneral cleaninQ 47 TERRY No work general cleaning, installing portables 51 WAKEFIELD Construction ongoing, to be open early August 42 WASHINGTON No work general cleaning, upgradina fire alarm 52 WATSON No work aeneral cleanina 29 WESTERN HILLS No work aeneral cleaning, upQrading fire alarm 43 WILLIAMS Finishing construction detail list. Resurface park lot. 44 WILSON No work general cleaning 45 WOODRUFF No work general cleaning 14 ALT LEARNING CTR. No work general cleaning 7/17/2004 SCHOOLS \u0026gt; r, \"ti m\na :g z z m r n $\nz C) m en :.,,s c\na a, n c: ::c en ~z mUl ' en !!l en 5!:l o\u0026lt; rhi a, en C: en m en !Jl !I: 0 C: !!l ..\u0026gt;..,,,, z C) !Jl :i::: z .C...:. m en ATTACHMENT F July 15, 2004 TO: Sadie Mitchell, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent - School Services FR: Krista Underwood - Director - Early Childhood RE: Report on Expansion of the Pre-K Program Please see attached chart for additional information. Schools Approved for Funding by ABCSS (First group of schools shown on the chart) In the seventeen schools which were approved for funding, the district had hoped to open twelve (12) new Pre-K classrooms in the following schools: Baseline (1 new classroom) Brady (1) Chicot (2) Cloverdale (1) Dodd (1) Mabel vale( 1) Stephens (1) Wakefield (1) Washington (2) Wilson (1) On the chart, the number of potential classrooms to be added is shown in column E: # added classrooms. After working with student registration and trying to project the level of interest in the community, of the twelve potentially new classrooms, the district decided to open seven (7) new classrooms in the following schools: Brady, Chicot (1 classroom only), Dodd, Mabelvale, Stephens, Wakefield, Washington (1 only) On the chart, these numbers are shown in column H: # classrooms adding. The district also decided to \"hold\" or delay opening new classrooms in the following schools until there was more assurance we would have students to fill the classrooms: Baseline, Cloverdale, Chicot (1), Washington (1) and Wilson On the chart, these numbers are shown in column I:# classrooms holding. Schools Eligible but Not Approved for ABCSS Funding (Second group of schools on the chart) The district decided to hold opening new classrooms in the non-funded schools except for Meadowcliff and Otter Creek. See justification for Otter Creek below. Schools Not Eligible for ABCSS Funding (Third group of schools on the chart) Because of the level of demand for Pre-K classrooms in these schools (Fulbright, Jefferson, Terry, Otter Creek, McDermott, and Forest Park), the district decided to open one additional classroom ( 6 total) in each of those schools. These schools are shown in the last group of schools listed on the chart. Even though these schools were not eligible for funding, it was the decision of the district to divert district funding that would be the source of funds for the seventeen funded schools to expansion of the Pre-K classrooms in these schools. All of the procedures and activities for opening the 12 new classrooms are currently in motion. \u0026gt; .f.l, m\na en 0 z z ,m.... C'l ::c ~ C\u0026gt; m en :..,:s c \na a, nc ::c en l\nz mUl ' en !!l en :cm 0~ 0\u0026lt;\"5 r-m a, en C gi en !\"' I: 0 C ~ ..\u0026gt;..,, z C\u0026gt; !\"' 3r:: z .C.. . m en School # #Pre # PreK Funding # Kinder K Clsrm added 2004-05 Status clsrms clsrms classes now classrooms adding holding 1 Bale 3 2 0 2 ApproYed 0 0 2 Baseline 2 2 l 3 ApproYed 0 l 3 Brach- 3 1 1 2 AooroYed i 0 4 Chicot 5 2 2 4 ApproYed 1 l 5 CloYerdale 4 2 1 3 AooroYed 0 1 6 Dodd 2 l 1 2 ApproYed 1 0 7 Fair Park 2 2 0 2 AoorO\\ed 0 0 8 Franklin 3 ., 0 3 ApprO\\ed 0 0 9 King 5 4 0 4 ApprO\\ed 0 0 10 MableYale 2 l l 2 ApproYed l 0 11 Mitchell i -t- G G ApproYed G 0 12 Rockefeller 3 4 0 2 AooroYed 0 0 13 Stephens 4 3 1 4 ApprO\\ed l 0 14 Wakefield 3 l 1 2 AooroYed l 0 15 Washington 5 3 2 5 Approyed l 1 16 Watson 4 2 0 2 ApproYed 0 0 17 Wilson 2 l 1 2 AoproYed 0 l 18 Woodmff (ABC) 2 2 0 2 Appro,ed-Renewal 0 0 TOTAL 54 35 12 44 7 5 19 Can-er 4 0 l l Not AooroYed 0 l 20 Gever Sorine:s 3 2 1 3 Not Approved 0 1 21 Meadowcliff 3 l 1 2 Not Appro\\'ed l 0 22 Otter Creek 4 l l 2 Not AooroYed l 0 23 Riuhtsell (ABC) 2 2 0 2 Not AooroYed 0 0 24 Romine (ABC) 3 2 1 3 Not Aooroved 0 1 25 Western Hills 2 1 l 2 Not ApprO\\ed 0 1 TOTAL 21 9 6 15 2 4 26 Booker 5 0 0 0 Non-elig 0 0 27 Forest Park 3 l 1 2 Non-elie: l 0 28 Fulbright 4 l l 2 Non-elig l 0 29 Gibbs 2 0 0 0 Non-elie: 0 0 30 Jefferson 2 l 1 2 Non-elig 1 0 31 McDermott 3 1 1 2 Non-elig 1 0 32 Pulaski Heights 2 1 0 1 Non-elig 0 0 33 Tem 5 1 1 2 Non-elig 1 0 34 Williams 3 0 0 0 Non-elig 0 0 TOTAL 29 6 5 11 5 0 TOTAL 104 50 23 70 14 9 DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKA SAS July 22, 2004 Board of Education ~ Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Roy Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Perso1U1el Changes It is recommended that the following perso1mel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.C.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2004 are considered intern teachers. \u0026gt; :.,,s c  ::a to nc :z: V, i'\nZ m~  V, ~ V, :z:m g~ r-m to u, C V, m V, !:D 31: 0 C ~ ..\u0026gt;..,, z Cl .r.\u0026gt;, z \u0026gt;z n ~ V, ~~ ~p co \u0026lt;- V, ocZ\na Cl z::a\ncm .~.... ~::a\n:,,\nu, -~~----------- Personnel Changes Page 2 July 22 , 2004 NAME Alexander, Reba Reason: Contract Ended Andrews, Ashley Reason: Contract Ended Bartholorne\\\\, Roseleta Reason: Contract Ended Beggs, Melinda Reason: Contract Ended Birtcher, James Reason: Contract Ended Berry, Laura Reason: None Given Blalock, Kellie Reason: Leaving City Bledsoe, Fred Reason: Contract Ended Botner, Janice Reason: Retired Brandt, Nancy Reason: Retired POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations Certified Emplovees Cosmetology 9-29-03 1-05 METRO. 6-1-04 TCH950 Elem. Tutor 2-16-04 1-01 BALE 5-28-04 TCH925 Alt. Skills 10-8-03 1-04 ACC 5-28-04 TCH925 English 1-20-04 4- 19 CE TRAL 5-28-04 TCH925 Law Enforcement 9-8-03 1-13 METRO. 5-28-04 TCH925 Special Ed. 8-7-02 5- 15 FRANKLIN 7-2-04 SPE925 Elem II 8-7-03 1-02 GEYER SPRINGS 7-1-04 TCH925 Art 1-20-04 1-01 MCCLELLAN 5-28-04 TCH925 ElemV 8-18-80 4- 19 MCDERMOTT 5-28-04 TCH925 Librarian 8-24-78 6-2 1 WESTERN HILLS 5-28-04 C L950 ANNUAL SALARY 33506.00 30040.00 32350.00 54561.00 42729.00 51154.00 30617.00 30040.00 49737.00 54700.00 Personnel Changes Page 3 July 22 , 2004 NAME Brown, Carleton Reason: Contract Ended Brown, Verlyn Reason: Contract Ended Brown, William Reason: Contract Ended Burgess, Karen Reason: Retired Cain, Mruy Reason: Contract Ended Carter, Arre! Reason: Contract Ended Cherepski, Donald Reason: Contract Ended Christensen, Kevin Reason: Contract Ended Crossley, Demetria Reason: Contract Ended Davis, Lavera Reason: Retired Delozier, Mary Gail Reason: Retired POSITION SCHOOL English CE TRAL Elem. Tutor FAIR.PARK Math CE TRAL Elem Il MEADOW CLIFF ElemV GEYER SPRINGS Special Ed. ALC Leaming Skills MCCLELLAN Economics CE TRAL Math START DATE END DATE 1-20-04 5-28-04 2-23-04 5-28-04 9-10-03 5-28-04 8-21-78 5-28-04 1-20-04 5-28-04 2-9-04 5-28-04 9-24-03 5-28-04 9-29-03 5-28-04 2-13-04 CLOVERDALE MID. 5-28-04 Voe. Bus. 7-30-98 HALL 6-16-04 Elem I 8-21-73 FAIR.PARK 5-28-04 SALARY CLASS 4-01 TCH925 1-10 TCH925 2-12 TCH925 3-18 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 1-06 SPE925 6-11 TCHl0 1-02 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 5-20 TCH10 4-19 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 34575.00 35711.00 43095.00 47294.00 32350.00 34661.00 48121.00 30617.00 32350.00 52205.00 49737.00 \u0026gt; :..,s c \no CD C'\u0026gt;C ::c VJ l\nZ mm  VJ !': VJ s~ 0,-m~ CD VJ C VJ m VJ !Jl 31: 0 !:: VJ -\u0026lt; \u0026gt;-n -n z C\u0026gt; 0 -n z \u0026gt;z C'\u0026gt; \u0026gt; r- VJ ~~ :i,_p co o\u0026lt;-\"-' cZ\no C\u0026gt; ~~ ~!f: -\u0026lt;\no\n,,\n\"' Personnel Changes Page 4 July 22, 2004 NAME Dyer, Julie Reason: Contract Ended Fall, Libasse Reason: Contract Ended Farrar, eoma Reason: Contract Ended Ford, Tom Reason: Retired Fornero, Dan Reason: Retired Frasier, Coreen Reason: Retired Gilliam, Jacqueline Reason: Personal Glassco, Belinda Reason: Retired Green, Michelle Reason: Contract Ended Griffin, Kelli Reason: Accepted Another Position Griffin, Valarie Reason: Personal POSITION SCHOOL Elem IV STEPHE s Spanish I CENTRAL Elem Tutor CHICOT ElemV WAKEFIELD Yoe. Data Proc. DUNBAR Elem PE ROCKEFELLER Kindergarten DODD Special Ed. FAIR Elem Tutor BALE Elem I WASHINGTON Elem III MITCHELL START DATE END DATE 1-22-04 6-29-04 1-29-03 5-28-04 2-16-04 5-28-04 8-7-03 5-28-04 7-17-03 5-31-04 8-27-74 5-28-04 8-13-01 5-28-04 8-24-92 5-28-04 2-23-04 5-28-04 8-13-01 7-1-04 8-13-01 6-29-04 SALARY CLASS 1-05 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 4-13 TCH925 5-20 TCHl0 4-19 TCH925 1-14 K925 5-20 SPE925 1-01 TCH925 2-08 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 33506.00 30617.00 30040.00 42985.00 52205.00 49737.00 39913.00 57276.00 30040.00 38474.00 28359.00 Personnel Changes Page 5 July 22, 2004 NAME Gurley, Tara Reason: Contract Ended Harder, Melanie Reason: Contract Ended HaITison, Kenneth Reason: Contract Ended Hemphill, James Reason: Contract Ended Hines, Thana Reason: Contract Ended Horne, Wanda Reason: Contract Ended Howard-Klein, Risie Reason: Contract Ended Howse, Marion Reason: Contract Ended Jackson, Marlo Reason: Ce1i. Expired James, Charlotte Reason: Retired Jolmson, Marcus Reason: Contract Ended POSITION SCHOOL Kindergarten STEPHE s Phy. Science FAIR Geometry Leaving City Spanish I MCCLELLAN G\u0026amp;T MEADOW CLIFF Special Ed. HENDERSON Chemistry MCCLELAN Alt. Skills ALC ElemV MEADOW CLIFF Elem IV WATSON Instr. Music MANN START DATE END DATE 8-25-03 6-29-04 1-20-04 5-28-04 1-22-04 5-28-04 11-20-03 5-28-04 8-20-03 5-28-04 2-17-04 5-28-04 8-18-95 5-28-04 10-13-03 5-28-04 8-7-03 7-1-04 8-31-70 5-28-04 4-2-04 5-28-04 SALARY CLASS 1-02 K925 2-03 TCH925 4-18 TCH925 1-06 TCH925 2-05 G\u0026amp;T925 1-04 SPE925 4-08 TCH925 6-21 TCH925 4-08 TCH925 6-21 TCH925 1-0 I TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 30617.00 32697.00 53061.00 34661.00 35008.00 29409.00 37733.00 60020.00 41507.00 54700.00 30040.00 \u0026gt; :,,s c\n,:,a, oc ::c\"' l\n:\n2 mg) ~' \"\"'' :cm 0~ ,0-\u0026lt;'m5 a,\"' C \"m' \"' !I' :I: 0 C\n--\u0026lt; ..\u0026gt;..,, z C) .r.,, z \u0026gt; z 0 ,)\u0026gt;- \"' ~ ~ 0 c\u0026gt;ro- co'-Z\"-'\n,:, C) z\n,:, 3:::m ~~ --\u0026lt;\n,:,\n:,: \"' Personnel Changes Page 6 July 22, 2004 NAME Jones, Katherine Reason: Accepted Another Position Kesler, Martha Reason: Contract Ended King, Can11elita Reason: Contract Ended Kuhn, Scarlett Reason: Contract Ended Lane, Therese Reason: Leaving City Lark, Wilda Reason: Contract Ended Larkowski, Alm Reason: Personal Larry, Betty Reason: Contract Ended Lee, Canaa Reason: Contract Ended Lockhart, Kelly Reason: Contract Ended Logan, Jacob Reason: Contract Ended POSITION SCHOOL Kindergarten MEADOW CLIFF Librarian START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 6-22-04 8-22-03 CLOVERDALE MID.6-7-04 English 2-23-04 FAIR 5-28-04 Elem III 1-26-04 STEPHENS 6-29-04 Elem. IV 8-13-01 GEYER SPRINGS 7-28-04 Math Coach 9-2-03 DODD 5-28-04 Counselor 8-20-90 ROCKEFELLER 5-28-04 Keyboarding 2-5-04 MABELV ALE MID. 5-28-04 Math 10-20-03 CE TRAL 5-28-04 Pre-Algebra 2-16-04 PUL. HGTS. MID. 5-28-04 American History 9-8-03 MABELV ALE MID. 5-28-04 SALARY CLASS 1-01 K925 1-07 LIB950 4-06 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 1-15 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 4-14 CNL925 4-01 TCH925 2-03 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 30040.00 35816.00 39196.00 33506.00 45059.00 29409.00 44035.00 34575.00 32697.00 30040.00 30617.00 Personnel Changes Page 7 July 22 , 2004 NAME McCarther, Geraldine Reason: Retired McDaniel, Yv01me Reason: Contract Ended McPeake, Karen Reason: Accepted Another Position Maher, Donna Reason: Contract Ended Miller, Qwyla Reason: Contract Ended Moore, Janice Reason: Retired Muhanmiad, Khaleelah Reason: Contract Ended Neumeier, Cynthia Reason: Contract Ended Ogden, Marolyn Reason: Retired Oshea, Christine Reason: Contract Ended Pan-, Patricia Reason: Contract Ended POSITION SCHOOL ElemV MCDERMOTT Elem. Ill START DATE END DATE 8-21-89 5-28-04 1-14-04 CLOVERDALE EL. 6-29-04 Libra1ian 8-10-98 ROMINE 6-9-04 Inst. Music 8-25-03 MABELVALE MID. 5-28-04 Special Ed. 3-2-04 M 5-28-04 Elem II 8-24-87 MABEL VALE EL. 6-29-04 Elem IV 1-14-04 STEPHE s 6-29-04 Elem II 1-5-04 MCDERMOTT 5-28-04 Elem II 8-22-77 WILSON 8-7-04 Elem Tutor 3-25-04 WAKEFIELD 5-28-04 ElemV 2-9-04 FAIR.PARK 5-28-04 SALARY CLASS 5-20 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 4-13 LIB950 6-05 TCH925 1-03 SPE925 2-17 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 6-21 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 4-14 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 52205.00 30040.00 42985.00 41189.00 31195.00 44879.00 30617.00 32560.00 54700.00 31431.00 44035.00 \u0026gt; :.,,s c \nDID n::c c V, ~z mm ' V, l!l V, :cm 0~ O,..\u0026lt;..m\"'i ID v, C V, m V, !I' I: 0 C\n..... ..\u0026gt;..,, z G) 0.., z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt; r- V, ~~ ~p co L.. V, ocZ-\nD G) ~~ ~ ~ --t\nD :,:: V, Personnel Changes Page 8 July 22, 2004 NAME Pierce, Lizete Reason: Contract Ended Pugh, Linda Reason: Retired Richardson, Shoutell Reason: Leaving City Robinson, Preston Reason: Contract Ended Scrubbs, Verna POSITION SCHOOL Spanish I CE TRAL Kinderga11en WESTERN HILLS Leaming Skills WILSO Civics HALL Elem ill Reason: Not Returning From BOOKER Leave Sherwood,Sherry Elem III Reason: Retired FAIR PARK Smith, Laura Speech Path Reason: Leaving City MABELV ALE EL. Smith, Michelle Elem II Reason: Contract Ended MCDERMOTT Snider, Adrie1me Elem II Reason: Contract Ended MITCHELL Sutton, Wilma Social Studies Reason: Contract Ended MANN Thom, Ellen Elem IV Reason: Contract Ended RIGHTSELL START DATE END DATE 1-6-04 5-28-04 2-1-80 5-28-04 8-14-95 6-30-04 10-6-03 5-28-04 8-21-89 6-1-04 9-21-87 5-28-04 8-12-99 5-28-04 1-5-04 5-28-04 8-18-03 6-29-03 10-13-03 5-28-04 10-20-03 5-28-04 SALARY CLASS 1-03 TCH925 4-19 K925 5-10 TCHII 6-10 TCH925 2-17 TCH925 1-17 TCH925 62-16 SPE925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 3-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 31195.00 49737.00 45377.00 46966.00 44879.00 43513.00 57384.00 27309.00 27309.00 31195.00 30040.00 Personnel Changes Page 9 July 22, 2004 NAME Thomas, Shauna Reason: Contract Ended Treat, Heather Reason: Contract Ended Walker, Charles Reason: Contract Ended Watkins, Cindy Reason: Contract Ended Watson, Charlotte Reason: Contract Ended Watson, Fredonia Reason: Retired West, Angela Reason: Contract Ended White, Susan Reason: Contract Ended Williams, Kay Reason: Retired Wilson, Edna Reason: Retired Wise, Marshalette Reason: Contract Ended POSITION SCHOOL lnst. Music FOREST HEIGHTS Elem I CHICOT Alt. Skills ALC Spanish I DUNBAR Business Ed. ALC 4 Yr. Old ROCKEFELLER Elem I WILSO Economics FAIR Counselor WILSON Gen. Music WAKEFIELD English HENDERSON START DATE END DATE I 0-15-03 5-28-04 2-2-04 5-28-04 1-5-04 5-28-04 1-14-04 5-28-04 3-29-04 5-28-04 8-27-84 5-28-04 10-20-03 5-28-04 9-26-03 5-28-04 1-21-88 5-28-04 8-24-87 8-9-04 1-12-04 5-28-04 SALARY CLASS 1-10 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 4-08 TCH928 1-16 TCH925 6-04 TCH925 5-20 4YROLD 5-11 TCH925 4-05 TCH925 6-21 C L925 4-18 TCH925 4-04 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 39283.00 30040.00 41507.00 42013.00 40034.00 52205.00 42302.00 38041.00 54700.00 53061.00 33532.00  :,,s c::\n:ca:, (\")C:: :z: en i\nZ mill ' en !!l en 6~ o\u0026lt; .... ~ a:, en c:: en m en !I\u0026gt; !I: 0 ~ e..n.. ....,, z (\n) .0., z  z (\") \u0026gt;,... en ~~ :,.~ 00 o\u0026lt;- e-n c::Z\n:c(\n) z\n:c\ni:m ~~ --\u0026lt;\n:c\n,: en Personnel Changes Page 10 July 22, 2004 NAME Withers, Aaron Reason: Contract Ended Williams, Frank NONE NONE POSITION SCHOOL Music ROMINE START DATE END DATE 1-5-04 5-28-04 New Certified Employees Music 8-2-04 MABELV ALE MID. Certified Promotion Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS 1-04 TCH925 6-08 TCH925 Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees Anglin, Elizabeth Nurse 10-18-71 2-15 Reason: Retired MITCHELL 6-29-04 NURSES Briggs, Bobby Custodian 3-6-00 2-15 Reason: Retired FOREST HEIGHTS 7-1-04 CUS12 Corbin, Marquitta Instr. Aide 7-1-02 1-02 Reason: Returning To School FOREST HEIGHTS 5-11-04 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 29409.00 44655.00 42328.00 42328.00 11425.00 Personnel Changes Page 11 July 22 , 2004 NAME Dwyer,Mike Reason: Contract Ended Fortenberry, Carolyn Reason: None Given Golston, Shawn Reason: Position Eliminated Jennings, Phillip Reason: Leaving City Jones, Shirley Reason: Retired Jordan, Patricia Reason: Retired Hartaway, Amiee Reason: Retired Henderson, Bernice Reason: Retired Hughes, Helen Reason: Retired Perkins, Viola Reason: Retired Moore, Eddie Reason: Retired POSITION SCHOOL Social Worker START DATE END DATE 10-2-01 PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-8-04 Bus Driver 1-29-04 TRANSPORT A TIO 5-19-04 Security Officer 8-11-03 SAFETY SECURITY 7-1-04 Custodian 1-26-01 WILLIAMS 6-3-04 Instr. Aide 8-23-89 WASHINGTO 6-30-04 Instr. Aide 8-28-78 ROCKEFELLER 5-28-04 Child uttition 2-4-98 WILLIAMS 5-28-04 Instr. Aide 8-23-76 ROCKEFELLER 6-30-04 Instr. Aide 9-30-80 MEADOW CLIFF 5-28-04 Child Nutrition 2-19-93 MCDERMOTT 4-21-04 Custodian 7-1-92 PUL. HGTS. MID. 7-2-94 SALARY CLASS 37-20 A 10 2-02 BUSDRV 37-20 A 10 1-03 CUS12 l-10 INA925 l-10 INA925 2-06 FSMGRS 1-10 INA12 1-04 INA185 3-11 FSH550 31-61 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 30660.00 12108.00 30660.00 14953.00 14472.00 14472.00 14837.00 18683.00 12513.00 8767.00 22752.00 \u0026gt; :.,,~ C:\nc CD 0 C: :t:m \u0026gt;z mmmm ' m !!l m s~ o\u0026lt; r-i:\\ CD m C: mm m !I' 31: 0 ~ m.... ..\u0026gt;..,, z G) .0., z \u0026gt;z (\") ,\u0026gt;... m ~~ ~p co o\u0026lt;- m- c:Z\nc G) z\nc 3:m ~\n....\nc\n,\nm Personnel Changes Page 12 July 22 , 2004 NAME Siepiola, Amanda Reason: Personal Thomas, Jimmie Reason: Retired Thompson, Lee Reason: Personal Thomas, Deborah Reason: Position Eliminated Tinkle, Betty Reason: Retired Weaver, Nellieann Reason: Position Eliminated Williams, Kimberly POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide MABEL VALE EL. Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Maintenance FACILITY SERV. Instr. Aide GEYER SPRINGS Secretary CENTRAL Instr. Aide STEPHENS Instr. Aide Reason: Returning To School CHICOT START DATE END DATE 9-3-03 6-29-04 8-3-99 5-28-04 3-15-01 7-1-04 8-7-02 5-29-03 8-10-92 7-5-04 1-14-04 6-29-04 9-8-87 8-1-04 SALARY CLASS 1-10 INA925 2-10 FSMGRS 49-05 MAINT. 1-08 INSTRC 39-20 CLKl0 1-10 INA925 1-10 INA925 New Non-Certified Employees Bonner, Ashley Instr. Aide 6-14-04 1-10 ROCKEFELLER INA12 Smith, Margaret Instr. Aide 6-7-04 1-06 ROCKEFELLER INA12 ANNUAL SALARY 14472.00 15009.00 28032.00 19520.00 32544.00 14472.00 14472.00 18718.00 14047.00 aimual 1075.94 prorated Personnel Changes Page 13 July 22, 2004 NAME ONE ONE POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE on-Certified Promotion Non-Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS ANNUAL SALARY \u0026gt; :.,,s C: .\nJ:J CD (\") C: :z:u, \u0026gt;z \"m'mu, . \"' ~\"' 5!ll .o--\u0026lt;i:i CD u, C: gi \"' !I' :I: 0 C: .~...,, z Cl f.\".), z z\u0026gt; (\") ~ \"' ':54n Individual Approach to a LP'orld of Kno1vledge\" TRANSPORTATIO DEPARTME T July 22, 2004 To: Board of Directors From: ~\\~ It\\ Michael Martello, Director of Transportation Through: ~Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D., Superintendent Subject: Purchase of School Buses The District established a ten-year cycle to update the transportation fleet for special needs students. Presently, we have eleven ( 11) buses that have been in service in excess of ten years. In order to stay on cycle we need to purchase eight (8) buses for the 2004- 2005 school year. Enrollment at the Alternative Leaming Centers (ALC and Garland) is projected to increase by 25% next year, as evidenced by the Board-approved expansion at the June 24 Board meeting. Three of the eight new buses will be used to transport these students. The total cost of these eight buses will be approximately $480,000. It is estimated that if financed over a seven-year period, the District would have an annual payment of about $83,000. Funding for these buses has already been included in the 2004-2005 Draft Budget. It is recommended that the Board approve the purchase and financing of eight (8) buses and authorize the administration to proceed with the procurement process. 810 \\YJ. 1arkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  ,vww.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 !:D ~ 0 C: !!l ..\u0026gt;..,, z Cl 0.., z \u0026gt;z (\") ,.... \"' Date: To: From: July 22, 2004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Little Rock School District Board of Directors Dr. Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Prepared by: Ms. Beverly Williams, Director of Human Resources RE: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for Schools Mr. Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services Memorandum of understanding regarding the vote of the Board on staffing issues I June 24, 2004 After a thorough review of the minutes of the Board meeting held on Thursday, June 24, 2004, it was determined that the consensus of the Board was to approve the following staffing positions: Elementary Teachers 12.0 Elementary Teachers - split classroom 5.0 Elementary Consulting Teachers 15.0 Secondary Teachers 23.9 ALC - Garland 9.5 ALC - Apperson 6.0 Total New Positions from the 71.4 Operating Budget 2004-05 A more detailed breakdown of positions by school is attached for the Board's information. The Board approved the proposed increase of nineteen (19) new Pre-K classrooms contingent upon receipt of ABCSS grant funds from the Arkansas Department of Education. As with any classroom positions, these teachers will only be hired if the number of students requires these additional positions. Adjustments with regard to specific schools and grades may be warranted as the student population shifts throughout the District. It is the recommendation of the Superintendent that the elementary consulting teachers be employed after all the regular classrooms are staffed. It is also his recommendation that the positions at the ALC (both Garland and Apperson) be staffed only after evidence that the enrollment at these sites is sufficient to justify the positions. We are asking at this time for the Board to take action to reaffirm the intent of their consensus vote on June 24, 2004. , I ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER JUNE 30, 2004 SITE # of TYPES of POSITIONS POSITIONS APPERSON 4.0 Teachers 2.0 Paraprofessionals Sub Total 6.0 - GARLAND 1.0 Assist. Principal/Director 1.0 Secretary 0.5 PE Teacher 1.0 In-School Suspension Teacher 1.0 Special Education Teacher 1.0 Para-professional 1.0 Violence Prevention/ Case Manager Mental Health professional- Provided by Rivendell 1.0 Social Worker (Title II) 1.0 Professional Development Facilitator (Title II) 1.0 Security Guard Sub Total 9.5 Total 15.5 ELEMENTARY POSITIONS 2004-2005 JUNE 30, 2004 SCHOOL CONSULTING NET 16 (11 new TEACHERS and 5 splits) *BALE I +I *BASELINE 1 0 *BRADY 1 -1 *CLOVERDALE I -1 *DODD I +l *FAIR PARK I -1 ** *FRANKLIN 1 0 *KING 1 +1 *MABELVALE 1 +l *MITCHELL 1 -2 ** *WAKEFIELD 1 +2 *WASHINGTON 1 +3 *WATSON 1 +I *WILSON 1 0 ** *WOODRUFF I 0 ** titt.y\n, ~J'.~~.. .~. ~j,:':~~~~~ff'~~,'i~'.~~,~~:f *CHICOT +I FOREST PARK +I FULBRIGHT +2 JEFFERSON +l MCDERMOTT +I MEADOW CLIFF -I OTTERCREEK +I RIGHTSELL 0 ** ROCKEFELLER +2 ROMINE +2 STEPHENS -1 TERRY +2 WESTERN HILLS 0 TOTAL 15 16 *** * Schools designated in School Improvement ** Schools with a new position to un-split classes *** The board approved 17 positions. After reviewing the enrollment, 1 position was not utilized. I SCHOOL CENTRAL I FAIR 1, PARKVIEW MSAP SCHOOLS McClellan Fair Cloverdale MS Mabelvale MS MCCLELLAN .. TOTAL SECONDARY POSITIONS JUNE 30, 2004 # of POSITIONS TYPES of POSITIONS 14 Art, +l Fam. Consumer Science, + l Health, +l English, +2.5 Communications, + 1.5 Languages Spanish, + 1.5 Math, +l Science, +2 Social Studies, +2.5 5 Science, +2 Business Educ. + l Math, +l Social Studies, + l 2.5 Science, +l Art, +l English, +.5 Journalism,+ .5 German, -.5 7.4 Lead Teachers, +2.48 Lead Teachers,+ 1.64 Lead Teachers,+ 1.64 Lead Teachers, + 1.64 -5.0 Business-2.0, Drama-1.0, Spanish.5, Science-LO, Social Studies-.5 23.9 ' ' 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 July 22, 2004 Little Rock School District Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, ED. D., Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY:~ark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes Financial Reports _!)istrict funds are reported for the period ending June 30, 2004. To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial condition. _. Population/Location_ _ N/ A  Budget Amount/Source N/ A  Manager  Duration Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District N/ A  Needed Staff NIA -------------- ---  Comments None -------------------------  Recommendation Approval of the June 2Q04_fim_a_nci_al re_p,___orts._ ______ We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 AND 2004 UNAUDITED APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2002/03 06/30/03 COLLECTED 2003/04 06/30/04 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% 57,547,800 55,681,497 96.76% DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 10, 182,575 127.28% 10,100,000 12,168,056 120.48% 40% PULLBACK 29,400,000 28,783,688 97.90% 29,600,000 30,306,478 102.39% EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 209,598 112.08% 210,000 199,031 94.78% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 174,515 45.33% 180,000 135,184 75.10% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 337,232 249.80% 150,000 206,062 137.37% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 371 ,895 109.38% 380,000 412,550 108.57% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 207,933 75.61% 200,000 202,187 101 .09% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 194,094 121.31% 240,000 195,678 81.53% TOTAL 97,432,000 97,609,310 100.18% 98,607,800 99,506,722 100.91% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 20,836 86.82% 21 ,000 11 ,594 55.21% TOTAL 24,000 20,836 86.82% 21 ,000 11,594 55.21% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 53,029,424 96.65% 53,226,139 53,226,139 100.00% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 7,940,521 104.62% 8,300,000 7,821 ,385 94.23% VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 1,478,190 110.31% 1,400,000 1,229,030 87.79% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 1,662,633 97.80% 1,675,000 1,899,809 113.42% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 273,358 100.00% 273,358 273,358 100.00% TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 3,835,562 104.08% 3,875,562 4,019,063 103.70% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 3,684,217 112.84% 3,900,000 4,149,129 106.39% ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 1,005,814 99.98% 920,337 914,474 99.36% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 658,607 100.00% 560,545 534,979 95.44% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 32,737 27.28% TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% 285,245 285,245 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 334,672 51 .49% 360,000 711 ,853 197.74% TOTAL 75,441,106 74,221,007 98.38% 74,776,187 75,064,464 100.39% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 985,531 87.51% 1,350,000 1,175,000 87.04% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 1,600,140 96.14% 1,632,430 1,643,624 100.69% TOTAL 3,410,671 2,585,671 75.81% 3,752,430 2,818,624 75.11% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 174,436,826 98.94% 177,157,418 177,401,405 100.14% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 21,830,439 86.79% 24,075,790 21,523,290 89.40% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 3,881,457 97.52% 4,000,000 4,390,381 109.76% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 24,163,584 96.40% 24,689,351 23,837,815 96.55% TOTAL 54,198,923 49,875,480 92.02% 52,765,141 49,751,486 94.29% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 224,312,305 97.31% 229,922,559 227,152,891 98.80% - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 AND 2004 UNAUDITED - APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2002/03 06/30/03 EXPENDED 2003/04 06/30/04 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 99,232,348 98.38% 100,684,982 102,304,352 101 .61% BENEFITS 24,838,361 25,391,417 102.23% 26,483,772 26,084,319 98.49% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 20,558,728 103.85% 19,719,297 20,524,209 104.08% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 7,546,057 90.40% 8,185,459 8,598,890 105.05% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 1,248,964 77.24% 1,575,580 1,614,472 102.47% OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 7,903,980 92.89% 8,384,567 8,376,496 99.90% DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 12,086,131 98.93% 12,098,342 12,063,607 99.71% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176, 189,538 173,967,623 98.74% 177,131,999 179,566,345 101.37% - EXPENSES-OTHER -FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 19,917,300 76.17% 26,056,193 21 ,782,709 83.60% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 3,881,457 97.52% 4,000,000 3,900,916 97.52% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 24,163,584 96.40% 24,689,351 23,837,815 96.55% TOTAL 55,194,668 47,962,341 86.90% 54,745,544 49,521,440 90.46% TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 221,929,964 95.91% 231,877,543 229,087,785 98.80% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 2,382,340 (1 ,954,984) (1 ,934,895) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,645,440 3,558,580 3,558,580 OPERATING 8,557,652 8,557,652 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 3,558,580 1,578,177 3,788,627 OPERATING 8,675,891 9,026,855 9,052,274 6,861 ,915 TOTAL 9,325,586 12,585,435 10,630,451 10,650,541 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2004 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 06-30-04 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 (15,326.00) 17,956.90 MCCLELLAN 77,219.02 77,219.02 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE 15,326.00 14,929.88 396.12 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 110,501 .92 0.00 0.00 14,929.88 0.00 95,572.04 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 87,000.00 114,896.16 4,906.21 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 3,467,037.15 15,993,062.06 6,088,520.49 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 27,732.72 14,541 .25 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 9,012.76 20,856.80 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 7,686,775.83 2,887,763.72 7,567,591.92 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31 ,306,506.59 152,200.50 19,087,158.22 12,371,548.87 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 1,007,419.97 1,327,599.27 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 11 ,393,013.48 39,127,045.61 0.00 27,395,564.81 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 1,000.00 445,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 (7,931,454.48) 14,143,144.75 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 1,210,220.06 (3,461 ,559.00) 5,037,437.95 SUBTOTAL 31,107,082.11 1,211,220.06 (11 ,393,013.48) 0.00 0.00 20,925,288.69 GRAND TOTAL I!\n!!\\Z l l!Q l!Z l m 2~Q!i 2.J!l2\nll!HlllZHll lLl!2 !111:tlH.i:~ ~!\\ PROJECT CATEGORIES ADMINISTRATION NEW WORK PROJECTS SECURITY PROJECTS LIGHTING PROJECTS MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR RENOVATION PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS TOTAL I PROJECT ALLOCATIONS THRU 06-30-04 673,846.55 38,786,097.95 265,814.17 4,883,405.13 18,920.386.34 I 51 ,641,607.54 1 11,735,611.78 I 15,436,965.72 142,343,735.18 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2004 EXPENSE EXPENSE ENCUMBERED 2000-01 EXPENSE 2001-02 EXPENSE 2002-03 THRU 06-30-04 THRU 06-30-04 SUBTOTAL 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 149,597.63 114,896.16 0.00 668,940.34 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11,671,442.11 15,993,062.06 0.00 32,697,577.46 113,930.47 109,609.73 27,732.72 0.00 251,272.92 2,641,482.13 1 1,832,392.06 379,661.38 9,012.76 0.00 4,862,548.33 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 2,887,763.72 I 0.00 11,352,794.42 397,615.34 I 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 19,087,158.22 0.00 39,270,058.67 575,016.53 I 4,325,201.40 4,500,374.61 1,007,419.97 10,408,012.51 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 39,127,045.61 0.00 99,511,204.65 ENDING ALLOCATION 06-30-04 4,906.21 6,088,520.49 14,541 .25 20,856.80 7,567,591 .92 12,371,548.87 1,327,599.27 15,436,965.72 42,832,530.53 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2004 I I I I I j I Fund Purchase Maturity Institution Interest Rate 1 Type Principal Date Date I I TFN I Operating 06-25-04 Bank of America 0.790% Repo 2,400,000.00 Operating I 06-25-04 07-12-04 Bank of America 1.090% Treasury Bills 9,000,364.93 I I I Operating 06-01-04 07-02-04 Twin City Bank I 1.860% I CD 4,616,785.99 Operating I 06-30-04 I 07-12-04 I Bank of America 1.120% I Treasury Bills 2,099,216.00 Total 18,116,366.92 I I I t I Payroll 05-14-04 I 07-01-04 I Twin City Bank 1.860% CD I 2,400,000.00 Payroll 05-14-04 I 07-15-04 Twin City Bank 1.860% I CD 2,400,000.00 I Payroll 06-07-04 08-02-04 I Twin City Bank 1.640% CD 1,790,000.00 Payroll 06-17-04 08-16-04 Twin City Bank 1.860% CD 1,790,000.00 t I 8,380,000.00 I I Food Service 06-25-04 07-12-04 Bank of America 1.090% Treasury Bills 1,400,278.87 Food Service 06-30-04 07-12-04 Bank of America 1.120% Treasury Bills 499,813.33 I 1,900,092.20 Activity Fund 06-25-04 07-12-04 Bank of America 1.090% Treasury Bills 929,521.31 Total I 929,521 .31 I 03-08-04 09-06-04 I Bond Account Regions 1.050% CD I 400,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-16-04 07-14-04 Metropolitan 1.930% CD 1,000,934.31 Capital Projects Fund 01-16-04 07-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks I 1.400% I CD 5,231,393.21 ' I Capital Projects Fund 01-30-04 01-31-05 Bancorp South 1.850% I CD 2,100,244.72 Capital Projects Fund I 05-15-03 08-16-04 USBANK 1.420% CD 11,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund I 06-10-04 I 01-10-05 Bank of America 1.670% I Treasury Bills 5,385,005.84 Capital Projects Fund 06-18-04 08-02-04 Bank of the Ozarks 2.450% CD 9,000,000.00 I i Capital Projects Fund I 05-03-04 11-05-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.350% CD 3,076,650.06 Capital Projects Fund I 03-15-04 09-15-04 I Bank of the Ozarks 1.400% CD 10,293,800.80 I Capital Projects Fund I 06-25-04 TFN Bank of America 0.790% I Repo 1,500,000.00 Total 48,988,028.94 I ' Deseg Plan Scholarship I 06-22-04 12-08-04 Bank of America 1.600% I Treasury Bills 779,103.78 Total I ' I I 779,103.78 I I I I Rockefeller Scholarship I 06-10-04 i 01-10-05 Bank of America 1.670% Treasury Bills 252,468.56 Total I I 252,468.56\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":"gsl_borm_borm2004-2005","title":"Minutes, Board of Regents, 2004-2005, July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005","collection_id":"gsl_borm","collection_title":"Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_date":["2004-07-01/2005-06-30"],"dcterms_description":["Meeting minutes and agendas of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Digitization of this collection is a project of the Georgia Public Library Service, a unit of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, in association with the University System. The project is supported with federal LSTA funds administered by the Institute of Museum and Library Services."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Atlanta, Ga. : Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005"],"dcterms_subject":["Education, Higher--United States--Administration","Universities and colleges","Schools","University System of Georgia. Board of Regents","Minutes (Records)","Agendas (Series)"],"dcterms_title":["Minutes, Board of Regents, 2004-2005, July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:gsl_borm_borm2004-2005"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/gsl_borm_borm2004-2005"],"dcterms_temporal":["2004-07-01/2005-06-30"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005. Office of Legal Affairs, Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["minute books"],"dcterms_extent":["875 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1781","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum opinion.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2004-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School integration","School districts","Little Rock School District","African Americans--Education","Joshua intervenors","Education--Evaluation","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School boards","Arkansas. State Board of Education","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum opinion."],"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/1781"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["54 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    ,072A =tev.Ml2) - . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875' Filed 06/30/2004 Page 1 of 74  . . . .:..itJJdre~ ... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN \"O . EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS \" 20 04 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION ~~MES W. McCUKMr1CK, CLERK LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNlY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. I I'\u0026lt;.A THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 .. ,_ . ------ DEPCLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS I. Warning to the General Reader The general reader, if any there be, should realize that educators, like lawyers, have developed their own language. To the extent that time, patience, and skill would permit, I have tried to Gamerize~ this Memor::andwn Opinion. I have fallen short. but hope the effort will be of some help. II. Background On September 13, 2002, I entered a Memorandum Opinion (the \"September 13 Decision\") holding that the Little Rock Scho\u0026lt;,\u0026gt;I District (\"LRSD\") had substantially complied with all of its 1 I would be seriously remiss ifl did not once again note the tremendous amowit of work United States Magistrate Judge Jb'e Thomas Ray has done on this case. 2Bryan Gamer; of Dallas, Texas, has published several excellent books and articles for the legal profession ori the use of plain, widerstandable En lish. \\072A :Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW bocumenr3875 ., Filed 06i30/2004 Page 2 of 74 desegregation obligations set forth in the January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"),3 except those obligations contained in 2.7.l. LRSD v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., et al., 237 F. Supp. 2d 988 (E.D; Ark. 2002); atrd, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). Section 2.7 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement.\" Section 2. 7. I ensured that the promise made in  2. 7 would have teeth by requiring that: ex 871. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to  2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving 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. As stated above, in the September 13 Decision, I found that LRSD had substantially complied with its obligations under 2.7 of the Revised Plan; however, I determined there were numerous, substantial deficiencies in LRSD's efforts to comply with its obligations under 2. 7. I. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076-1082. The September 13 Decision gave LRSD until March 15, 2004, to demonstrate that it had substantially complied with  2. 7 .1 of the Revised ' Plan, as specified in subparts A, B, and C of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88. LRSD has been involved continuously in desegregation litigation since l 956. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at footnote 18. As far as I can tell from the reported cases, LRSD now has the 3During the 2001-02 unitary status hearings, the Revised Plan was introduced into evidence as CX87 l. -2- f A072A (Rev.8/82)   - ... . Cas-e 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 3 of 74 dubious distinction of having been under federal COl!.rt supervision longer than any other school district in history. Thus, LRSD is well seasoned when it comes to court supervision and monitoring. On November 12, 2002, Joshua Intervenors4 (\"Joshua\") appealed (docket no. 3704) the September t 3 Decision. On March 2, 2004, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. LRSD v. Joshua, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). Thus, all aspects of the September 13 Decision are now final and the law of the case. On March 12, 2004, LRSD filed its Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) seeking complete unitary status on the ground that it had substantially complied with the obligations imposed under the Compliance Remedy and 2.7.l of the Revised Plan. On April 15, 2004, Joshua filed an Opposition to LRSD's Request for Release from Court Supervision of Its Desegregation Efforts (docket no. 3856), along with a supporting Memorandum (docket no. 3857). I must now decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy, and whether it should be released from almost five decades of court supervision. III. The September 13, 2002 Compliance Remedy Almost 70% of LRSI?' s students are African-American. Historically, the academic achievement of many of these students, as gauged by standardized test scores, is low and poses a significant long-term challenge to LRSD teachers and administrators. Of course, because this so-called \"achievement gap\" is a nationwide phenomenon, it is a problem that educators must 4The Joshua Intervenors are a group of African-American school children, some of whom are enrolled in.each of the three Pulaski County school districts. Thus, Joshua serves as the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD, the Pulaski Cowity Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District. -3- .: ... .: f A072A (Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 4 of 74 confront in schools throughout the country. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1073-74. Importantly,  2.7 of.the Revised Plan promised only that LRSD would \"implement programs, policies and/or proced}Jfes designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement,\" See docket no. 3410 at 51. However,  2. 7 .1 went on to require LRSD to assess the  2. 7 programs annually in order to determine their effectiveness, and to modify or replace any programs that were shown not to be working to improve African-American achievement. Id. at 148. Read together, the obligations set forth in 2.7 and 2.,7.1 of the Revised Plan required LRSD not only to design academi.c programs that were intended to improve the academic achievement of African-American students, but also to make annuaJ assessments of those programs to ensure that they were, in fact, effective in improving African-American achievement. Expressed in the vernacular of my native Scott CoWlty, Arkansas,  2. 7 contained the sizzle and  2. 7 .1 contained the bacon. These two sections of the Revised Plan are crucially important to the future educational success of a large number ofLRSD's current and future students. During the 'November 2001 hearings on unitary status, Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's Associate Superintendent of Instruction and Curriculum, defined a program assessment as something that is \"dynamic, ,it is interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\" LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077. In contrast, she defined a program evaluation as \"more long term, it may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a series of research questions that are usually provided by _whoever the consumer is of that report.\" Id. In other words, a program assessment is a relatively informal process that may not result in much documentation, while a program evaluation is a formal process that always -4- f A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 5 of 74 involves the preparation of an often lengthy written program evaluation which is centered around carefully prepared research questions that the evaluation is designed to answer. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan provided that LRSD must inake assessrnents--not evaluations--of the  2. 7 programs in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. However, as early as March 15, 2000,  LRSD acknowledged, in its own Interim Compliance Report ( docket no. 3356), that  2. 7. I of the Revised Plan obligated it to prepare evaluations on the key  2. 7 programs so that LRSD administrators could make an informed decision on the effectiveness of those programs. See LRSD's Interim Compliance Report at 51-55. Furthermore, during her testimony in November of 2001, Dr. Lesley admitted that, even though 2.7.l of the Revised Plan did not mention anything about LRSD 's obligation to prepare program evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the  2. 7 programs, she and other administrators interpreted that section of the Revised Plan as requiring LRSD to perform evaluations covering the most important  2. 7 programs. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077. Because it is so important to an understanding of the Compliance Remedy, I want to be very clear on this point: The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that LRSD has always construed the obligations contained in 2. 7. I of the Revised Plan as requiring I it to prepare formal program evaluations on the key 2.7 programs. See Interim Compliance Report at 51-55; Final Compliance Report dated March 15, 2001 (docket no. 3410) at 148; Dr. Lesley's testimony cited in the September 13 Decision, LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at I 077. Since my decision will tum on whether LRSD has properly implemented the September 13, 2002 Compliance Remedy, it is set forth below in full: -5- ----- - J A072A (Rev.6182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 6 of 74 VII. Compliance Remedy Because LRSD failed to substantiaJly comply with the crucially important obligations contained in  2. 7 .1, it must remain under court. supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) d.emonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under  2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by  2. 7. I of the Revised Plan. The details of this compliance remedy are set forth below: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and. the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of Afiican-Ameri~ students. LRSD now has over three years oftesting data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of . the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the na111es of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (~.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnery or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.s I will accept all program evaluations son page 148 of its March 15, 200 I Final Compliance Report ( docket no. 341 O); LRSD flatly stated that it had prepared program evaluations on fourteen separate programs listed on that -6- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004  Page 7 of 74 D. that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as. practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving AfricanAmerican achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.l and must immediately bring to the attention of LRSD all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set forth in 8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. E. The ODM must also monitor LRSD's compliance with  2. 7. I and. help to ensure that LRSD fulfills its obligations, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. F. On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under  2. 7. I. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether LRSD has substantially complied with  2. 7 .1, as specified in this Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. page. During the 2001-02 unitary status hearings, the evidence overwhelmingly established that, . as of March 15, 2001, LRSD had not prepared any of those fourteen program evaluations. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1079-80. Henceforth, I will refer to these fourteen program evaluations as the \"Page 148 Evaluations.,. -7- A072A (Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 8 of 74 LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d.at 1087-88 (empbasis added). Even a casual reading of this Compliance Remedy reveals that it imposed four essential was r rrarto ua y assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 during the 2002-2003 school year and the first semester of the 2003-2004 school year and then use those assessments, the more than three years of testing data, and all other relevant available infonnation to determine the effectiveness of those programs and to decide whether any of the programs should be modified or eliminated. LRSD also was required to maintain written records reflecting: (a) the criteria used to assess each program; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether any programs were modified or eliminated; and (c) the administrators and teachers who were involved in preparing the assessment of each program. Subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess each of the  2. 7 programs implemented during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year and to maintain written records of its annual assessments of each of those programs. I made no mention of LRSD preparing evaluations of 2.7 programs because, on its face, nothing in  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform \"program evaluations.\" However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the \"assessment\" obligation in  2. 7 .1 included the obligation of preparing \"program evaluations.\" See discussion, supra, at 4-5. Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Because I was tracking the parties' own language, I never dreamed the use of the terms assess and assessment would suddenly create confusion for LRSD administrators __ --in deciding how tocomply witb._subparts A and B o Compliance Remedy. ~ - -- . - -----.,_ Preparation of Page 148 Program Evaluations. l::R:SB was required t\u0026lt;Yhire-ex-perts to prepare the fourteen program evaluations identified on page 148 of its March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. The Court agreed to accept all program evaluations that had already been prepared by outside consultants and ordered LRSD to hire outside consultants to complete the unfinished program evaluations, which were to be approved by the LRSD Board and filed with the Court no later than March 15, 2003. Finally, _as those evaluations were prepared, LRSD was required to use them - to the extent they -8- P.072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866~\\NRW  Document 3.875 Filed 06/30/2004  Page g' of 74 A. might be useful - in its annual assessment of the effectiveness of the  2. 7 -----PfOis~i.u....,,~--Monitoring. ~~:fosmul!s-.co,~el was required to continue with its monitoring of LRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy and to use the procedures set forth in  8.2 of the Revised Plan to resolve any compliance problems that might arise. IfJoshua and LRSO were unsuccessful in using the ODM to facilitate and resolve those problems, they were required to bring those compliance issues directly to me for resolution. Finally, the ODM was directed to monitor LRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy and ''to help ensure that LRSD fulfills its obligations\" specified therein. The sole pwpose of subparts D and Ethe Compliance Remedy was to ensure that, if the ODM was unable to successfully facilitate the resolution of any compliance issues raised by Joshua, those compliance issues would be brought to my attention so that I could resolve them on a timely basis, thereby avoiding-any surprises when LRSD filed its Compliance Report. 4. ---L.R Dw Q.!llete\u0026lt;Lto.nl~ p 1anceReportbyMarch 15,2004,documenting its substantial compliance with  2. 7. I of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. IV. The Parties' Compliance Activities after September 13, 2002 The Court Clarifies Joshua's Monitoring Obligation. After the entry of the September I~ Decision, LRSD did not seek clarification of any terms used in the Compliance ~emedy or any of its compliance obligations. Based on its silence, I concluded that LRSD understood what it was required to do under the Compliance Remedy, and that it was proceeding apace to meet those obligations. In contrast, on October l, 2002, Joshua's counsel wrote a letter (docket no. 3680) objecting to the monitoring obligations imposed on them under subpart D of the Compliance Remedy. Among other things, Joshua's counsel challeiiged the Court's \u0026lt;le.cision to: lI) impose monitoring obligations on them \"that were contemplated to be the responsibility of the ODM\"; -9- A072A (Rev.\u0026amp;'82} .... .. . ~-- .. ' .. : .. . , . ' ... : Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 10 of 74 and (2) place \"a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the ODM.\" Id. By way . ofrelief, Joshua's counsel sought clarification of their monitoring obligations under subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and ''a hearing on this matter so that an appropriate record on the issues of the role of the ODM monitoring and Joshua's monitoring may be fully developed.\" Id. On October 11, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3685) clarifying the monitoring obligations imposed on Joshua's counsel under the Compliance Remedy. After noting that Joshua's counsel had. been engaged in monitoring LRSD's oo.mpliance with its desegregation obligations since at least 1990, I made it clear that subpart D of the Compliance Remedy only obligated Joshua's counsel \"to continue to perform their monitoring role according to the same procedure they and LRSD have followed for many years in this case.\" LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1091. Because the October l, 2002 lettercould be read to suggest that Joshua's counsel would only continue their monitoring role, if ordered to do so by the Court, I also made it clear that: I do not believe I can force Joshua's counsel to perform monitoring duties - something that I may have mistakenly assumed they wanted to do. I will leave it up to Joshua's counsel to decide if they have an ethical and professional duty to continue monitoring LRSD's compli . le remaining obligation under the Revised Plan. I hope Joshua's counsel resolves that ques 100 m avor o continuing their long-standing commitment to monitoring LRSD's compliance with its desegregatio~ obligations. However, since they complain about my expressly directing them to continue monitoring LRSD's compliance with 2. 7. I of the Revised Plan- something I never expected to hear-I believe I must now clarify Section VII.D. of~e Memorandum Opinion to read as follows: Joshua may monitor LRSD's compliance with 2. 7. l and, if they choose to do so, they should bring to the attention ofLRSD, on a timely basis, all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2. 7. I, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must '15e the \"process for raising compliance issues\" set forth in  8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua shall L .   A072A (Rev.8182)  ,., . __  ..  ..  ... . ' _ ,. ..... . : . ;.,.; r. . . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 11 of 74 present the issues to me for resolution, as required by 8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Id. at 1091. , Finally, I emphasized that, regardless of whether Joshua's counsel decided to continue to monitor LRSD's compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised- Plan, \"the ODM staff most certainly will continue their close monitoring of LRSD 's compliance with that section of the Revised Plan.\" Id. at 1091. My final admonition on the subject of monitoring was as follows: If Joshua's counsel decide to continue their monitoring role, which is independent from the monitoring work performed by the ODM, . . . I expect counsel for Joshua and LRSD to cooperate and work together to ensure that things go smoothly with regard to monitoring LRSD's implementation of its obligations under 2.7.1. However, if actual disputes arise regarding monitoring, I will be available to resolve them. Id. at 1091. B. LRSD Adopts Compliance Plan, Approves Regulation IL-RI, and Designates \"Areas\" for  2. 7. I Program Evaluations. On October IO, 2002, LRSD's Board of Directors (''the Board\") adopted a \"Compliance Plan\" that was specifically designed to satisfy the Court's Compliance Remedy. See Exhibit A to LRSD's May 14, 2003 Notice of Filing Program Evaluations (docket no. 3745).6 The 6During the June 14 and 15, 2004 compliance hearing (hereafter referred to as the \"compliance hearing''), the Proposed Compliance Plan was introduced into evidence as LRSD 's Exhibit No. 2. In most respects, the Proposed Compliance Plan is identical to the final Compliance Plan approved by the Board on October I 0, 2002. However, the Proposed Compliance Plan raises a number of questions about the meaning of subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. All of those questions were deleted from the final Compliance Plan approved by the Board on October J 0, 2002. As will be discussed later, LRSD did not bring any any of those questions to my attention, or otherwise seek clarification of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy. -11- ,012A :Rev.8/82) ( ' ' '  .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Compliance Plan recognized that, in order for LRSD to meet its obligations wider the Compliance Remedy, it would have to satisfy three core obligations: (1) \"develop a written procedure for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant' to  2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\"; (2) \"maintain written records of the criteria used to evaluate each [ 2.7] program\"; and (3) \"[p]repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to ...  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic ~chievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program.\" Id. at 3-5 (emphasis added). Significantly, there is nothing in the Compliance Plan adopted by the Board that suggests LRSD was confused about the meaning of any of the terms in the Compliance Remedy or any of its compliance obligations. Additionally, the Compliance Plan m~es it clear that LRSD construed subpart A of the Compliance Remedy as requiring it to prepare \"a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to .. .  2.7 .... \" The Compliance Plan also included a detailed \"Action Plan Time Line\" that: (1) identified the LRSD employees who were responsible for implementing each \"activity\" necessary to satisfy the Compliance R~edy; and (2) provided a schedule for completing each of those activities. Dr. Bonnie Lesley, the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, and Dr. Ken James, LRSD's Superintendent of Schools, were assigned personal responsibility for each of the twenty-eight (28) activities identified by the \"Action Plan Time Line.\" Id. at 7-IO. Thus, it was up to Dr. Lesley and Dr. James to spearhead the timely implementation of all twentyeight \"activities\" necessary to satisfy the Compliance Remedy. Finally, at the same time it approved the Compliance Plan, the Board also adopted -12- L A072A (Rev.8182)  . . :.  \u0026gt; . .:. . ~~ -: - . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 13 of 74 Regulation \"IL-RI,\" which set forth \"the written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students.\" See Exluoit A at 2 (docket no. 3745).7 According to the Compliance Plan, Regulation IL-RI established the criteria for preparing the program evaluations necessary to satisfy LRSD's obligations under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. On October 24, 2002, the Board approved a \"Program Evaluation Agenda\" for the 2002- 03 school year that authorized the preparation of evaluations in three broad areas: (I) Elementary literacy; (2) Secondary literacy; and (3) the National Science Foundation (''NSF\") K-12 Math and Science Project. See LRSD's Exhibit No. 3; ODM's March 30, 2004 Report on LRSD's Implementation of the Court's Compliance Remedy at 4 (hereinafter referred to as the \"ODM's Compliance Report\") (docket no. 3854). LRSD subsequently construed the 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda as requiring it to prepare only two 2.7. l. evaluations in order to satisfy its obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy: (l) a comprehensive \"Literacy Evaluation\"; and (2) a comprehensive \"Math and Science Evaluation.\" Of course, \"Literacy\"; and \"Math and Science\" are not \"programs\"-- they are broad academic areas that roughly correspond to the grouping of college courses into \"Arts.\" or \"Sciences.\" Because LRSD administrators, such as Dr. Lesley, had always construed 2.7.l of the Revised Plan as requiring LRSD to prepare evaluations of the key  2. 7 programs implemented to improve African-American achievement, the Board should have been aware that 7During the compliance hearing, Regulation IL-RI was introduced into evidence as Joshua's Exhibit No. 2. -13- L ' A072A (Aev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004   Page 14 of'i4 ',, they were being too general in dividing the academic universe into \"Literacy\" and \"Math/Science\" and then preparing a global evaluation of each of those areas. Nevertheless, in its March 12, 2004 Compliance Report (docket no. 3837), LRSD contends that these two 2.7.l evaluations fully satisfy all of its obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy.8 C. Joshua Invokes Facilitation Provision of Revised Plan. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Ann Marshan, the Director of the ODM, wrote Joshua's counsel a letter confirming that she: (a) had received their Noyember 1, 2002 letter requesting that she facilitate9 the dispute that had arisen between Joshua and LRSD regarding the adequacy of LRSD's Compliance Plan; and (b) was willing to facilitate that dispute. 10 Thereafter, I was never contacted by Joshua's counsel or anyone else about the outcome of the ODM's facilitation efforts. Because subpart D of the Compliance Remedy obligated Joshua's counsel to contact me only if the facilitation was unsuccessful, I concluded from the parties' silence (and the ODM's silence) that the ODM had successfully resolved this dispute. On November 6, 2002, I wrote Ms. Marshall to reinforce the crucially important role I expected her to play in monitoring LRSD's compliance with its obligations under the Compliance 8 As I explain later in some detail, I was not made aware ofLRSD's Proposed Compliance Plan and Regulation IL-RI until two months after LRSD filed its March 12, 2004 Compliance Report. LRSD did not file the October 10, 2002 Compliance Plan with the Court until March t 4, 2003. 9Section 8.2 of the Revised Plan required the parties to use the ODM to \"facilitate\" the resolution of any compliance issues. Since the words \"facilitation\" and \"facilitate\" come directly from the Revised Plan, I will use them. 10 A copy of Ms. Marshall's November 4, 2002 letter, marked Exhibit A, is attached to this Memorandum Opinion. -14- .. , .... .  ,: , ... . ... : A072A (Rev.8/82) Case.4:82-cv-00866-\\,,\\IRW . Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004  Page 15 of 74 :  \" Remedy.11 The instructions to her were: It seems to me it would be best if you worked with the parties toward implementing the remedies; but you should feel free to contact me in writing if a . serious impasse develops . . In other words, as long as everything is going along smoothly, I see no reason for you to make regular reports to me in this respect. I emphasize, however, that you should feel free to call on me if serious problems arise. Neither the parties nor the ODM ever contacted me to request that I become involved in resolving any compliance disputes or other \"serious impasses\" between LRSD and Joshua, despite the requirement for such contact by subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and my November 6, 2002 letter. D. The Six Completed or Substantially Completed Page 148 Evaluations. The September 13 Decision stated that the Court ''will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and Project; (3) Charter Schools; (4) English as a Second Language; (5) SEDL12 Program at . - I Southwest Middle School; and (6) CoJlaborative Action Team Project. By December 31, 2002, LRSD's Board had approved all six of these Page 148 Evaluations. 11A copy of my November 6, 2002 letter, marked Exhibit B, is attached to this Memorandwn Opinion. 12SEDL is an acronym for \"Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.\" See ODM's Compliance Report at 8 (docket no. 3854). -15- I, . ' ,l , .  \\072A Rev.8/82) .... Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW  Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 16 of?i_'. E. The Eight Remaining Page 148 Evaluations. LRSD contracted with-Dr. Steven Ross, a program evaluation expert and a member of the facuJty at the University of Memphis, to prepare guidelines for completing or revising the eight remaining evaluations.13 These eight evaluations covered the following programs: ( l) Middle Schools; (2) Extended Year Schools; (3) HIPPY;14 (4) Campus Leadership Teams; (5) Swnmer ----- - School - Elementary; (6) Lyceum Scholars Program; (7) Onward to Excellence - Watson Elementary; and (8) Vital Link. -In late November of 2002, Dr. Ross prepared a document captioned \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the LRSD.\"15 On January l 0, 2003, LRSD contracted with Dr. Ross and two other program evaluation experts, Dr. William Moore and Dr. Larry McNeal, to prepare these eight program evaluations. Dr. Ross prepared or completed evaluations on Vital Link, Onward to Excellence, HIPPY, and Campus Leadership Teams; Dr. Moore prepared or completed evaluations on Middle School Transition and Extended Year Education; and Dr. McNeal completed evaluations on Lyceum Scholars and Elementary Summer School. _O_n M_ar_ch _14_, 20_03_, L_RS_D f_ile d all fourteen of the Page 148 Evaluations with the Court, ..,_ ______, - as required by subpart C of tpe Compliance Remedy. See LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations (docket no. 3745) . . The six evaluations, which were substantially completed as of 13 A number of years ago, Joshua formally agreed that Dr. Ross has the qualifications necessary to prepare program evaluations. 14HIPPY is an acronym for\"Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters.\" See ODM's Compliance Report (docket no. 3854) at 8.  15During the compliance hearing, this document :,,vas introduced as LRSD's Exht'bit No. 5. -16- \\072A Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 1 i of 7 4 . ~ September 13, 2002: are bound together in Volumes I and II. The remaining eight Page 148 Evaluations \"are bound together in Volumes m and IV.16 On April 14, 2003, Joshua filed \"Comments on the Submission of Page 148 Evaluations.\" (Docket no. 3752.) These comments identify and discuss numerous alleged \"deficiencies,\"most of which are contained in the eight Page 148 Evaluations that were completed and approved by the Board after January l, 2003.  F. Dr. Lesley and Dr. James Resign. On March 14, 2003, the same day LRSD filed the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations,'7 Dr. Lesley, who was responsible for overseeing the preparation of those evaluations, resigned, and, two months later, Dr. James, LRSD's Superintendent, also resigned. As indicated ,- previously, LRSD's Compliance Plan had assigned Dr. Lesley and Dr. James direct responsibility for each of the twenty-eight time line activities necessary for LRSD to implement the Compliance 16During the compliance bearing, these fourteen program evaluations were introduced as LRSD's Exhibit No. 13. 17During its implementation of the Revised Plan in 1998 through early 200 I, LRSD originally intended to use its own Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (\"PRE\") to prepare the fourteen Page 1481 Evaluations. Dr. Kathy Lease was the Assistant Superintendent who headed PRE and reported to Dr. Lesley. See ODM's Compliance Report at 2. According to Dr. Lesley's testimony during the November 2001 hearings on unitary status, Dr. Lease \"dropped the ball\" in preparing these evaluations, which resulted in only a few partially completed and woefully inadequate evaluations being available on Mar~h 15, 200 l, the deadline for LRSD to file its Compliance Report seeking unitary status. Additionally, Dr. Lesley testified that, in her opinion, no one in PRE-including Dr. Lease--had the expertise to prepare program evaluations. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077-81. In early 2001, Dr. Lease resigned and ieft LRSD for other job opportunities. Since that time, PRE has functioned with only a statistician and several support employees, but no one was hired to replace Dr. Lease or take over and operate the department. In November of 2003, LRSD appointed the statistician as the acting head of PRE. As a result. since Dr. Lease's departure in early 200 I, LRSD has essentially functioned without a meaningful Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. See ODM's Compliance Report at 6. -17- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 18 o(? ,f Remedy. Thus, less than a year after the September 13 Decision, LRSD lost both of the crucially important leaders to whom all responsibility had been assigned for implementing LRSD's Compliance Plan. Both Dr. James and Dr. Lesley had been deeply involved for years in LRSD's implementation ofits desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan, and both were thoroughly familiar with the intricacies of satisfying judicially imposed desegregation obligations. The almost simultaneous departures of Dr. James and Dr. Lesley dring the early stages of LRSD's implementation of its Compliance Plan clearly created problems for LRSD in its compliance efforts. In the ODM's Compliance Report, the authors observe that the loss of Dr. Lesley and Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation of LRSD's Compliance Plan, and the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in filling those positions with \"acting'' or\"interim\" employees created \"a period of some uncertainty' for LRSD. Id. at 5. In June of 2003, LRSD appointed an Interim Superintendent to replace Dr. James. Later that month, on June 26, 2003, Mr. Dennis Glasgow, who previously had been the Director of LRSD 's Math and Science Department, was appointed to succeed Dr. Lesley as Interim Associate Superintendent of Instruction 11d Curriculum. According to the Compliance Plan's \"Action Plan Time Line,\" Mr. Glasgow originally was assigned responsibility for only two of the twenty-eight time line activities. Although it was not mentioned in LRSD's Compliance Report ( docket no. 3837), during the recent compliance hearing, Mr. Glasgow testified that, on March 18, 2003, he assumed responsibility for all of Dr. Lesley's twenty-eight activities under the Compliance Plan. In August of 2003, after the Interim Superintendent, hired only three months earlier, left that position, LRSD hired Dr. Morris Holmes as the second Interim Superintendent. Dr. Holmes -18- ~----------------------------------------------- A.072A (Rev.8182) Cas~ 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 19 of 74 has continued to serve as Interim Superintendent through the date of this Memorandum Opinion.11 LRSD 's Compliance Report does not address what role, if any, Dr. Holmes had in implementing the Compliance Plan.,_ It seems that Dr. Holmes or someone else should have been assigned responsibility for the twenty-eight time line activities that had been assigned to Dr. James in the October 10, 2002 Compliance Plan; but the Compliance Report is silent on this point G. LRSD Files Its Compliance Report Seeking Release from Court Supervision. When LRSD filed its Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) on March 12, 2004, 19 it was supported by documents attached to it as Exhibits A through G. According to LRSD, the documents attached to the Compliance Report establish that it has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy and is entitled to be released from all further court supervision and monitoring. A careful reading of the Compliance Report reveals a number of revelations tha,:. cast LRSD's efforts in a less than favorable light. First, the Report states that: (a) in October of 2002, less than sixty days after the Court's September 13 Decision, Joshua's counsel \"raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan\"; (b) subsequently, Joshua's counsel ''invoked the Process for Raising Complian\u0026lt;;e Issues set forth in Revised Plan  8.2\" and\"[ the parties] met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement\"; and ( c) the parties' last such meeting with Ms. Marshall was on February 28, 2003, but the parties failed to reach an agreement on Joshua's 180n June 11, 2004, the Board announced that it hired Mr. Roy Gregory Brooks to serve as LRSD's new Superintendent of Schools. It is my understanding that sometime in July or August Mr. Brooks will assume his new duties as Superintendent. 19During the compliance hearing, this document was introduced into evidence as LRSD 's Exhibit No. 14. -19-  A072A (Rev.8/82) ' . , . . ... . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 20 of 74 .    objections to the adequacy of the Compliance Plan. See Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) at 1-2. Thus, LRSD's March 12, 2004 Compliance Report constituted my first notice that Ms. Marshall's facilitation efforts in late 2002 had failed--neither the parties nor the ODM brought this to my attention, although they were required to do so by subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and by my November 6, 2002 letter to Ms. Marshall. Second, LRSD contends that, by failing to bring the parties' disagreement over the Compliance Plan to the Court's attention, \"Joshua waived any pbjections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan.\" Id. at 1-2. As I explained earlier, the sole purpose of subpart D of the Compliance Remedy was to require the parties to bring potential compliance problems to my attention, as soon as they arose, so that I could resolve them early enough to prevent them from becoming stumbling blocks to LRSD's compliance with its obligations under the other subparts of the Compliance Remedy. After the OD M's facilitation efforts failed, it must have soon become obvious to LRSD's counsel and the ODM that Joshua's counsel was not going to notify the Court. It seems to me that, at this point, both LRSD and ODM should have realized that it was in LRSD's best interest to let me determine, in March of 200;3--while there was still time to do something about it--if the compliance issues raised by Joshua had merit. In a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 1957 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is likely to hold the silence ofJoshua's counsel-even if they are to be criticized--against the African-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% of the total number of seats in LRSD's classrooms. I believe I would be ill advised to adopt \"waiver'' as a way to avoid reaching the merits i\u0026gt;f the adequacy of the board-~pproved -20- .. A072A (Aev.8/82) Casa 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Compliance Plan. In other words, I find that it would be inappropriate for me to default approximately 17,000 LRSD students. Third, LRSD acknowledges in the Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) that it was  required to do two things to satisfy the core obligations imposed by subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy: ( 1) \"develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2. 7 of the Revised Plan to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\"; and (2) \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2. 7 of the Revised Plan to detennine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program.\" See Compliance Report at page 2, paragraph 4 (docket no. 3837; LRSD's Exhibit No. 14) (emphasis added). To satisfy this first core obligation, which is contained in subpart B of the Compliance Remedy, the Compliance Report states that the Board adopted Regulation IL-RI. As indicated previously, the Board adopted Regulation IL-RI on October 10, 2002. But, LRSD did not make this key Regulation an Exhibit to either its March 14, 2003 Notice ofFiling Evaluations Pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliimce Remedy (docket no. 3745) or its March 12, 2004 Compliance Report (docket no. 3837). On May 12, 2004, after I had been unable to locate this document anywhere in the record, I entered an Order ( docket no. 3864) requiring that LRSD provide a copy ofRebtdation IL-RI . The next day, LRSD filed its Response (docket no. 3865), which attached Regulation IL-RI as Appendix I to Exhibit A of that docwnent. Regulation IL-RI contained the fo])owing procedures that were to be followed in preparing all future 2.7.1 program evaluations: -21- A072A (Aev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 22 of 74 (1) \"Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with infonnation about the schedule of its implementation.\" (2) \"Agree on the necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question: 'Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?\"' (3)  \"If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another program with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. (See  2.7.1 of the Revised Designation and Education Plan and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.)\" (4) \"Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g. dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to Superintendent; Cabinet and/or Compliance Team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the ODM (until Unitary Status is achieved) and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved).\" (5) The team preparing the program evaluations had to meet ''to monitor the completion of assignments\"; ''to review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\"; and \"to fonnulate recommendations . . . for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the -22- A072A (Rev.8/82) I . .. - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 23 of 74 (6) improvement of African-American achievement.\" A final draft of the program evaluation had to be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction \"at least one month before placing the report on the Board's agenda for review and approval.\" (7) After the program evaluation was approved by the Board, a copy of the complete report had to be made available to \"the ODM and Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved).\" (8) \"Each program evaluation team shall meet with the Associate Superintendent for Instruction after the completion of the work to evaluate the process and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluation.\" See Regulation IL-RJ at 3-7 ( emphasis added). In paragraph 8 of the Compliance Report, LRSD states that it satisfied the second core obligation specified in subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, by doing the following things: (I) Dr. Steve Ross was hired \"to prepare evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs.\" UJtimately, Dr. Ross authored the global \"Literacy Evaluation,\" w,hich the Board approved in November of 2003. See Exhibit F to Compliance Report (docket no. 3837).20 (2) Dr. Don Wold, a retired member of the faculty at UALR, authored the global \"Math and Science Evaluation,\" which covered the overall math and science cu,rricula (grades K-12) that LRSD had implemented with the grant it received 20 As indicated previously, during the compliance hearing, the Compliance Report was introduced into evidence as LRSD's Exhibit No. 14. -23- A072A (Rev.\u0026amp;'82) - ...  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Fiied 06/30/2004  Page 24 o(14 ,:; .. from the NSF.  The Board approved this evaluation in December 2003. See Exhibit G to Compliance Report (docket no. 3837). According to the Compliance Report, these two global e~aluations satisfy all of LRSD's obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy and constitute \"substantial compliance\" with the obligations contained in 2. 7. l of the Revised Plan. Ominously, the Compliance Report says nothing about whether these two evaluations complied with the mandatory requirements of Regulation IL-R 1. H. The ODM's Compliance Re.port on LRSD's Implementation of the Compliance Remedy. On March 30, 2004, the ODM filed its Compliance Report (docket no. 3854)21 commenting on various aspects ofLRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy. The first four pages of the ODM's Compliance Report re-plow the now largely irrelevant events related to LRSD's earlier compliance efforts under the Revised Plan.22 The remaining nineteen pages of the Compliance Report contain \"Findings and Conclusions\" that, for the most part, criticize LRSD's compliance efforts. Amon the more significant \"Findings and Conclusions\" in the ODM's Compliance Report are the following: . (1) As of Septemb,er 13, 2002, the date the Court imposed the Compliance Remedy, LRSD had implemented at least forty-six programs designed to improve African- 21During the compliance hearing, the ODM's Compliance Report was introduced into evidence as LRSD's Exhibit No. 15. 22The September 13 Decision addressed in detail all of the events described in these four . pages of the ODM's Compliance Report. -24- . ' , \\072A Rev.8/82} Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875  _.Filed b6i30/2004 Page 25 of 74 ... . . ....  . .  .. (2) American achievement under 2.7 of the Revised Plan.23 Id at 10. The ODM had difficulty getting LRSD administrators to identify the specific 2. 7 programs that would be evaluated under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. LRSD administrators finally acknowledged to the ODM that ''the program evaluation agenda for the 2002-03 school year would include only elementary literacy, secondary literacy, and the NSF math and science project.\" LRSD administrators never explained to the ODM which  2.7 programs would be covered in the literacy arid math and science evaluations. Id. at 12. (3) While the Compliance Remedy directed LRSD to use \"a11 available testing data\" in assessing the effectiveness of the  2. 7 programs, LRSD only did so in the Evaluation of the Math and Science Programs. (Exhibit G to LRSD 's Compliance Report.) In the Literacy Program Evaluation (Exhibit F to LRSD's Compliance Report), LRSD limited the testing data to \"the SAT9 and the benchmark literacy exams.\" Id. at 14. ( 4) Subpart B of the Compliance Remedy required LRSD to maintain written records reflecting \"the, results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of programs.\" LRSD, 231 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88. The ODM concluded that, while Exhibit C to LRSD's Compliance Report describes the annual program modifications for elementary and secondary literacy and math, there is no 23During the compliance hearing, LRSD witnesses correctly pointed out that the chart on page 10 of the ODM's Compliance Report was flawed. Among other things, a number of programs are listed twice, and some of the things that are listed as ''programs\" are not. -25- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Oocu~~~t 3875. Filed 06i30/2004 Page 26 '0(74'. (5) discussion of anriual program mocl_ifications for science. i4 Id. at 15. The ODM's Compliance Report noted numerous shortcomings in the Literacy Program Evaluation. Id. at 1677. However, the most serious criticism was that ''the evaluation draws no conclusions about the extent to which student performance might be affected by program components, such as Reading Recovery or Accelerated Reader, nor does it correlate any teaching practices with student achievement.\" Id. at 18. (6) The ODM's most serious criticism of the Math and Science Evaluation was that it \"does not offer data relative to the level of uniformity of program implementation\" and does not identify which  2. 7 programs most directly improved the academic achievement of African-American students in math and science courses. Id. at 19. (7) By the time the C9urt entered its September 13 Decision, six of the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations had already been completed or substantially completed by outside consultants. Subpart C of the Compliance Remedy provided that ''the Court wit! accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board.\" Between October 24, 2002, and December 19, 2 2, the Board voted to approve these six evaluations which covered the following programs: (a) Pre K-3 Literacy; (b) NSF Math and Science; ( c) Charter School; ( d) English as a Second Language; (e) 24Although not mentioned in the ODM's Compliance Report, Exhibit C also fails to discuss the reasons for making each of the modifications in the math and literacy programs, or and how those modifications were expected to improve the effectiveness of those programs. -26- A072A (Rev.8182) Case4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 27 of 74 SEDL Program - Southwest Middle School; and (f) Collaborative ActionTeam. The OD M's Compliance Report does not contain any significant criticism of these six evaluations. Id. at 20. (8) As of September 13, 2002, eight of the Page 148 Evaluations still remained to be prepared. Under subpart C of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD was obligated to hire outside consultants to prepare those eight evaluations and then file them with the Court by March 15, 2003. The eight programs that were the subject of these evaluations were as follows: (a) Middle Schools hnplementation; (b) Extended Year Schools; ( c) HIPPY; ( d) Campus Leadership Teams; ( e) Elementary Summer School; (f) Lyceum Scholars Program; (g) Onward to Excellence - Watson Elementary; and (b) Vital Link. Id. The last four of these programs had already been discontinued by the time I entered the September 13 Decision. Thus, only the evaluations on the first four of these programs (Middle Schools program, Extended Year Schools program, HIPPY program, and Campus Leadership Teams program) had any potential to be useful to LRSD.25 (9) All eight of the Page 148 Evaluations prepared by outside consultants were heavily criticized by the ODM. The cited source for much of this criticism was Dr. Ross, who prepared two of the four evaluations for ongoing programs and two of the four evaluations for discontinued programs. According to the ODM's Report, Dr. Ross told the ODM that: (a) \"[t]he evaluations of the subject 25 As indicated previously, LRSD originally intended to use Dr. Kathy Lease and its PRE Department to design and prepare these eight evaluations. When Dr. Lease resigned and left her position with LRSD in early 200 I, none of these evaluations had been prepared. -27- .,. ,072A Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 28 of 74  programs 'were worthless,' both as originally prepared and currently\" and that the discontinued programs he was hired to evaluate were \"dead wood\"; (b) he did not understand _why LRSD had declined to provide additional updated information and data on the four ongoing programs \"in order to facilitate more effective evaluations\"; and (c) \"(t]he evaluations were of little or no use to the district.\" (10) Echoing Dr. Ross's criticism of the eight Page 148 Evaluations, the ODM -------- observed that: \"(LRSD 's] asking the outside evaluators to rewrite the evaluations ------------..  _._.-... #, ~_....,_ -  I using the same data from the original, unacceptable versions [prepared internally by Dr. Lease] is similar to asking mechanics to tear down a Yugo and put it back together as a Lexus.\" Id. at 21-22. The ODM concluded this section of the Report by noting that: \"Sadly, the evaluations are so flawed that they reveal little of substance that would enable the district to draw conclusions about the - programs, ascertain the effectiveness of their component parts, point out appropriate modifications, or decide whether to drop a program altogether.\" Id. at 22. (The direct charge to the ODM was to work closely with LRSD to help to ensure it met it~ obligations under the Compliance Remedy. Thus the ODM's stinging criticism ofLRSD's compliance efforts is, at least in part, an admission of its own shortcomings. It seems to me that the ODM should have been less reasonably possible.) -28- 11.072A '.Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 29 of 74 I. Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report. On April 15, 2004, Joshua filed an Opposition To LRSD's Motion to Be Released from Further Supervision and Monitoring of Its Desegregation Effort ( docket no. 3856), along with a supporting Memorandum (docket no. 3857). Joshua begins their Memorandum by framing the compliance issue with the following quotes from the September 13 Decision: I find that the purpose of 2. 7. I was to make sure that the programs under  2. 7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with  2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students; for, without performing rigorous annual assessments of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under  2. 7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. * * * I conclude that the Court should continue supervision and monitoring of LRSD's compliance with this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program that will allow it to identify and improve those programs that are most effective in remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076, 1086. Joshua's Mernorand~ goes on to discuss the following areas in which they allege that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with its obligations under subparts A, B, and C of the Compliance Remedy: ( 1) During the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess each of the dozens of -programs it implemented pursuant to  2. 7 of the Revised Plan in order to _________ __.,_ determine if those programs were effective in improving the academic -29- A072A (Aev.8182) ...  ., Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 30 of 74 achievement of African-American students. However, in the two global program evaluations, attached as Exhibits F and G to its March 12, 2004 Compliance Report, LRSD does not identify with any degree of precision which of the dozens of  2. 7 programs are included in each evaluation, much less address the effectiveness of each of those programs in improving African-American achievement. Joshua's Memorandum (docket no. 3857) at 2-3. (2) Regulation IL-Rl explicitly required each  2. 7, 1 program evaluation to set forth and answer the following crucially important research question: \"Has the curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?\" See Appendix 1 to Exhibit A at 1{ 6(0) (docket no. 3865). However, this mandatory research question is not included among the research questions set forth in the Literacy Program Evaluation.26 Joshua's Memorandum (docket no. 3857) at 4. (3) Both the Literacy Evaluation and Math and Science Evaluation contain only broad generalizations about student achievement based solely on standardized test data, rather than a specific analysis of which of the dozens of 2. 7 programs actually worked in improving African-American achievement in the areas of literacy, math, and science and which of those programs need to be modified or eliminated. Id. at 5-6. (4) Regulation IL-RI explicitly required that: (a) a program evaluation include, as part of its ''program documentation,\" a clear and accurate description of the 26See Exhibit Fat I (docket no. 3837). -30- ~072A Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 31 of74 program being evaluated (see Appendix 1 at 3 to Exhibit A of docket no. 3865); and (b) the team leader ensure that each program evaluation contain \"a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated . ... \" (See Appendix I to Exhibit A at page 5, paragraph 6(c) (docket no. 3865).) According to Joshua, the Literacy Evaluation contained only a cun;ory description of a few of the 2.7 programs implemented to improve the literacy of AfricanAmerican students and the Math and Science Evaluation contains only a list of the math and science courses that were available to LRSD students.at various grade levels. Id. at 6-8. (5) LRSD's Page 148 Evaluations, filed on March 13, 2003 (docket no. 3745), are inadequate because: (a) they do not satisfy the standards for program evaluations contained in Regulation IL-RI; (b) according to Dr. Ross, who was involved in preparing those evaluations, they were \"for the most part ... worthless . .. [ and] oflittle orno use to the district\" (see ODM's Compliance Report at 21); and (c) LRSD failed to use the Page 148 Evaluations, as part of the assessment process, to determine ttie effectiveness of the  2. 7 programs in improving AfricanAmerican achievement, as required by subpart C of the Compliance Remedy. Id. at 8-9. (6) Regulation IL-Rl provided that the team leader for each evaluation shall \"provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the superintendent's cabinet and/or compliance team) to stakeholders, including . . . the ODM (until unitary status is achieved), and the -31- A072A (Rev.6182) .. ~ ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 32 of74  J. Joshua Intervenors (until unitary status ifachieved).\" According to Joshua, LRSD failed to provide them or the ODM with the progress reports on the preparation of the program evaluations, as required by Regulation IL-RI. LRSD 's Proposed Compliance Plan and Proposed Regulation IL-R2 Finally Surface. On May 12, 2004, I entered an Order (docket no. 3864) asking LRSD to immediately provide me with a copy of Regulation IL-R 1. In its May 13, 2004 Response ( docket no. 3865), LRSD attached a copy ofIL-Rl ,27 along with the two documents th~t were not requested: (1) LRSD's \"Proposed Compliance Plan.\"28 (2) LRSD's \"Proposed Il.rR2.\"29 LRSD does not explain why it decided to bring these last two documents to my attention at this late date in the compliance process. The \"Proposed Compliance Plan,\" which was prepared within thirty days after the entry of the September 13 Decision, contains numerous questions about the meaning of various terms used in the Compliance Remedy. For example, the Compliance Committee states that they are \"confused\" by the Court's use of the term \"assessment\" in subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy, something that required \"the Compliance Committee to determine the District Court's intended meaning.\"30 See Proposed Compliance Plan at 3-4. Additionally, this document 21See Appendix I to docket no. 3865; see also Joshua's Exhibit No. 2. 28See Exhibit A to docket no. 3865; see also LRSD's Exhibit No. 2. 29See Appendix 2 to docket no. 3865. 30Section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan obliged LRSD to \"assess\" uieeffectiveness of the 2. 7 programs and, if that assessment revealed the programs were not likely to improve AfricanAmerican achievement, LRSD was required to modify or replace those programs. Nowhere in  2. 7.1 does it mention anything about LRSD being required to prepare \"program evaluations\" -32-  t.l  A072A (Aev.8/82) Case4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 P~ge 33 of74 contains a lengthy discussion about the meaning of certain obligations in subpart C of the Compliance Remedy, which required LRSD to complete and file the eight unfinished Page 148 Evaluations by March 15, 2003. Id. at 7-8. As previously discussed, on October I 0, 2002, the Board approved the.final \"Compliance Plan,\" which LRSD attached as Exhibit A to its March 14, 2003 Notice Of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C Of The Compliance Remedy (docket no. 3745). LRSD's May 13, 2004 Response does not explain why none of the many.questions raised in the Proposed Compliance Plan were mentioned in the.final Compliance Plan, which was filed on March 14, 2003. It seems clear to me that these questions should have been brought to my attention when they were first put on paper--roughly a year and a half ago. \"Proposed.Regulation IL-R2\" was intended to govern the preparation and content of \"Informal Program Evaluations.\" The stated purpose of this regulation was \"to ensure that a written record exists explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program.\" See Appendix 2 to docket no. 3865. On page 6 of the \"Proposed Compliance Plan\" (Exhibit A to docket no. 3865), it noted that Proposed Regulation IL-R2 \"was drafted to address\" the following specific concern that was raised in the September 13 Decision: I have grave reservations about anyone this side of Solomon being wise enough to use two or three semesters' worth of erratic composite test scores to make reliable decisions about which remediation programs for LRSD's AfricanAmerican students are actually working. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1079. According to the \"Proposed Compliance Plan,\" Proposed in.order to determine the effectiveness of the 2. 7 programs. However, as I explained previously on pages 4-5, LRSD unquestionably construed  2. 7 .1 as re.quiring it to perform \"evaluations\" of the key 2.7 programs in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. -33- ,012A Rev.8/82) . . . . . ... ,.  :-:.\"\"1 ' . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 34 of 74 Regulation IL-R2 satisfied my concern by \"prohibiting substantial program modifications from being made without a written record as required by Paragraph B [of the Compliance Remedy).\" Proposed Regulation IL-R2 clearly was intended to meet certain of the ,obligations imposed on LRSD under subpart B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at I 087- 88. Yet, LRSD's May I 3, 2004 Response (docket no. 3865) does not explain why the Board failed to adopt Proposed Regulation IL-R2. Likewise, the OD M's Compliance Report sheds no light on why the Board did not adopt Proposed Regulation IL-R2. Instead, the ODM merely notes in passing that, after drafting Proposed Regulation IL-R2, LRSD \"ultimately decided [itJ was unnecessary and did not adopt [it].\" It appears now that, from the very outset of its efforts to fulfill its obligations under the Compliance Remedy, LRSD was badly confused about what it was required to do. It is hard to understand why this confusion was not brought to my attention. I would have been more than happy to explain precisely what I meant in the Compliance Remedy if this matter had been brought to my attention. Be all of this as it may, LRSD now finds itselfin the position of arguing that it has substantial1y complied with desegregation obligations that its Compliance Committee found to be confusing and difficult to understand. And this means, of course, that LRSD's \"puzzlement\" was unknown until it was too late for it to cure the problems. V. Compliance Hearing on LRSD's Request for Release from Court Supervision and Monitoring On June I 4 and 15, 2004, I conducted a compliance hearing on LRSD's request \"that the Court find that LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy; that LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of [its] school operations; -34- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 35 of 74 and that it be released from all further supervi. s:-ion and monitoring ofits desegregation effort.\" See Compliance Report at 4 (LRSD's Exhibit No. 14). LRSD called the following witnesses to testify in support ofits having met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy: ( 1) Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's former Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; (2) Dr. Steven M. Ross, the Director of the Center for Research in Education Policy at the University of Memphis; (3) Ms. Vanessa Cleaver, LRSD's Director of the NSF Grant; and (4) Mr. Dennis Glasgow, LRSD's Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction. After LRSD rested, Joshua moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c), on the ground that LRSD had failed to establish a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for finding that it had substantially complied with its obligations under subparts A, B, and C of the Compliance Remedy. Ruling from the bench, I granted Joshua's Motion, in part, by finding that LRSD had failed to establish a sufficient evidentiary basis to support its contention that it had substantially complied with its obligation under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. However, I denied Joshua's Motion with respect to LRSD's proof that it had substantially complied with it obligations under subpart C of the Compliance Remedy. Joshua's counsel then stated, on the record, that they were withdrawing their challenge to LRSD's substantial compliance with its obligations under subpart C of the Compliance Remedy. For that reason, Joshua called no witnesses. After explaining to counsel that I intended to prepare detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to support my ruling on Joshua's Rule 52(c) Motion, I adjourned the compliance hearing. -35- A072A (Rev.\u0026amp;'82) . _.  ..... : .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 36 of 74 . ' VI. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law A. Burden of Proof. I. Section 11 of the January 16, 1998 Revised Plan (CX 871) explicitly provided that \"any party challenging LRSD's [substantial] compliance [with its desegregation obligations] bears the burden of proof.\" Because Joshua was the \"challenging party\" in the 2001-02 unitary status hearings, I held that Joshua had the burden of proof in establishing that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with its desegregation obligations in each of the challenged areas. LRSD, 237 F. Supp.2d at 1033-35. Ultimately, Joshua met their burden of proof only with regard to LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations under 2.7.l of the Revised Plan. The Compliance Remedy required LRSD to fulfill its obligations uncler- 2.1 l of with my judicial remedy- not the previously litigated question of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. 3. While  11 of the Revised Plan contained the parties' binding contractual agreement on the allocation of the burden of proof, for purposes of the unitary status hearings, that section of the Revised Pl:i no longer controls my decision on whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy. It is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 494 (1992); Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305,318 (4th Cir. 200l);Jenkins v. Missouri, 216 F.3d 720, 725 (8111 Cir. 2000). Thus, I conclude that LRSD has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it has substantially complied with each of the obligations contained in subparts A, B, and C -36- A072A (Rev.8182) Case-4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 37 of 74 of the. Compliance Remedy. B. LRSD's Efforts to Substantially Comply with Subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. 1. Tiu-oughout this litigation, standardized test scores have revealed that the academic achievement of a high percentage of LRSD's African-American students lags far behind their . white counterparts. In the September 13 Decision, I discussed this \"achievement gap\" at some length and summarized LRSD's efforts to narrow this gap by implementing dozens of 2.7 programs, between 1998 and March of200 l, that were designed to remediate African~American achievement. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp.2d at 1070-72. 2. Importantly, in the September 13 Decision, I rejected Joshua's argument that 2. 7 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to eliminate the achievement gap between African-American and white students.31 As a result, 1 found that the disparity in standardized test scores between African-American and white students--while \"far from where they need to be--failed to prove that LRSD has not lived up to its obligations under 2.7 of the Revised Plan.\" Id. at 1017. 3. Of even greater importance, however, I also found that 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan ,,..-- required LRSD to assess ann allY, each of the key 2.7 p ograms des!~ American achievement in order to ensure that those programs are effective. It is impossible to overstate the importance of 2.7. l to LRSD's African-American students. Un1ess something is done to improve their academic achievement, many of them, who do not possess proficient skills 31During the May 1996 hearings in this case, Dr. Walberg, Dr. Armor, and Dr. Orfield, three nationally recognized experts in desegregation litigation, testified at length about the numerous causes for this achievement gap. Both Dr. Armor and Dr. Walberg testified that the socioeconomic differences between many African-Americans and whites make it virtually impossible for schools to eliminate the achievement gap. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at I 073-74. -37- A072A (Rev.8/82) . . . ... ~ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 38 of 74 in reading and math, will face difficult and uncertain futures. Because 70% of its students are African-American, LRSD should be devoting a substantial percentageofits educational resources to solving this crucially important problem that will burden the lives and career trajectories of so many of its students. It is my fervent hope that LRSD's administrators and its Board realize that LRSD must make the long-term commitment to solve this problem, not because a federal court says that it must, but because it is the right thing to do. 4. In the September 13 Decision; I held that: (a) ~RSD's efforts to comply with  2. 7. l of the Revised Plan had fallen well short of the mark; (b) LRSD's obligations under 2. 7 .1 were \"crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students\"; and (c) Court supervision and monitoring of LRSD must continue until it complies with \"this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program\" that is capable of determining not only the specific  2. 7 programs that are most effective, but also the programs that n\u0026lt;.,-ed to be improved or eliminated. Id. at 1017, 1086. I find that the clear language of the September 13 Decision made it plain that I expected LRSD to devote all of the time and resources necessary to comply with the spirit and letter of the commitment con~ed in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. I further find thatLRSD knew, or certainly should have known, that, in order to honor its commitment under 2.7.1, it was required to evaluate the key  2. 7 programs. 5. Subpart A of the Compliance Remedy provides that LRSD must devise and implement a comprehensive process for assessing, on a year-to-year basis, the effectiveness of each of the key 2.7 programs in remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. Because LRSD's battle to improve the academic achievement of African-American -38- A072A (Rev.B/82) Case4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004  Page 39 of 74 students may go on for many years, the comprehensive process for assessing  2. 7 programs must become a deeply embedded part ofLRSD 's elementary and secondary curriculum. OnJy then can I have the necessary assurance that LRSD will dutifully continue the comprehensive program assessment process (which also must include periodic program evaluations) until the need for  2.7 programs no longer exists. I asswned-1 now realize incorrectly-that LRSD would recognize that part of its burden of proof would include demonstrating that an effective program assessment process has been implemented and deeply embedd~ in its curriculum. 6. Because the  2.7.1 program assessment process must be an essential part of LRSD's curriculum for the foreseeable future, I thought LRSD would understand that it must hire a highly qualified Assistant Superintendent to replace Dr. Lease as the head of its Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (\"PRE\") and reinvigorate PRE with a team of highly trained professionals capable of devising a systematic process for assessing the  2.7 programs; identifying the key 2.7 programs that required evaluations and overseeing the preparation of those evaluations; making annual determinations about the effectiveness of the 2.7 programs; and structuring and implementing the required changes in those programs in order to make them more effective. LRSD did not.~d a qualified replacement for Dr. Lease, and it allowed its PRE to cease operating as a viable department; so, LRSD did not formulate an effective program assessment process, and did not deeply embed that process as part of its curriculum. 7. During the recent compliance hearing, the evidence established that, after Dr. Lesley's departure, LRSD failed to hire someone with similar qualifications and extensive experience in preparing and analyzing program evaluations to serve in the crucially important position of Associate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction. Mr. Glasgow, the acting -39- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82~~v-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 40 of 74 Associate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, admitted that PRE was \"short on personnel\" at the present time and that he intended to propose to the Board that it set a high priority on hiring a team of well qualified and experienced professionals capable of reinvigorating PRE. In addition to hiring a new director of PRE, Mr. Glasgow testified that LRSD needed to hire a \"research specialist\" with extensive experience in preparing and overseeing preparation of program evaluations. Th.is is something it should have done immediately after I entered the September 13 Decision. This would have allowed LRSD to use its PRE Department to oversee the preparation of the key 2.7 program assessments by outside consultants, such as Dr. Ross, and to perform the \"heavy lifting\" necessary to deeply embed an effective program assessment process as a pertinent part of LRSD's curriculum for the foreseeable future. 8. LRSD should have included in its program assessment process everything necessary for it to make an informed decision about whether each of the key 2.7 programs designed to improve African-American achievement was actually working to accomplish that objective. Wliite l am not a professional educator, common sense dictates that some of the more important elements of an effective program assessment process should include the following: ( a) program evaluati,ons specifically designed to detennine whether key  2. 7 programs, as implemented, are actually working at each school to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; (b) input from a broad cross section of the teachers responsible for implementing each of the key 2. 7 programs-about the effectiveness of these programs at their respective schools and whether a  2.7 program should be modified or eliminated; (c) an assessment of whether each of the key 2. 7 programs is being implemented with the same degree of effectiveness and success at each participating school; (~) an assessment of whether more -40- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 41 of 7 4 teaching specialists or other personnel are needed at some schools in order to enhance the effectiveness of the key  2. 7 program; and (e) administering consistent standardized tests at various grade levels so that the academic achievement of African-American students can be accurately followed, and valid statistics can be compiled regarding their year to year academic achievement. 9. In the Compliance Remedy, I was reluctant to set forth too much detail about how LRSD should structure its program assessment process. Professional educators ought to be able to do a better job than I could in formulating and implementing this process; but LRSD is found wanting in its handling of its duties under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. 10. LRSD did not follow the plain language of subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, and I find this quite puzzling. In any event, it prepared two \"comprehensive\" evaluations that covered only some of the  2. 7 programs and that reflected--at some grade levels and on some tests--an improvement in the achievement level of African-American students in the areas of literacy, math, and science. Somehow, LRSD concluded that those two global evaluations would be sufficient to prove the effectiveness of each of the key  2. 7 programs, as they have been actually implemented, and to ~tisfy me that it had in place a deeply embedded and effective  2.7. I program assessment process. l l. Having reviewed a mountain of test score results from 1998 through the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, it appears to me that most of LRSD's testing data is highly variable. At some grade levels, in some years, there is improvement, and at other grade levels, in other years, test scores decline. In dealing with a problem that is as challenging as narrowing the achievement gap, such an ebb and flow of test scores over only a few years should come as -41- A072A (Rev.8/82). Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 42 of 74 no-surprise. That is why I believe it is so important for LRSD to deeply embed an effective  2. 7. I program assessment process in its curriculum and then make certain it has a team of highly trained specialists administering that process for years to come. LRSD should pay close attention to the next point: If it were to implement, properly staff. and deeply embed an effective 2. 7.1 program assessment process, LRSD could still prove that it had substantially complied with its obligations under  2. 7 .1 and subpart A of the Compliance Remedy-even if test results did not establish that there had been much, if any, improvement in the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican stud~ts. This is because 2.7'.1 does not require an improvement in the academic achievement of African-American students--it requires only that LRSD have in place an effective and deeply embedded program assessment process that is capable of assessing the effectiveness of its key 2.7 programs. 12. I find LRSD's Literacy Program Evaluation (ails to substantially comply with subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. I further find some of the most significant deficiencies in this Evaluation to be as follows: (a) LRSD's Compliance Plan32 provided that: LRSD will: . . . (4) Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program .. . . (Emphasis added.) The Literacy Evaluation does not evaluate each  2. 7 academic program implemented to improve the academic achievement of African-American students in the area ofliteracy, much less analyze ''whether to 32See docket no. 3745, Exhibit A at 3; LRSD's Exhibit No. 2. -42- A072A (Aev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 43 of 74 No.2. (b) modify or replace\" any of those programs. Regulation ILR 1 provided that any  2. 7. l program evaluation must answer the following research question: \"Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students?\" See docket no. 3865, Appendix 2 at 5.33 The Regulation went on to state that this research question was required to be included in any  2.7.1 program evaluation based on: \"Po,icy IL,  2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.\" Id. at 5. Incredibly, the research questions set forth on page I of the Literacy Program Evaluation do not include this essential research question. During the compliance hearing, Dr.-Ross testified that, read together, research questions 2 through 6 were . aimed at getting at the same information sought in the one essential research question that was required by Regulation IL-Rt. Nevertheless, as Dr. Ross conceded, he should have included that research question in the Literacy Program Evaluation in order to comply with Regulation IL-R 1.34 (c) Regulation IL-RI explicitly required the \"team leader\" of the 2.7.1 program evaluation to write \"a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule for its implementation.\" 33During the recent compliance hearing, this docwnent was introduced as Joshua's Exhibit 341n Dr. Ross's defense, he testified that he had little, if any, communication withLRSD's staff members or administrators after he was hired to prepare the Literacy Evaluation. Thus, it is unclear whether he was provided with a copy of Regulation IL-RI, or otherwise advised ofits purpose and requirements. -43- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 44 of 74 Id. at 5. The_ Literacy Program Evaluation does not sufficiently _identify the specific  2. 7 programs that are covered by the evaluation - a direct violation of Regulation IL-Rl. At the elementary school level (grades K-5), the Literacy Program Evaluation cites .. results\" from five programs: (a) Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas (\"ELLA\") for grades K through 2; (b) Effective Literacy for grades 3 through 5; (c) Signature Reading Series for grades 1 through 5; (d) Reading Recovery for 1st graders; and (e) Success For All (\"SFA\") for grades K through 5. Id. at 10.35 At the middle school level (grades 6-9), the Evaluation states only that \"all grades participated in Reading and Writing Workshop concepts [whatever that means],\" without indicating whether \"Reading and Writing Workshop\" was a 2.7 program or whether there were any other 2.7 programs designed to improve the literacy of African-American middle school students. Id. at 11 . Finally, at the hlgh school level (grades 9-12), the Evaluation merely cites \"block scheduling of English classes to accommodate different levels of learners . .. and teacher professional development . based on national research findi~gs, trends, and issues in literacy development [whatever that means].\" Dr. Ross conceded that these program descriptions were \"amorphous.\" While Dr. Ross and LRSD administrators may know what these descriptions mean, I do not. Thus, I am left to guess at whether I should consider \"block scheduling of English classes\" and \"teacher professional development\" as a 2. 7 35 As indicated previously, LRSD has never provided me with a list of all of its  2. 7 literacy programs. Therefore, I have no way of knowing if these were the only 2.7 literacy programs implemented at the elementary school level. -44- - - -- - - A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 45 of 74 program and wonder if there were any other  2.7 programs that LRSD implemented to improve the literacy of African-American high school students. In the future, LRSD should keep in mind that its program evaluations ofkey  2.7 programs need to be written in such a way that they not only comply with Regulation IL-RI, but also are readily understandable to me. (d) In the \"Summary and Conclusions\" section, Dr. Ross cites a number of negative comments about the overall effectiveness of LRSD's literacy program. For example, LRSD elementary teachers said in interviews that some of the most effective  2.7 reading programs, such as ELLA and Effective Literacy, were \"often perceived as separate and distinct entities instead of integral to the district comprehensive literacy program.\" Id. at 43. Furthermore, the authors noted that: (1) \"middle school and high school teachers' comments seemed to indicate that they also did not perceive themselves as being involved in a literacy plan beyond the traditional roles they had as English teachers\"; and (2) \"teachers' perceptions of the impact ofliteracy programs were extremely mixed.\" Id. (e) Finally, Regul~tion IL--Rl required LRSD to provide regular \"progress reports\" on the Program Evaluations to \"stakeholders,\" including the ODM and Joshua. See Joshua's Exhibit No. 2 at 5; docket no. 3864, Exhibit A, Appendix 1 at 5. During the evidentiary hearing, the testimony establishe\u0026lt;I that LRSD failed to provide the ODM and Joshua with any\"progress reports\" on the Literacy Program Evaluation as required by Regulation IL-RI. 13. I find LRSD'.s Math and Science Evaluation also falls short of substantial -45- A072A (Rev.8182} Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 46 of 74 compliance with subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. The more obvious deficiencies in this Evaluation are as follows: (a) As indicated previously, LRSD's Compliance Plan specifically obligate\u0026lt;J it to \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program ' implemented pursuant to Re~sed Plan 2. 7 in order to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program.\"36 To meet this requirement of its own Compliance Plan, LRSD was obligated to: ( J) identify each of the key  2.7 math and science programs that were in place during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; and (2) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each of those academic programs. In violation ofits own Compliance Plan, LRSD prepared a comprehensive Math and Science Evaluation that examined \"areas of knowledge\"--not specific  2.7 programs. Furthermore, the Evaluation makes no attempt to analyze which of the  2.7 math and science programs need to be modified; the nature of the modifications that should be made; and whether any of those programs should be eliminated and replaced with the more effective programs. (b) The Math and Science Evaluation lists \"Milestones\" in implementing the \"educational system reforms\" but only a few  2.7 programs are specifically identified, e.g., the Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training Program (\"SMART''), THRIVE, a Saturday math academy implemented in collaboration 36See docket no. 3745, Exhibit A at 3. -46- A072A (Rev.8/82) .. . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 47 of 74 with Philander Smith, SECME, a program for students interested in engineering, and unspecified \"additional support programs in collaboration with the Arkansas Musewn of Discovery, UALR, and UAMS.\" See Exhibit G at 6-9 (docket no. 3837). Furthermore, one of the ''Milestones\" is described as the implementation of a \"high quality standard-base curricula for all students, grades K-12, in math and science.\" Id. at 9 ( emphasis added). After carefully reviewing the long list of \"Milestones,\" I find that the Math and Science ~valuation was intended to cover all curriculum changes made to LRSD's math and science programs - not the specific  2.7 programs that were designed and implemented to improve the academic achievement of African-American students in math and science. Ms. Vanessa Cleaver, the former Project Director of the Comprehensive Partnership for Math and Science Achievement, testified that LRSD prepared the Math and Science Evaluation according to NSF evaluation standards, which differed from those contained in Regulation IL-RI. She also testified that LRSD  prepared the Math and Science Evaluation to satisfy the requirements of the NSF grant. I find ~e purpose and objective of the NSF grant were not the same as subpart A of the Compliance Remedy. Thus, LRSD should not have assumed that satisfying the requirements of the NSF grant would automatically satisfy the requirements of subpart A of the Compliance Remedy. (c) The Math and Science Evaluation C()nsists primarily of an analysis of test scores demonstrating that LRSD has made some progress: (I) in increasing the number of African-American students who  have moved from the Below Basic -47- A072A (Rev.B/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 F1ied 06/30/2004 Page 48 of 74 (d) Achievement Level in math and science to the Basic Achievement Level; and (2) increasing the enrollment of African-American students in more rigorous math and science courses. However, much less progress has been made in increasing the number of African-American students who are achieving at or above the Proficient Level in math and science. The only statistically supportable conclusion that can be drawn from this Evalu;ttion is that LRSD appears to be doing \"something\" right in its math and science_ curriculum because a significant nwnber of African-American students have moved from the Below Basic Level to the Basic Level in math and science. However, the Math and Science Evaluation makes no attempt to address, much Jess answer, the essential questions that LRSD's own Regulation IL-RI required it to answer: Which specific 2.7 programs are actually working and most effective in improving the academic achievement of African-American students in math and science? What changes need to be made to improve those programs? What programs are not effective and should be eliminated? In her testimony, Ms. Cleaver admitted that the primary focus of the ~ath and Science Evaluation was on a statistical analysis of test scores-not a determination of the effectiveness of specific  2. 7 programs such as THRIVE and SMART. Finally, Ms. Cleaver acknowledged that the Math and Science Evaluation did not address the effectiveness of the.new math and science curriculum, as it had been implemented at each school, in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Stanford Achievement Test is a .. norm referenced\" test, which means that it -48- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 49 of 74 compares the achievement of Arkansas students with a national sample of students who took the same exam. As a result, scores are based on national performance quartiles. Thus, if a fifth grade student perf onns at the 20th percentile in math on the Stanford Achievement Test, it means 80% of the fifth grade students in the country exceeded his or her performance. In contrast, the state Benchmark Exam is a \"criterion-referenced\" test that was created for use within Arkansas to measure students' mastery of state math and literacy standards. Performance on the Benchmark Exam is measured in four broad categories: Below Basic; Basic; Proficient; and Advanced. According to Mr. Glasgow, students who perform at the Below Basic level have a very limited understanding of the concepts being tested. Mr. Glasgow also testified that it was much easier to improve student test scores on the state Benchmark Exam than on a national \"norm referenced\" test like the Stanford Achievement Test. It is possible to devise a statistically defensible \"equating formula\" to allow educators to compare percentiles of performance among \"nonn referenced\" tests. However, in the Math and Science Evaluation, the ~uthors take the extraordinary statistical liberty of trying to convert quartiles of performance on the \"norm referenced\" Stanford Achievement Test into the four much different categories of performance that are measured on the \"criterion-referenced\" Benchmark Exam. Furthermore, this appears to have been done to create the false impression that African-American students have improved their performance on the Stanford Achievement Test. In my experience, you can't mix apples and oranges and then claim you've got tangerines. I find the charts -49- A072A (Aev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 50 of 74 and data that are displayed on pages 49-55 to be of no statistical value in determining whether African-American students have improved their level of performance on the Stanford Achievement Test. ( e) Finally, I find that LRSD failed to provide regular \"progress reports\" on the Math and Science Evaluation to the ODM and Joshua, as required by Regulation IL-RI . See docket no. 3864, Exhibit A, Appendix 1 at 5. 14. Dr. Ross testified that his Literacy Evaluation~ which he referred -to as a \"big picture\" evaluation, was the necessary first step in complying with LRSD's obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. According to Dr. Ross, the global Literacy Evaluation reached a narrow but very important conclusion: The various  2. 7 literacy programs, which are described on pages 10-11 and 34, are equally \"effective\" or \"ineffective\" in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. As Dr. Ross explained, \"beauty is in the eye of the beholder.\" Therefore, some readers of the Literacy Evaluation might conclude that the relatively modest improvement in African-American test scores was sufficient to deem those programs \"effective,\" while other readers might conclude, based upon the same data, that they were \"ineffective.\" Most importantly, however, Dr. Ross testified that his statistical analysis demonstrated that none of the 2. 7 programs aimed at improving literacy produced an unhealthy outcome for African-American students. By unhealthy outcome, Dr. Ross meant that the test scores for African-American students did not go down. 15. Dr. Ross made it clear that it is now crucially important for LRSD to take the second step and perform program evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the specific 2. 7 literacy programs as they have been implemented at each of the schools in the district. He -50- A072A (Rev.8182) .,. .- . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 51 -6(74  testified that the step 2 evaluations were necessary and essential in order for LRSD to determine: (a) whether, as implemented, on a school-by-school basis, the key 2.7 programs were effective in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (b) whether any program changes needed to be made to improve the effectiveness of the key 2.7 programs as they were being implemented at each school. Dr. Ross testified that, without these step 2 evaluations, LRSD cannot continue .to make progress in improving the scores of AfricanAmerican students on the Arkansas Benchmark Exam and the_Stanford Achievement Test. 16. In the 2001 -02 unitary status hearings, the evidence established that LRSD has a number of elementary schools in which the students are entirely or almost ' entirely AfricanAmerican. Likewise, some ofLRSD's middle schools and high schools have a disproportionately high number of African-American students compared with other middle schools and high schools. Only by performing these step 2 evaluations of the key  2. 7 programs, as they have been implemented on a school-by-school basis, will LRSD be able to determine their effectiveness at the classroom level. Because that is where \"the rubber meets the road,\" I find the data that will be gained from these step 2 evaluations is a vital and essential part of LRSD's assessment obligation under  2. 7. I of the Revised Plan and subpart A of the Compliance Remedy. 17. Dr. Lesley testifie\u0026lt;;I that, because each of the key  2.7 programs that LRSD implemented had already been found to be successful in improving the academic achievement of African-American students in other school districts where those programs were pioneered and developed (e.g., the Chicago School District and.the Washington D.C. School District), there was no need to perform step 2 evaluations of the effectiveness of those programs, as implemented in LRSD. However, Dr. Ross testified that his own extensive experience in evaluating virtually -51- A072A (Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 52 of 74 .. a ,   identical programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students in different school districts revealed that some programs work well in one district but fail in another. Furthermore, Dr. Ross indicated his own personal experiences with the highly variable success rates of the same programs implemented in different school districts was borne out by all of the research and studies on the subject. Thus, the ELLA literacy program might work in LRSD but fail to achieve results in the Memphis School District. I find Dr. Ross's testimony on this point to be authoritative and credible. I reject Dr. Lesley's testimony that \"one size fits all\" and that it can be taken on faith that, ifLRSD implements a literacy program which was proven to be highly effective in the Washington D.C. elementary schools, the program can be assumed to be equally effective as implemented in LRSD. 18. Dr. Lesley also testified that. in order to meet its obligations under 2.7.l and subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, she believed LRSD was required to perform only annual informal program assessments. She testified that, at the time she left LRSD in March of 2003, she and other LRSD administrators were fully capable of assessing test data, interviewing teachers, and coming up with an informal assessment or evaluation of which 2. 7 programs were effective and which were not. Even if Dr. Lesley had remained with LRSD, I would have serious doubts about the value and reliability of such informal assessments or evaluations. However, after Dr. Lesley resigned in March of 2003, there is no evidence that any ofLRSD's remaining administrators had the experience or training to perform such informal assessments or evaluations. 19. Dr. Ross was emphatic in testifying that LRSD must perform formal evaluations . . of the key  2. 7 programs as implemented--not informal \"assessments\" or informal program -52- \\072A Aev.8/82)  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 53 of 74 evaluations. He testified that it is easy for \"informal evaluations\" never to be perfonned, or, worse yet, result in bad statistical analysis that leads a school district to claim test score improvements that, in reality, do not exist. 20. LRSD's counsel asked Mr. Glasgow, the interim Superintendent of Instruction and Curriculum, if he agree.d that requiring African-American students to take more rigorous academic courses was the most effective way to improve African-American achievement. . Obviously, counsel expected a \"yes\" answer, but Mr. Glasgow responded ''No.\" He testified that the single best way to improve the academic achievement of African-American students was to evaluate, on a school-by-school basis, the effectiveness of specific  2. 7 programs, as they have been implemented at the classroom level. By way of example, Mr. Glasgow referred to Reading for All, one of the key  2. 7 literacy programs. Mr. Glasgow testified that, because deviations existed from school to school in the way in which that program had been implemented, some students--at some schoo]s--may have been helped more by that program than students at other schools where it had not been implemented with the same degree of success. Thus, Mr. Glasgow's testimony strongly supported Dr. Ross's testimony that the step 2 program evaluations were a necessary part of LRSD's program assessment obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy. 21. I find that Dr. Ross is a well-qualified expert in preparing program evaluations and that he has extensive knowledge about programs and strategies that schools can implement to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that Dr. Ross 's testimony was both infonnative and credible regarding the Literacy Evaluation that he prepared. According to Dr. Ross, he was instructed to prepare the comprehensive Literacy Evaluation but -53- A072A (Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 54 of 74  then had very little, if any, substantive contact with LRSD's compliance team regarding his work on that evaluation. Dr. Ross indicated that he was disappointed by LRSD's lack of participation in the Literacy Evaluation. 22. I do not put much stock in Dr. Lesley's testimony at this last hearing. (Her testimony in the unitary status hearings in 2001 was quite helpful.) Her answers to pointed questions were often indirect and marked py semantics. I got the distinct impression that she wanted to avoid giving answers that would be harmful to LRSI\u0026gt;'s position. In his preparation of one or more of the Page 148 Evaluations, Dr. Ross advised Dr. Lesley that she was improperly using test score results to reach unsupportably favorable conclusions about improvements in African-American achievement. Dr. Lesley t~tified that, after Dr. Ross called this matter to her attention, she ''toned down\" some of her statistical conclusions. Yet, in the compliance hearing, Dr. Lesley hailed the Literacy Evaluation's data on the improvement in African-American test scores as a cause for great celebration. Dr. Ross, however, made it clear that, while AfricanAmerican students at some grade levels had made modest improvements on the state Benchmark Exam, very little progress had been made in improving African-American achievement in the ''norm referenced\" Stanford Achievement Test. In other words, there is no cause for great celebration on this point, at this time. 23. As I have repeatedly emphasized, LRSD's Compliance Plan interpreted subpart . A of the Compliance Remedy as requiring it to prepare \"a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program.\" See. docket no. 3745, Exhibit A at 3 (emphasis -54- A072A (Aev.8182) . . . - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 55 of 74 added). I find it impossible to construe LRSD's specific obligation to prepare a comprehensive program evaluation .on .. each academic program\" to now mean that LRSD was only required to evaluate two broad areas of learning: \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science.\" While the fields of \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science\" may be convenient ways to divide academic knowledge, they most certainly do not constitute specific  2. 7 \"academic programs\" ( e.g., Reading for AH, Early Literacy Learning, Reading Recovery, or Effective Literacy) that LRSD implemented, on a school-by-school basis, to improve the academic achievement _of African-American students. 24. I find it relevant that, as early as October 10, 2002, less than thirty days after I entered the September 13 Decision, LRSD's Compliance Plan construed subpart A of the Compliance Remedy as requiring it to prepare \"comprehensive evaluations of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2. 1\"-not \"comprehensive evaluations of Literacy and Math and Science.\" lfLRSD believed subpart A of the Compliance Remedy imposed on it obligations that went beyond  2. 7. I of the Revised Plan, it should have appealed that issue to the Eighth Circuit. It is too late in the game for LRSD to cry foul, and contend that its own construction of subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, as set forth in its own Compliance Plan, is too onerous, and goes beyond its original o~Jigations in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. 25. Dr. Ross's ''big picture evaluation\" ofliteracy test score results has established that, on balance, none of the  2.7 programs have produced any \"unhealthy outcomes\" for African-American students. Thus, I find that LRSD has taken the first step required by subpart A of the Compliance Remedy. Having received this \"good news\" from Dr. Ross 's global Literacy Evaluation, LRSD is now in a position to complete its obligation under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy by preparing step 2 evaluations of each of the key  2. 7 programs, as they -55- \\072A Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 56 of 74 have actually been implemented, in order to determine their effectiveness and the changes and modifications that may need to be made to improve their effectiveness. 26. Finally, Dr. Ross testified that large urban school districts in Chicago an~ Washington D. C. sometimes perform ten or more step 2 program evaluations each year. While he conceded that it would be unrealistic to expect a district the size of LRSD to perform that many program evaluations, Dr. Ross testified that, in his opinion, it was reasonable to expect LRSD to perform four or five step 2 program evaluations each year in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of its African-American students. 27. IfLRSD had implemented and deeply embedded an effective program assessment process in the 2002-03 school year, assembled a highly qualified team of professionals to oversee that process, prepared the big picture step 1 evaluations of its Literacy and Math and Science programs, and four or five step 2 evaluations of specific  2. 7 programs, with the intention of continuing to perform such evaluations annually for the foreseeable future, I would have had no difficulty concluding that it had met its obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy. Unfortunately, because almost none of these things were accomplished, I must conclude that LRSD has failed to establish_ a legally sufficient evidentiazy basis for finding that it has substantially complied with its obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy'. 28. Subpart B of the Compliance Remedy required LRSD to maintain written records of its assessment of each  2. 7 program. These written records were required to include the following: (a) the criteria that LRSD used to assess each 2.7 program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; and (b) the .. results of the annual assessment of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program -56- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 57of 74 modifications or the elimination of any programs.\" LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1088. Proposed Regulation IL-R2, which was never approved by the Board, appears to have been designed to satisfy the requirements of subpart B of the Compliance Remedy. According to Proposed Regulation IL-R2, anytime LRSD significantly modified an academic program in \"English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science or Social Studies,\" it was required to: ( a) explain in writing the decision to significantly modify the academic program; (b) set forth \"the written criteria used to evaluate the program\" in which the changes ar,e to be made; and (c) summarize \"the student assessment data [test results] on which the decision was based [to modify the program].\" See docket no. 3865, Exhibit A, Appendix 2 at l. If LRSD had approved, implemented, and complied with Proposed Regulation II-R2, it might havesubstantiallycomplied with its obligations under subpart B of the Compliance Remedy. 29. The evidence established that LRSD failed to maintain any of the separate written records on each of the  2. 7 programs that were required by subpart B of the Compliance Remedy. Instead, LRSD attached to its Compliance Report three documents that contain a confusing compilation of random changes in various vaguely described academic programs during the 2001-02, 2002-03, iUld 2003-04 school years. See docket no. 3837, Exhibits C, D, and E. The programs are not well enough described so that I can determine which of th.em are  2. 7 programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. Furthermore, while Exhibits C, D, and E catalogue numerous changes that were made to the vaguely identified programs, they contain no explanation of how each of the changes will increase the effectiveness of the programs in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Thus, I find that Exhibits C, D, and E to LRSD's Compliance Report fall well -57- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 58 of 74 short of substantially complying with the requirements of subpart B of the Compliance Remedy. C. LRSD's Efforts to Comply with Subpart C of the Compliance Remedy, 1. On page 148-ofits March 15, 2001 Compliance Report, LRSD erroneously stated that its PRE Department had prepared Program Evaluations on fourteen listed programs. See docket no. 3410 at 148. It is unclear how LRSD determined that it was necessary to prepare these fourteen Page 148 Evaluations in order to satisfy its obligations under 2. 7 .1 of the ~evised Plan. Furthennore, at least one of the listed programs, English as a Second Language (\"ELS\"), clearly is not a  2. 7 program. I do not understand how LRSD came to believe that it was required to evaluate an ELS program in order to satisfy its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. However, even ifLRSD had properly completed all fourteen of the Page 148 Evaluations, I still would have held, for the other reasons enumerated in the September 13 Decision, that it had failed to substantially comply with its obligations under  2. 7. I of the Revised Plan. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at I 076-82. 2. In subpart C of the Compliance Remedy, I required LRSD to complete and file the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations to send a clear message that I expected LRSD to honor all of its comrnitments--even if it now meant preparing evaluations that would be of little or no use in assessing the effectiveness of the 2. 7 programs, Because I was requiring LRSD, retrospectively, to prepare the fourteen program evaluations that it should have completed on or before March 15, 2001, I expected LRSD to use only the data that would have been available through that date. However, I also knew that, under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD was required to formulate and implement a comprehensive program assessment process and then use it to assess each of the key 2. 7 programs, using the most recent data available from the 2002-03 and 2003- -58- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 59 of 74 04 school years. Thus, I viewed the comprehensive program assessments LRSD was required to prepare under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy-not the Page 148 Evaluations-as the touchstones that LRSD would use to determine the effectiveness of each of the key  2. 7 programs. 3. Subpart C of the Compliance Remedy provided that the Court ''will accept all [Page 148 Evaluations] that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board.\" See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1088. LRSD had completed or substantially completed six of the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations by the time I entered the September 13 Decision. These six evaluations covered the following programs: ( a) Pre-K-3 Literacy; (b) NSF Math and Science Project;37 (c) Charter Schools; (d) ELS; (e) SEDL Program at Southwest Middle School; and (f) Collaborative Action Team Project. By the end of December, 2002, LRSD's Board had approved all six of these Page 148 Evaluations. 4. On March 14, 2003, LRSD filed these six program evaluations with the Court. See Volumes I and II (docket no. 3745). The ODM's Compliance Report contains no significant substantive criticism of these evaluations. See ODM's Compliance Report at 20 (docket no. 3854). Similarly, Joshua's objections to these six evaluations are primarily confined to alleged shortcomings such .as a failure to \"properly disaggregate data,\" or overstating the positive conclusions that might fairly be drawn from some of the data presented. See Joshua's Comments on the Page 148 Evaluations at 3-5 (docket no. 3752). 37This evaluation included data and test scores from school years 1998-99 through 2000- 01. See Volume II (docket no. 3745). -59- A072A (Rev.8/82) ------- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 60 of 74 5. Of the eight remaining Page 148 Evaluations, LRSD had discontinued four of the programs by the time I entered the September 13 Decision. Thus, the Page 148 Evaluations on LRSD's Elementary Summer School Program, the Lyceum Scholars Program, the Onward to Excellence Program at Watson Elementary, and the Vital Link Program were utterly useless in determining the effectiveQess of any of the ongoing 2. 7 programs. Because these four Page 148 Evaluations are essentially\"obituaries\" on discontinued programs, I find the ODM's and Joshua's criticism of these evaluations falls squarely in the category of\"beating a dead horse.\" 6. The last four Page 148 Evaluations cover Middle School Implementation, Extended Year Schools, HIPPY, and Campus Leadership Teams. See Volumes ill and IV ( docket no. 3 7 45). While these four evaluations could be improved, I find they are adequate to fulfill the limited purpose for which they were prepared. 7. As previously stated, I never expected for any of the Page 148 Evaluations to be of much, if any, use to LRSDin assessingtheeffectivenessofthecurrent  2.7 programs. Rather, I required LRSD to prepare those evaluations to fulfiJI the promises it made in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. For that reason, any flaws in the Page 148 Evaluations are oflittle, if any, substantive importance in determining the effectiveness of the  2. 7 programs. 8. As previously discussed, after LRSD rested its case in the compliance hearing, I granted Joshua's Rule 52(c) Motion with respect to LRSD's proof that it had complied with its obligations under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. Joshua then withdrew its chaHenge to LRSD's evidence that it had substantially complied with subpart C of the Compliance Remedy. Thus, based upon Joshua's withdrawal of their challenge to LRSD's compliance with subpart C, and my own independent findings on the merits of that compliance -60- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 61 of 74 issue, I conclude LRSD has substantially complied with subpart C of the Compliance Remedy and is released from all further supervision and monitoring with regard to tho$e obligations. VII. Compliance Remedy Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, it must remain under court supervision for two more complete school years, 2004-05 and 2005-06. To avoid any \"misunderstanding\" regarding this Compliance Remedy, I will be specific. The new Compliance Remedy is as follows: A. LRSD must promptly 38 hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to detennine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and . regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. 18By \"promptly hire,\" I mean, if possible, before school starts in August of this year. Because this team must consist of experienced and highly trained professionals, LRSD may not be able to accomplish this task by August. However, if LRSD believes that it needs more than ninety days to assemble this team of professionals, its attorneys should immediately notify me so that I can schedule a hearing on this matter. -61- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 62 of 74 B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process.39 It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-Arnerican students to justify discontinuing the need for specific 2. 7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process; then be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 39By \"comprehensive program assessment process,\" I mean everything necessary to accurately assess the effectiveness of the key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. As explained in detail in subpart C of this Compliance Remedy, part of the \"comprehensive program assessment process\" must include formal step 2 evaluations of certain key 2.7 programs, as they have been implemented in schools throughout the district. I also expect part of LRSD's \"comprehensive program assessment process\" to include preparing informal program assessments that in~olve interviews with teachers, informal evaluations of test scores, and the other things normally associated with the more dynamic program assessment process. While it should already be crystal clear, I am not using the term \"assessment\" to mean \"testing.\" -62- A072A (Rev.81B2) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 63 of 74 C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD  must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations.\" Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) fonnal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these fonnal step 2 evaluations of the key  2. 7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross--to perform the following tasks: ( 1) identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools \"For a detailed discussion of what I mean by \"step 2 evaluations,\" see paragraphs 14 through 26, supra, at 51-56. -63- - ------- A072A (Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 64 of 74 E. throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (l) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations; (2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations; and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, 41 I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which : (I) describes of the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was r~ved regarding the effectiveness of the key 2. 7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2. 7 programs in improving the academic _ 41Subpart B of the Compliance Remedy in the September 13 Decision required LRSD to maintain certain written records regarding its assessment of each of the key 2. 7 programs. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88. LRSD had considerable difficulty compiling and properly maintaining those written records. -64- A072A (Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Fil    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1411","title":"Report: ''The Status of the North Little Rock School District Implementation of its Desegregation Plan,'' 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":["2004-06-09"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School buildings","School facilities","School employees","School enrollment","School discipline","School integration","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Student suspension"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''The Status of the North Little Rock School District Implementation of its Desegregation Plan,'' 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/1411"],"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":["116 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1765","title":"Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and Joshua intervenrs' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion and memorandum regarding Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2004-06"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Educational planning","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and Joshua intervenrs' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion and memorandum regarding Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1765"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["45 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) implementation of the compliance remedy; District Court, combined Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion and memorandum regarding Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) combined motion and memorandum regarding Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IJ\\T THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KJ--fIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUN - 8 2004 orr,.1~r!ilf DESEGREiiAk,, .,/i~~mmtro LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PLAIJ\\TTIFF DEFENDANTS IJ\\TTERVENORS IJ\\TTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDIJ\\TGS OFF ACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW For its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: Proposed Findings of Fact 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court found that LRSD had substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan except with respect to  2. 7 .1 of that Plan. The Court therefore declared that LRSD is a unitary school district in all other respects but set forth a compliance remedy to address LRSD's failure to substantially comply with  2.7.1. Memorandum Opinion, September 13, 2002. 2. LRSD promptly developed a proposed Compliance Plan designed to assure its compliance with the Court's compliance remedy. LRSD provided this proposed Compliance Plan to all counsel in the case and to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on October 4, 2002. The Page 1 of 10 LRSD Board approved the Compliance Plan on October 10, 2002. The Compliance Plan addresses - each aspect of the Compliance Remedy. 3. LRSD received responses from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and from the Joshua Intervenors concerning its proposed compliance plan. OD M's response, dated October 10, 2002, was in the fom1 of\"observations and questions.\" LRSD responded to each observation and question on October 11 , 2002 in a letter from LRSD lawyer Clay Fendley to all other counsel and Ms. Marshall. LRSD provided a detailed response to Joshua's concerns in a letter dated October 25 , 2002 from Clay Fendley to all other counsel and Ms. Marshall. LRSD concluded its response to Joshua with the following paragraph: 4. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD' s written response to alleged non-compliance in accordance with Revised Plan  8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days of receipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires that \"LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2. 7 to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students.\" LRSD met this requirement by preparing comprehensive evaluations of its elementary and secondary literacy programs, and its mathematics and science programs in accordance with its Compliance Plan. 5. Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy requires that \"LRSD maintain certain written records regarding its assessment of each program, including the written criteria used to assess each program, the results of the annual assessments of each program, and the names of the administrators who were involved in the assessment of each program.\" LRSD has maintained the required records in accordance with its Compliance Plan and much of the required information is set forth in the text Page 2 of 10 of the literacy and the mathematics and science evaluations. 6. Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy requires that \"LRSD must use Dr. Nunnery or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.\" The Court held that \"all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board\" were acceptable. The deadline for preparation and approval by the LRSD Board of these program evaluations was March 15, 2003 . LRSD was required to use the program evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the programs and improving African-American achievement and in determining whether modifications to the programs should be made. 7. LRSD determined that the following evaluations were prepared with the help of outside experts and that, following Board approval, they would be acceptable to the Court: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. These program evaluations have now been approved by the LRSD Board of Directors. 8. On November 4, 2002, Dr. Lesley reported to the LRSD Board, counsel for Joshua and ODM the status of LRSD's work to implement its compliance plan. Dr. Lesley noted that on October 24, 2002 the Board approved the 1999-2000 and 2001 PreK-2 Literacy Program Evaluation, which was completed with the assistance of Dr. Ross, and the 2000-01 Charter School Program Evaluation, which was completed by Dr. Larry McNeal. Joshua and ODM received copies of all of those evaluations. Dr. Lesley also provided to Joshua and ODM copies of the Collaborative Action Team Evaluation and the Southwest Middle School's SEDL Evaluation. Page 3 of 10 9. On December 3, 2002, Dr. Lesley wrote to counsel for Joshua and to ODM to let - them know that the Board would consider approval of the mathematics and science evaluations for the years 1998 through 2002 on December 19, 2002. Dr. Lesley provided copies of the program evaluation documents to Joshua and ODM. Dr. Lesley also reported to Joshua and ODM that, by the end of December 2002, six of the fourteen program evaluations listed on page 148 of LRSD 's Final Compliance Report will have been approved. 10. In accordance with LRSD's Compliance Plan, the remammg eight program evaluations listed on page 148 ofLRSD's Final Compliance Report were to be completed with the help of outside experts. Those evaluations are Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams, Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. 11 . LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, a program evaluation expert approved by the Joshua Intervenors, to prepare guidelines for the completion or revision of these eight evaluations. In late November, 2002, Dr. Ross prepared a document called \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the LRSD.\" Dr. Ross also consulted with Dr. William Moore and Dr. Larry McNeal, consultants who were selected to complete some of the eight program evaluations. See Agreement for Contracted Services between LRSD and Dr. Ross dated January 10, 2003. 12. In accordance with the guidelines prepared by Dr. Ross, Dr. Moore completed evaluations concerning the Middle School Transition and Extended Year Education; Dr. McNeal completed evaluations concerning Lyceum Scholars and Elementary Summer School; and Dr. Ross completed evaluations concerning Vital Link, Onward to Excellence, HIPPY and Campus Leadership Teams. Page 4 of 10 13 . All fifteen of the \"page 148\" Program Evaluations were approved by the LRSD Board - of Directors and were submitted to the Court on March 14, 2003 in accordance with paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 14. Some of \"page 148\" evaluations were of limited use to LRSD for various reasons explained by Dr. Ross and Dr. Lesley. For example, some of the programs had already been discontinued and the data available for some of the other programs provided a greater risk of producing a misleading evaluation result than a useful one. LRSD made the best use it could of the evaluations completed by outside experts in accordance with Dr. Ross' guidelines. 15. Paragraphs D and E of the Compliance Remedy require Joshua and ODM to monitor LRSD' s compliance with  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Joshua was also required to follow the requirements of 8 of the Revised Plan: Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with  2.7.1 and must immediately bring to the attention of LRSD all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under 2. 7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set forth in  8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2 .5. Any such presentation must be timely. Memorandum Opinion, September 13, 2002, p. 172. (emphasis in original) 16. On November 1, 2002, Joshua invoked the procedure set forth in  8.2.4 of the Revised Plan regarding the adequacy ofLRSD's Compliance Plan. Joshua presented the following arguments: a. LRSD was not planning to evaluate all of the programs it had identified to fulfill the requirements of 2.7; Page 5 of 10 b. C. The Pre-K-2 Literacy Program evaluation was not adequate for submission to the LRSD Board for approval; LRSD's plan for revising and completing the \"page 148\" evaluations was inconsistent with policy IL-Rl ; d. LRSD should not use its Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) or obsen1ation survey as it had in previous evaluations because those are administered by teachers who have a potential conflict of interest; e. LRSD's external consultants should write the comprehensive program evaluations in order to avoid a conflict of interest inherent in internal program evaluations; f. Careful consideration should be given to implementation ofremediation activities as a part of the program evaluation process. 17. ODM responded on November 4, 2002 that the ODM associate monitor responsible for monitoring program evaluation in the LRSD was unavailable due to injuries suffered in an accident and that ODM would assist with facilitation of the dispute upon his return. The facilitation process began with a meeting at ODM on February 7, 2003. The second and last facilitation meeting was held February 28, 2003. Following that meeting, LRSD's lawyer provided additional information to Joshua on March 4, 2003 and Dr. Lesley provided additional information to Joshua on March 6, 2003 . On April 8, 2003 Joshua sent a letter to Clay Fendley requesting additional information. Joshua concluded the letter with the following sentence: As we are in need of deciding whether to raise any of these matters before the court, we would appreciate a prompt response to this letter. LRSD provided no response to this letter. The facilitation process had failed. Page 6 of 10 18. Joshua did nothing further to pursue the Compliance Plan issues in accordance with -  8 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan until March 10, 2004. On that date, counsel for Joshua wrote to ODM in an attempt to revive the issues Joshua had previously raised concerning LRSD's Compliance Plan. Joshua did not present any of its Compliance Plan issues to the Court in a timely manner as required by paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 19. LRSD's decision to continue to implement its Compliance Plan notwithstanding Joshua's objections is in accordance with the terms of the Revised Plan: Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the District Court, LRSD shall be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party [Joshua] alleges failed to comply with this Revised Plan. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan  8.2.6. 21 . The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the LRSD's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, which were combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the LRSD Board in November of 2003 . The cost of the evaluation was approximately $100,000.00. 22. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through LRSD's National Science Foundation Grant, along with Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction and Vanessa Cleaver, LRSD's Director of the National Science Foundation Grant, authored the Comprehensive Mathematics and Science Evaluation. The Comprehensive Mathematics and Science Evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. The Literacy and Math/Science evaluations were provided to the Joshua Intervenors and to ODM on January 12, 2004. The cost of this evaluation was funded by the National Science Foundation Grant. Page7of 10 23 . The LRSD substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan - and the Court's compliance remedy by implementation of its Compliance Plan. Proposed Conclusions of Law 1. LRSD properly incorporated the requirements of the Compliance Remedy in its Compliance Plan. LRSD's substantial compliance with its Compliance Plan is tantamount to substantial compliance with the compliance remedy. 2. Joshua challenged LRSD's Compliance Plan pursuant to  8 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. After it was apparent that the ODM facilitation process had failed, Joshua took no action to bring the Compliance Plan issues to the attention of the Court. Joshua failed to present to the Court in a timely manner the compliance issues it first pointed out to LRSD on November 1, 2002. Consequently, LRSD implemented its Compliance Plan for about 18 months without the Court being made aware that Joshua had any objection to it. Joshua has - therefore waived its argument that LRSD's Compliance Plan is insufficient to bring LRSD in line with the Court's compliance remedy. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1387 (8 th Cir. 1990) (\"Consent decrees partake of the nature of contracts, as well as of judicial action . . . . \") 3. Given the fact that Joshua abandoned its pursuit of a remedy under 8 of the Revised Plan, it was proper for LRSD to continue to implement its Compliance Plan according to 8.2.6 of the Revised Plan. 4. Even if Joshua had presented the Compliance Plan issues to the Court in a timely manner, I find that the LRSD Compliance Plan appropriately incorporates the requirements of the compliance remedy. I further find that LRSD has followed the requirements of its Compliance Plan and consequently, has met the requirements of the compliance remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD, 60 F.3d Page 8 of 10 435, 436 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The interpretation of a consent decree should be a practical enterprise, e influence, perhaps, by technical rules of construction, but not controlled by them.\") 5. LRSD is declared to be unitary with regard to all aspects of its operations, because it has substantially complied with the Court's compliance remedy with respect to  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. All federal supervision and monitoring of LRSD is terminated forthwith. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller ( #81 08 3) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Littl72~201-3e493 :o~ (501~2~ BY:-=-==-c--'-''---~~-\"\"'---\"c....MC'----\"= Christopher Heller Page9of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 71h day of June, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 021 73 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 10 of I 0 ' \" .. RECEIVED JUN - 8 200't FILED c.u,..-U.S. DISTRICT COURT ~, ERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFFICE OF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN O 7 2004 A DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS~MES W M W WESTERN DIVISION By  cCORMACK, CLERK DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-8 66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. 'LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact \"and - Conclusions of Law Concerning the LRSD's Implementation of . the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Remedy - On September 13, 2002, this court held that the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with Section 2.7.1 of the agreed upon desegregation and education plan. [Mem. Opin. at 150-60] Accordingly, the court set forth a \"Compliance Remedy.\" [Id. at 170-72] This court's September 2002 opinion identified the purpose of Section 2. 7. 1, the importance of substantial compliance with its terms, and the capacity which the LRSD must demonstrate as one element of its burden to justify the termination of the court's supervision. This court wrote: .... I find that the purpose of Sec. 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs under Sec. 2.7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-american . students. I further find that LRSD' s substanti al compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic 1 achievement of African-American students; for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under Sec. 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, replaced with new programs [at 150; emphasis in original] I conclude that the court should continue supervision and monitoring of LRSD' s compliance with this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program that will allow it to identify and improve those programs that are most effective in remediating the academic achievement of African American students. [at 168] These elements of the court's opinion help to frame the issues presented by the Joshua Intervenor's opposition to the LRSD effort to be released from court supervision, heard by the court on June 14-15, 2004. Based upon the record, the court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. 1 I. Findings of Fact A. The Lack of Capacity of the LRSD to Perform the Requisite Assessments and Evaluations (1.) Based upon the facts set forth in paragraphs 2 through 26, the court finds that the LRSD has failed to \"[demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sestion 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; ... \" [\"Compliance Remedy,\" Mem. Opin. at 170; see also id. at 168] [Haney, Hunter, Jones, Marshall testimony] 1 LRSD and Joshua Intervenors' exhibits are cited LRX at --and JX at---, respectively. Witnesses are cited by their last names. 2 The Lack of Adequate Staff (2.) In its ruling of September 13, 2002, this court cited the recognition of the school board and upper ec;::helon administrators that the LRSD had been without the capacity to prepare what the court termed \"in-depth and analytic program evaluations.\" [Mem. Opin. at 156; see id. at 153 (Dr. Lesley); at 156-57 (school board); at 157 (Superintendent Carnine)]; at 159 (Dr. Lesley). (3.) The LRSD Compliance Plan was heavily dependent on actions by former Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley. [LRX 3 (\"Action Plan Timeline\" at 15-16)] Doctor Lesley left the district for employment out-of-state on March 14, 2003. [JX 11 at 5] The slow . pace of filling her position played a substantial part in continuing the lack of adequate staffing for the assessment \\ evaluation task. [Id. (ODM notes filling of position on an interim basis on June 26, 2003)] [Jones and Marshall testimony] (4.) Overall, the evidence establishes that subsequent to the court's entry of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD has continued to have an inadequately staffed evaluation \\assessment capacity. [ JX 11 at 2 (third paragraph), 5, 6, 16 (second paragraph) 2 (ODM report, March 30, 2004); Jones and Marshall testimony] 2 The ODM report states in part: \"In the summer of 2001, the associate superintendent who led PRE had resigned and that position had remained empty. As a result, the top positions in both PRE and the instructional division were vacant at the critical time for preparing program evaluations. [footnote omitted]\" [JX 11 at 16] \"PRE\" refers to the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. 3 The Failure to Identify the Programs Subject to the Compliance Remedy (5.) In the opinion of September 13, 2002, this court found that the LRSD had identified \"many dozens of programs [as] implemented under Section 2.7 [of the agreed upon Plan] \" [Mero. Opin. at 150] The court's Compliance Remedy provides in part as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. . [Mero. Opin. at 170; emphasis added] Nevertheless, despite inquiries from ODM, the LRS D never identified, with clarity, the programs which it deems to be subject to this mandate. [JX 11 at 23 (ODM report, March 30, 2004); Jones testimony] Standards for Conducting Evaluations (6.) In the light of the court's opinion [Mero. Opin. at 151- 52;  153; 156-58], the LRSD properly concluded [LRX 3 at 7 (LRSD Compliance Plan)] that it must each year complete some comprehensive evaluations of key parts of the curriculum \"designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African- American students \" [Plan Section 2.7] (7.) In 2000, Dr. Ross met with the LRSD Compliance Committee. A part of the  discussion is described in the ODM report, March 30, 2004, as follows: .... [Dr. Ross] also described the program evaluation process, which included a classroom observation plan developed at the University of Memphis. The observations were to ensure that programs were being consistently implemented in the classrooms throughout the district 4 . . ... [JX 11 at 3; Jones testimony] (8.) Dr. Ross prepared for the LRSD a document, dated December 3, 2002, regarding the completion of 8 of the 14 \"page. 148 evaluations\" (that is evaluations listed on page 148 of the March 2002 interim compliance report) . It is titled \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School Disti:ict.\" [JX 6] 3 The document articulates, among others, the following premise [JX 6 at l]: Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the 'treatment . . ' The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and\\or how it needs to be improved to impact at-risk learners. (9.) On October 10, 2002, the LRSD school board adopted Regulation IL-Rl titled \"Program Evaluation Agenda.\" The Regulation sets forth standards and procedures for the content of program evaluations in the LRSD. [JX 2] (a) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl [JX 2 at 3] identifies the need for the evaluation process to satisfy \"accuracy standards,\" including one concerning \"program documentation.\" Program Documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it is identified clearly .. (b) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl also contains the following 3 The LRSD concluded that 6 of the 14 \"page 148 evaluations\" could be approved by the school board \"without additional work .... \" [LRX 3 at 5] Dr. Ross' Guidelines addressed the completion of the other 8 \"page 148 evaluations.\" [JX 6 at 1-2] 5 provision: \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" [JX 2 at 4-5] 6.C. Write a clear description of the curriculum\\ instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. (c) Regulation IL-Rl provides in part (JX 2 at 5) that \"the first meetings [of the evaluation team] will be devoted to the following tasks _D. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question,  Has this curriculum\\instruction program been ineffective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afri can-American  students?' (See Policy IL, 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) Thus, LRSD policy recognized that the court's Compliance remedy required a focus on individual programs (\". . . thi_s . . . program . \"). (10.) LRSD Policy IL (\"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\") [JX 1) provides that \"all program evaluations will follow standards established by the National Joint Cammi ttee on Standards for Education Evaluation.\" Policy IL-Rl further identifies these standards as The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (Thousand Oaks, _CA,; Sage Publications) . [JX 2 at 1] These standards include the following content in the section on \"accuracy standards\" [at 125, 127-28]: STANDARD The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately, so that the program is clearly defined. Overview It is necessary for the evaluator to gain a sol~d understanding of the program being evaluated, including both the way it was intended to be and the way it actually was 6 / implemented, and to convey this description to others. Failure to gain such understanding will lead to an evaluation that, when completed, is likely to be of questionable .use. A valid characterization of a program as it actually was implemented will describe its unique features and component parts in order to facilitate comparisons 0 the program with similar programs. A good description of the program will also facilitate attempts to associate components of the program with its effects. * GUIDELINES A. Ask the client and the other stakeholders to descr.ibe _orally, and, if possible, in writing -- the interided and the actual program with reference to such. characteristics as personnel, cost, procedures, location, facilities, setting, activit~es, objectives, nature of participation, and potential side effects .... C. Engage independent observers to . describe the program if time and budget permit. D. Set aside time at the beginning of the evaluation to observe the program and the staff and participants who are involved. The Literacy Evaluation (filed by LRSD on March 12, 2004) ( 11.) The LRSD offers as one comprehensive evaluation the ttLittle Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation.tt The LRSD provided or approved a list of research questions for this study not including the question quoted in para. 9(c), identified by the LRSD as a necessary element of any evaluation to be a part of the effort to satisfy the court's Compliance Remedy. 4 Where the focus was to be the impact of individual programs on African American achievement and the possible need for program changes, this omission led to an evaluation with an insufficient focus on 4 See Literacy Evaluation at 1; at 4 (indicating that question most relevant to the Compliance Remedy was given lesser emphasis). 7 particular programs and their impact on the intervenor class. (12.) The Literacy Evaluation contains insufficient description of the program(s) being evaluated to satisfy LRSD or professional standards. See Literacy Evaluation at 10-11; paragraphs 9-10, supra; Haney, Hunter, Jones testimony. This is particularly the case at the middle school and high school levels. [Literacy Evaluation at 11] Interviews of middle and high school teach~rs revealed a lack of knowledge of any literacy plan at those levels. [Literacy Evaluation at 7, 13, 43] (13.) The Literacy Evaluation does not provide senior administrators or the school board in.formation on particular programs adequate to determine whether any particular program should be eliminated, modified, or better implemented. [Hunter and - Jones testimony] There are evaluation models allowing a focus on individual programs. [Haney and Hunter testimony; LRX 16 at 6] (14.) The Literacy Evaluation provides scant information on the extent of implementation of any particular program. As Sec. 2.7.1 refers to \"modifying how the program is implemented,\" this deficiency is highly significant. [Haney, Hunter testimony] ' (15.) The Literacy Evaluation is in the main an evaluation of student test scores, rather than an evaluation of the impact of particular education programs. [Literacy Evaluation at 44-47; Haney and Hunter testimony] The Literacy Evaluation is marked by several technical problems (absence of data on use of teacher questionnaires; lack of demographic information on teachers in focus groups; inadequate data on student whose files were excluded 8 from analyses). [Hunter testimony] (16.) There are at least two problems in the analyses of the trends in African American students' scores on successive version of Arkansas benchmark tests. [Literacy Evaluation at 44-45] There is no discussion of \"equating\" successive versions (that is, considering whether later versions are of comparable rigor). There is no consideration of whether the pattern reported at upper grades is attributable to the dropping out, disproportionately, of black students with weaker achievement levels. [Haney and Marshall testimony; JX 13] (17.) To satisfy professional standards for evaluations, a report that addresses progress on standardized tests should include other data bearing on the presence or absence of academic progress, such as grade to grade progression data (that is, whether students are being promoted or retained) and drop out data. [Haney and Marshall testimony] ( 18.) The Literacy Evaluation is deficient when measured against the standards earlier articulated by Dr. Ross. See paragraphs 7-8. The text of the Literacy Evaluation shows that it \"focus [es] predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data . \" The description of programs is .exceedingly terse and, at grade l1=vels 10-12, almost non-existent . [Literacy Evaluation at 10-11] It reflects no observation of classrooms by outside observers to assess actual program implementation. The latter problem is a consequence of the schedule for the evaluation adopted by the LRSD, as well as the 9 inadequacy of funding (not sufficient to pay for classroom observation) . This study can not help to answer the question \"whether and\\or how [the literacy program] needs to be improved to impact at-risk learners.\" LRSD Regulation IL-Rl [JX 2] includes as one criterion for i denti fying evaluation topics the following question [at 4]: \"Can the .results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program?\" See also LRX 16 at 6 (memorandum by Dr. Ross dated April, 2004 recognizing the parameters of the Literacy Evaluation). The Math-Science Ev aluation (filed by LRSD on March 12, 2004) (19 .. ) The LRSD offers as one comprehensive evaluation \"An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. The Math-Science Evaluation contains insufficient description of the program ( s) being evaluated to satisfy LRSD or professional standards. See Math-Science Evaluation at 5-10; paragraphs 9-10, supra; Haney, Hunter, Jones testimony] (20.) The Math-Science Evaluation does not provide senior administrators or the school board information on particular programs adequate to determine whether any indi victual program should be eliminated, modified, or better implemented. [Hunter and Jones testimony] (21.) The Math-Science Evaluation identifies methods for determi ning the extent of implementation of educational programs, but does not provide results for the math-science program. [MathScience- Evaluation at 11] As Sec. 2.7.1 refers to \"modifying how 10 the program is implemented,\" this deficiency is highly significant. [Haney, Hunter testimony] (22.) The Math-Science Evaluation is in the main an evaluation of student test scores, rather than an evaluation of the impact of particular education programs. [Math-Science Evaluation at 25-103; Han~y and Hunter testimony] (23.) There are at least two problems in the analyses of the trends in African American students' scores on successive version of Arkansas benchmark tests. [~, Math-Science Evaluation at 30- 34] There is no discussion of \"equating\" successive versions (that is, considering whether later versions are .of comparable rigor) . There is no consideration of whether the pattern reported at upper grades is attributable to the dropping out, disproportionately,. of black students with weaker achievement levels. [Haney and Marshall testimony; JX 13] (24.) To satisfy professional standards for evaluations; a report like the Math-Science Evaluation that addresses progress on standardized tests should include other data bearing on the presence or absence of academic progress, such as grade to grade progression data and drop out data. [Haney testimony; Marshall testimony] Other Factors (25.) The overall weakness of the Page 148 evaluations also evidences the lack of capacity of the LRSD to fulfill paragraphs (a) and (A) of the Compliance Remedy. See infra, paras. 27-28 and Mem. Opin. at 170-71. 11 (26.) The ODM report of March 30, 2004, states: \"Contrary to the spirit of the regulation for program evaluation, the [LRSDJ literacy evaluation team's involvement was limited to tacit approval of the evaluation plan and assisting with data collection.\" [JX 11 at 16] In a memorandum written in April 2004, Dr. Ross wrote: \"I was never contacted during the entire study period by any literacy evaluation team member.\" [LRX 16 at 4] The lack_of involvement of LRSD personnel is a negative factor in terms of the system's internal capacity for conducting evaluations and assessments -- a criterion for assessing compliance with the courtordered remedy. B. The Preparation of the Page 148 Evaluations (27.) The LRSD did not comply in substance with .the requirement of the court-ordered remedy that it [prepare] the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report . [Compliance Remedy, Mero. Opin. at 170] (28.) The evaluations filed by the LRSD on March 14, 2003 do not satisfy the standards for evaluations adopted by the LRSD on October 10, 2002 [JX 2], or the professional standards on which they are based. See \"The Joshua Intervenors' Comments on the Submission of Page 148 ' Evaluation,'\" filed April 14, 2003; JX 11 at 21 (ODM R~port, March 30, 2004) (citing views of Dr. Ross about 8 of the 14 evaluations \"that, for the most part, the evaluations of the subject programs 'were worthless'\" and \"that the evaluations we:re of little or no use to the district\"); LRX 16 (memorandum written by Dr. Ross in April 2004) (\"all [eight] were woefully 12 ! I I inadequate and seemingly 'worthless' for informing policy or - practice\"). See JX 5(a)-(c) (memoranda by Dr. Lesley for the school board identifying deficiencies in 3 of the remaining 6 evaluations) . C. The Use of Evaluation and Assessment Results (29.) The LRSD provided no discussion of any use made of the results of evaluation\\assessment in the science area until furnishing an exhibit for these hearings. [JX 11 at 15 (ODM report, March 30, 2004); LRSD Exhibit List, April 21, 2004, LRX 17] (30.) The LRSD did not use the \"page 148 [evaluations]\" \"as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, and changes- or modifications should be made in those programs.\" [Compliance Remedy, Mem. Opin. at 171-72] There is no suggestion of such use iri either the March 2003 or the March 12, 2004 submissions of the LRSD; see also JX 11 at 22 (ODM report, March 30, 2004). D. The Failure of the LRSD to Provide Information (31.) Subsequent to the court's  entry of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD has acted in a manner limiting the availability of information about its compliance activities. (a) LRSD Policy IL-Rl (\"Program Evaluation Agenda\") adopted by the LRSD in October, 2002, provides in part [JX 2 at 5, emphasis added] that the \"team leader\" for each evaluation shall G. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendent's Cabine~ and\\or Compliance 13 I I !I I I team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the Office of desegregation Monitoring (until Unitary Status is received), and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). Thereafter, the LRSD did not implement this provision. [LRSD exhibits for this hearing; Jones and Marshall testimony] (b) On April 8, 2003, as part of the Section 8 process, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors directed a letter to the LRSD concerning the plan for carrying out evaluations and the provision to Joshua of information on observation of the educational program within several schools. [LRX 15] The LRSD ignored this letter. [LRSD exhibits for this hearing; testimo~y to be adduced] (c) On October 27, 2003, the LRSD provided a terse, nonsubstantive status report to ODM and counsel for Joshua Intervenors (John W. Walker). [JX 7; Marshall testimony] (d) The LRSD school board approved the Literacy Evaluation in November, 2003. The school board approved the Math-Science Evaluation in December, 2003. [LRSD Compliance Report, March 12, 2004, at 3-4] The LRSD did not provide these evaluations to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors until January 12, 2004 (and then provided them only to John W. Walker). [LRX 8] E. Other Factors (32.) The data in the Literacy and Math-Science evaluations shows the extent to whi ch African American achievement lags behind white student achievement. This data demonstrates the importance of the LRSD's having the capacity to assess and evaluate individual education programs in terms of effectiveness for blac~ students and the need to better implement, modify, or replace programs. 14 l l (33.) The Joshua Intervenors set forth concerns regarding the LRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy in a letter to Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM, on March 10, 2004 (with a copy to counsel for the LRSD) . [ See The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in Support of Their Opposition, April 15, 2004, Attach. BJ (34.) LRSD submissions subsequent to the court's entry of the compliance Remedy do not show that in that period the LRSD worked with the Arkansas Department of Education to remediate the racial academic achievement disparities which continue to exist in the system. See for example the achievement data in the Math-Science evaluation. The LRSD did not comply with the requirements of the Pulaski County School District Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989), Section I.II- (a, c), III-G. II. Conclusions of Law ( 1.) This court held that the LRSD did not substantially comply with Section 2.7.1 of the agreed upon remedial plan. [Mem. Opin., 9-13-02, at 150-160] As a consequence of this noncompliance, the court's compliance remedy placed the burden of demonstrating compliance with the remedy on the LRSD. [Id. at 170, preface] (2.) In order to decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy, the court must determine whether the deficiencies alleged by the Joshua Intervenors \"were serious enough': (1) to constitute 'substantial noncompliance'; and ( 2) ' to cast doubt' on LRSD' s ' future compliance with the 15 I i i j \\I :I ,I 1 constitution.'\" [Id. at 77] Once again, the LRSD has the burden of proof with regard to substantial compliance. (3.) The record establishes: (a) On the whole, t~e \"page 148 evaluations\" do not support a determination that the LRSD substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. (b) Because the Literacy and the Math-Science evaluations have a li~ited or non-existent focus on individual programs, they do not permit a determination of whether any particular program should be modified, or replaced. (c) Due to the gathering and presentation of inadequate information on program implementation, the Literature and MathScience evaluations do nor permit a determination of whether individual programs should be implemented in a different manner. (d) Multiple elements of the record establish that the LRSD . has not \"demonstrate[d] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; . II (4.) The LRSD has failed to establish substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy by a preponderance of the evidence. ( 5.) Th_e \"LRSD has [not] substantially complied  with [Plan] Section 2. 7 .1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy\" [Mem. Opin., Sept. 13, 2002, at 172] Therefore, the LRSD must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates 16 j I l  substantial compliance with that remedy for a period of two additional school years, at minimum (the period of additional jurisdiction must be sufficient to allow ac:Iequate evaluations) . Additional court supervision of this duration will afford the LRSD the time needed to achieve compliance with the remedy; and, as well, give the Joshua Intervenors, ODM, and the court the time to insure that compliance t merely transitory. --ll-~.....,,_,,...c:;:...-=..:..._.,__-=!)7.---'-1~9\" n 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 17 t,/ John W. Walker Rickey Hicks John W. Walker , P . A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 I I I ,I :1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served, via U.S . Mail, postage prepaid to the following individuals:  Hon. Judge J. Thomas Ray Mr. Chris Heller United States Magistrate Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 600 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Regions Center I Little.Rock, AR 72201 Littie Rock, AR 72201 I Mr. Scott Smith, General Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall I Arkansas Department of Education ODM I #4 Capitol Mall, Suite 404A 124 W~st Capitol, Suite 1895 I Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock; AR 72201 I Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. Mr. Mark Hagemeier I I John C. Fendley, P.A. Mr. Timothy Gauger 51 Wingate Drive 323 Center Street I - Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72201 I I Mr. M. Samuel Jones Mr. Stephen W. Jones Wright Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnett Mitchell \u0026amp; Blackstock 1010 West 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 !dalt!\u0026amp; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGijT, ET AL. COMBINED PCSSD MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT The PCS SD for its combined motion and memorandum, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RECEIVEJ JUN - 8 20011 OFFlCE OF DESEGREGATION fiiO:: .. : ::,J 1. To promote brevity, the PCSSD is combining its motion and memorandum into one document. 2. This dispute centers around different interpretations of the M-to-M stipulation by the PCS SD and the LRSD. The PCS SD is concerned that these disagreements will not be resolved in time to permit all current M-to-M students and applicants to actually transfer for the impending year and be guaranteed transportation. Hence this motion. 3. Counsel is informed that the LRSD is requiring existing M-to-M students to resubmit an application to it to reaffirm school choices and M-to-M status as these students matriculate from one organizational level to the next. 504196-v1 4. Rather than requiring reapplication, the PCSSD has developed a \"tracking form\", attached as Exhibit A, which should suffice for LRSD's needs but not require a reapplication. 5. While the tracking form is very similar to the M-to-M application, it avoids the disruption and concern expressed by students and parents that a reapplication jeopardizes their , M-to-M status by promoting unnecessary delay and prncedures. The PCSSD believes that the current LRSD process and procedures are inconsistent with Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation, attached as Exhibit B, which states: The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the student's voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the student graduates or affirmatively withdraws from participation as herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or exercise a transfer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate at their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 5. The PCSSD has proposed a solution to these issues but as indicated by its memorandum dated May 25, 2004, attached as Exhibit C, the LRSD has not agreed. 6. PCSSD interprets Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation to mean that once an LRSD student acquires M-to-M status in the PCSSD, then that student becomes, for all purposes, a PCS SD student unless or until the student affirmatively seeks to withdraw. In that sense, the PCSSD believes that these former LRSD students acquire the same rights as to future school assignments as are enjoyed by indigenous PCSSD students. This includes not only mandatory assignment patterns but the availability of assignment via the PCSSD's intra- 504196-v1 2 district voluntary transfer programs as well as the privilege to apply for PCSSD specialty schools pursuant to the rules which apply to all PCSSD students. 7. Upon information and belief, LRSD's contract with Laidlaw requires that all M-to- M students be identified and \"processed\" sometime this summer. Obviously, if the process is not finalized by then, these students may be denied transportation and hence will not transfer. 8. Upon information and belief, the LRSD is \"holding\" tracking forms until this dispute is resolved. (Please seen Exhibit C). WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court directing the parties to comply with the language of Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation and to conform their I current policies and procedures to the M-to-M stipulation so that the M-to-M process may - proceed smoothly and without creating unnecessary concern on the part of M-to-M students and their parents and for all proper relief. 504196-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 7, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 504196-v1 4 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General . Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little. Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 PAGE 06/06 05/04/2004 ,15: 24 5014901352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE -..., ,' .: ... '\" PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM ',, lbis form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If . the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other ~ctors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'S NAME: ____________ StudentID # ___ _ STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: ______________ _ City: _____________ State: _____ _,Zip Code:, ____ _ GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: DATE OF BIRTH: __ SEX: __ RACE:_ SCHOOL ATTENDED DUR.lNG THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: --------- PARENT OR GUARDIAN HAVING CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT __ _ PARENTS'S MAILING ADDRESS: ________________ _ City:. __ --:'.\"::\"'.\"\"-:------------State: ______ .Zip Code: ____ _ PARENT'S IIOMEPHONE NUMBER __________ _ PAREN'I''S WORK PHONE NUMBER OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT C_AN_B_E_RE_A_C_HED ____ SCHOOL REQUESTED ___________________ _ DOES nns STUDENT REQUlRE TRANSPORTATION ___ YES -----'NO DOES TIIlS STUDENT REQlT.IRE SPECIAL SER VICES ___ YES ------'NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: HEALrn: PLAN ____ IBP/SPECIAL EDUCATION ---SE_C_11-:::0N 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requeste~_transfer. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: ______________ DATE: ___ _ Form completed by: _____________ Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SER VICES DATE APPROVAL DATE TRANSFER APPROVED:______ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: ____________ _ EXHIBIT A ,,,, ------- - --------- \\ , ... ..  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS STIPULATION FOR PROPOSED ORDER ON VOLUNTARY MAJORITY TO MINORITY TRANSFERS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and defendants Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), . North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"), and Arkansas State Board of Education (\"State Board\"), being in agreement on the voluntary majority-to-minority transfers, submit the following stipulations for the proposed order: 1. Beginning in the 1987-88 school year and continuing thereafter, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will permit and encourage voluntary majority-to-minority interdistrict transfers. The three districts will cooperate in the development of programs to acquaint parents, guardians and students with interdistrict opportunities. The implementation 0 majority-to-minority transfer provisions i s contingent upon the implementation of all other provisions of the remedy ordered by the Court. 2 . Eligibility: EXHIBIT 6 ------- ------------------    a . Black students who are members of the raci~l m~jority at a school in any participating district which district is 50 peicent or more bl~ck in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which school and district they would be in the racial minority.  .. , b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a particip~ting district which c. district is more than 50% white in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the raci,al minority . Prior to the transfer of ' any stud.ent, the home district shall issue a statement that the transferring student is in good standing. If the student is not in good st~nding, the student may be permitted to transfer on a provisional basis. 3. Students wishing to transfer shall file applications with their home districts. Applications must be filed before May 1 of the preceding school year and a student may not transfer more than once in any school year. The home district will process all applications and forward copies to the host' districts. The home district will furnish its complete file on each student with his/her application . 2   4. Transfer assignments will be made subject to av a1abi li ty of space in schoo-ls and grade levels, and the host districts' ability to comply with state startdards. 5. The host district shall honor the placement for the students as certified by the ho\"me district, which shall be communicated to the parent or' guardian prior to transfer. If, during the first semester, testing, performance, remedial efforts, and consultati6n indicate that an adjustment of placement should be made, it shall be made after the first semester in consultation with the student's parent or guardian. 6. The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the student's voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the student graduates or affirmatively withdraws from participation as herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or exercise a transfer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate at their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 7. Students who have elected to transfer shall remain students of the host district until they choose to return to the district where they reside . 3 8. Host districts shall not have the authority t6 ' remand tr tsfer students to the home district. Host districts shall have the authority to discipline, -suspend or expel a transfer student using the same due process procedures applicable to resident students. 9. On~e admitted, transfer students will be expected to meet the same_ general standards, a':cademic and other, as applied to students of the host district. 10. Information about each district's academic and disciplinary policies and procedures will be made available to prospective transfer students on request ; This should include information on pupil-teacher ratios, promotion and retention; I . counseling assistance, grading, student code of conduct, disciplinary action, and suspensian and expulsion. 11. The host district shall respond to the educational needs of students without regard to their status as a transfer or resident student . Transfer students shall be eligible and encouraged to part{cipate in all school programs funded and sponsored by the host district (academic, athletic, extra-curricular and other) and shall not suffe r any disability or ineligibility because they are voluntary interdistrict transfer students. Participation in after-school activities will be fac i litated by the provision where needed of extra-curricular buses or other forms of transportation which will be available to all such transfer students, the cost of which shall be. borne by the State as provided in paragraph 12. 4 ' 12. The State Board shall pay the full cost of t1tisporting students opting for interdistrict transfers. However, the State Board shall have the option .of (1) paying the school districts for transporting the students or (2) contracting for the services or (3) transporting the students with a state operated system. 13. The State Board shall pay the home and host districts ih accordance with the following procedures: a. Each year school districts shall calculate and certify to the State Board of Education their cost per student in regular schools (grades K-12) including -all add-ons for special education, TAG,  vocational education and other purposes. The cost per student shall include all costs for instruction and support services minus student transportation, food serv i ce, and restricted federal program costs. (To the extent that the host district does not receive pro~rata increases in restricted federal program costs by hosting transfer students who are eligible to participate in federal programs, the cost per student shall be increased on a pro-rata basis for such transfer students.) The State shall pay the , costs for full-time equivalent students who have been transferred to the host district. Payments made for the current year shall be based on costs for the 5  previous year. The host district shall report each transfer student on forms as required by the State Department of Education. b. Each host district shall estimate the full-time equivalent of transfer students and transmit such estimate, along with the names of the students, to c. the State in September \u0026amp;f each year when payment begins. A correction wili be made in January of each year. Payments shall be ~ade by the State monthly through forward funding to each district based upon the September estimate as corrected. The students transferred to the host district shall not be counted , I in the number used to calculate regular state aid for the district. Each home district shall receive from the State for each student who voluntarily transfers from his/her home district to a host district one-half of the State a{d (table rate) it would have received had the student remained in his/her home district. Information about these students shall be reported on forms as required by the State Department of Education and shall be reported at the same time as the reports are made by the host district. The students transferred from the home district shall not be counted in the number used to calculate regular 6   state aid for the home district. All transfers' of handicapped students shall be contingent on the availability of appropriate programs and resources, as identified in the IEP, at the host school. d. The provisions contained herein do not apply to magnet schools and ' programs. 14. All parties to this stipulation recognize that the present racial balance of the North Lit t le Rock School District approximates that of the entire county and they are desirous of n~t upsetting that balance through the operat i on of the Majority to Minority Transfer Program. The parties further recognize that any court approved student assignment plan by any party could be compromised if the Majority to Minority Transfer Program caused significant changes in student assignment plans. To avoid this result, all parties agree that any party may choose to include or not include said Majority to Minority transfer students for purposes of student assignment under any court order. Further, all parties recognize that substantial participation in the Majority to Minority program could have the result of creating technical departures from targeted I student ratios at one or more schools. All parties agree that any such departure resulting from the lawful operation of th~ Majority to Minority program shall not give rise to a claim or contention that such departure from targeted ratios constitute 7 '  violations of any law or regulation and, specif i cally, shall ne be urged or suggested as grounds for liability in this or similar litigation. Additionally, any such resulting departures from targeted ratios shall not require the districts affected to reconstitute or recompose ,the stdent body of any affected school~ ,, Agreed this 26~h day of August, 1986. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOR DIS 2258L 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF ~~ 06/04/2004 16:24 5014901352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 04/06 NAY 2 6 20015 LITTLE ROC:K SCHOOL DISTRJCT 501 SHERMAN STREET Lrrn..E ROCK, AR. 72202 STIJDENT REGIS TR.A TION OFF'Ic;E Phouc (501) 447.2950 Fax: (501) 447-2951 May 25, 2004 TO: FROM: THROUGH: Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Eq'!-ljty and Pupil Services Julie Wiedower, D~tor of Student Registratio~  ~  Junious Babas;,,Associate Superintendent for .Administrative Se~ces  RE: PCSSD Tracking Forms Last week we received copies ofa l'CSSD Tracking Form for current M to M students who will be changing organizational levels for the 2004-05 scho0l year. In looking over these forms we identified a variety of concerns and questions regarding specific students. Other questions arose regarding the status of the assignments - some fonns are signed, some are not- and a number offonns list a LRSD school yet the parents have not completed a M to M Withdrawal form. In fact, some of the tracking forms are on students who are not even on our database as M to M transfer students! Clearly, we need to sit down aod go over the form so we can understand how your district intends to utilize it and how we can address some of these issues. However, at this point such a meeting would be premature. Our district has received a draft \"Memorandum of Understanding Between the LR.SD and the PCSSD Regarding Majority to Minority Tra.,sfers\" but we have not agreed to this Memorandum. Since the PCSSD Tracking Fonn is a part of this yet-unsigned document, I have asked Becky Rather to \"hold\" the forms until agreement is reached. Once that occurs we look forward to a meeting to iron out the aforementioned difficulties with the forms. Hopefully tb.e Memorandum will be addressed before the middle of June so accurate data will be available as our transportation routes are created. Cc: /or. Brenda Bowles, Director of Equity and Pupil Services Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Chris Heller Becky Rather EXHIBIT ---- --------- - ------------ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED JUN If ;:004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S COMBINED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT Comes now, Little Rock School District (hereinafter, \"LRSD\") by and through their undersigned attorneys, Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, for Response to Pulaski County Special School District's (\"PCSSD\") Combined Motion and Memorandum Regarding M-to-M Disagreement states: 1. LRSD does not require existing M-to-M students to resubmit an application to it to reaffirm M-to-M status at the conclusion of one organizational level to the next. According to the Stipulation for Proposed Order on Voluntary Majority to Minority Transfers (\"Stipulation\"), attached as Exhibit B to PCSSD's motion, students who elect to transfer via the M-to-M program remain students of the host district until such time as they choose to return to the district where they reside. 2. Rather, LRSD asks students who participate in the M-to-M program progressing from one organizational level to the next (i .e., from elementary school to middle school or from middle school to high school) to submit a form affirming the school choice site. LRSD implemented this process for two reasons: (1) to ascertain the space available in each of its schools to accommodate the LRSD attendance zone population each year, and (2) to ascertain the M-to-M students attending schools at the next organizational level outside of established PCSSD feeder patterns. This process does not violate the provisions of Paragraph 6 of the Stipulation. 3. The \"tracking form\" the PCS SD speaks of in its Motion and Memorandum is strikingly similar to the M-to-M application, as PCS SD concedes. Because of the similarity between the two documents, several parents wishing to withdraw their students from the M-to-M program are misguided regarding their student 's school assignment. 4. As an example, in the tracking forms attached hereto as Exhibit A, the PCSSD's Assistant Superintendent's approval stamp has given many parents the impression that their student has been assigned to the school requested upon completion of the tracking form . This, - notwithstanding the fact that (1) the students have not submitted M-to-M withdrawal forms; (2) the students do not reside in the requested school's attendance zone; (3) the school requested is a LRSD specialty magnet school and the student has not applied for admission to the specialty magnet, thinking that the PCSSD tracking form is the application; or (4) the requested school is not a school in the LRSD. See Exhibit A. 5. Moreover, LRSD believes PCSSD's interpretation of Paragraph 6 of the M-to M stipulation to be clearly violative of the plain language of Paragraph 2 of the same stipulation which, in pertinerit part, states: a. Black students who are members of the racial majority at a school in any participating district which district is 50 percent or more black in its emollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district they would be in the racial minority. b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a participating district which district is more than 50% white in its 6. enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the racial minority. Among the specialty schools the PCSSD speaks ofin Paragraph 6 of its Motion and Memorandum are College Station Elementary, Fuller Middle School and Mills High School. 7. During the 2003-2004 school year, each of the aforementioned school sites was more than 50 percent black. LRSD, therefore, believes that to assign an indigenous LRSD student to a PCS SD school that is more than 50 percent black via an M-to-M transfer contravenes the plain language in Paragraph 2 of the M-to-M stipulation and the goals of the M-to-M program as a whole. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays for an order directing the parties to comply with Paragraph 2 of the Stipulation and for all other proper relief Respectfully submitted, Christopher J. Heller Khayyam M. Eddings FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-2011 FBAX: (501) ~7 -214~~- y: ~---- Khayyam dings (020 Attorneys for Little Rock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 17, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Bank Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 021 73 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 17, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S . mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Bank Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 PCSS (M tt M) ~TU:ENT TRACKING FIHlM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'S NAME STUDENTS RESIDE City: L, ..\\-\\  State:  Alf) Zip Code: -Z. GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: -3L_DATE OF BIRTH:oi /z.~EX:_r_RACE: / SCHOOL ATTENDED DUR.t\"'NG T'\".dE 2003-04 SCHOOL '{EAR:~ ,\\ 1 \\00 'o\"1'{\\5:)V\"\\ }v~ \\ cld .Q PARENT OR GU G CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT __ _ . ss: l3r\u0026gt;to LA h lsc::i n (6 cL - City. L1 +I\\ R riucK State: \u0026amp;\\'2. ( Zip Code: :2 L-Z.05 s~ PARENT'S HOivlE PHONE NUMBER fu, J seo s- :sc:\u0026gt;\"3.~ rv\" ~ PARENT'S WORK PHONE NUMBER 5 \\RCf -35 I~- -~~r OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED ~~ ~ , ~ SCHOOL REQUESTED Cenrz1J ~\\ ~V ) Q/.Y ~ DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION v / YES ____ 0 DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVTCES ___ YES V: NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: _____ HEALTH PLAN ____ IEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION __ SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to co plete the requeste tr sfer.  Form completed by: ----~R., l-rf-l5- -----Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE .OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SER VICES j/ ~l\\ D--LR B ~_; APPROVAL DATE 5, 3/vf DATE I TRANSFER APPROVED: ______ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: ____________ _ .. j EXHIBIT !g A ~ --..-- :c ., PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This fonn is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'SN p S'S MAILING ADDRE 'i' J  City: L:+-H::e. 12 oJc. Zip Code:7 J-..iu-y P ARENT' S HOME PHONE NUMBER _i:,;........,.,L;z'-'\"9._-...1...fJ .,\u0026lt;/-~ --L-1_,_7 _____ PARENT'S WORK PHONE NUMBER 7 S 3 , 5' SE; g OTBER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED ~  r{\\C i'l e. ~ -'---\"'--='-----=--=---------+-,--tt--- DOES TIIlS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION V .,. YES---~ DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SER VICES ___ YES ___ _ IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: ____ HEALTH PLAN ____ IBP/SPECIAL EDUCATION __ SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the reques,ryd transfer. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: th(L,'\\),\\_ r::_,c_,Ju;:!J DATE: 4  .::23. O'j  Fann completed by: --------------Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPJL SER VICES : I . - \u0026lt; o/\\---R B ~ APPROVAL TRANSFER APPROVED: ______ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: -------------- PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (Mto M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'SNAME~StudentID # .So 14 g STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS:~ /_J J/r '-II\u0026lt;~ City: u+H \u0026lt; ~:\u0026lt; /k State: (}d-,_ _ Zip Code:  ';7 .zc// ,. GRADE LEVEL AS o'F SEPT. 2004: __yz_DATE OF BIRTH: 7/i4/9,3~EX:_..J::_RACE: i-if:1fthi1 SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: Lt\u0026gt; , {_, , n-itY\\ fl lw;,{'J ~,-t.-- p AREN GE OF THE STUDENT ,J City: L-- ,(, u:..., -  ~~ate: _13(2_,,_-~------=----Zip Code:/ )--,.?-{,Cf PARENT{S~bME PHONE NUMBER ']-/ )- :7(C:; --'-,--~~--\"'---'~----,---- PARENT'S WORK PHO NE Nillv IB ER iu J .)-V)-'t X~- 1,,;_, .1g.~,=;-if{. :-' J ; OTHER NUMBER WHERE/~ARENT ~~ BE RpACHED :'fi r t ' 1\u0026lt;/ 7(-.,S - I:: J / :, - B\"t! // 17 d l \u0026gt;I .) SCHOOL REQUESTED .f-1''!\u0026amp;:..r .::\u0026gt; f-n-:,e c - ./ --- , ,, u 1\\ t L V DOES THIS STUDENT REQfuRE TRANSPORTATION ; /- YES ___ T\" ~_-\\-flo L- I-.___, DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES __ YES L --- NO~~ IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: ~ r-1-.t, ____ HEALTHPLAN ____ IEP/SPECIALEDUCATION c:::?\"1311L-1.I __ SECTION 504 ACCO:MMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in ~J:li'?h my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to ~/9~plet~_ th~/eqtie~;ied l ,axsfer., , / /' _I  -, , - ; I /fl . I~ PARENT'S SIGNATURE:  // ik.~i-_(:: _/L,, (j l -f::.[-[ 1,.._'-I,(._ i, ,,, ..-! / / I                              ~/ ,,                                                 .... ~ Form completed by: ______________ Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES }.'  ;( w.X )3 ~A__) APPROVAL DATE 7 TRANSFER APPROVED: ______ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: ____________ _ PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT' S N 1.-f\"r----.,-Student ID # ___ _ STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: ur:::due C.1 cc \\-e..., City: CY:) State: Al?) Zip Code: r) ?..,,'2.DLj GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: C/+i=DATE OF BIB.TH: ~-15 -9 /SEX:../'.D_ RACE:_6 SCHOOL ATTENDED DURIN\"G THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: G:\\d:c:: \\ th 11 b ke:i;::11{;, _( P OR GUARDIAN HAVING CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF 1HE STUDENT ___ d City: _ __,__..___ _________ State: -'---=-----Zip Code: --1'----'-\"'==--+---1-1- p ARENT' S HO:rvJE PHONE NUMBER ~ ~~LP~'S-- ':/~?(_Jq _____ PARENT' S WORK PHONE NUMBER ~::\u0026gt;...,__'1-'-4.-- '---=2..=t\u0026gt;::...5.:-,::_4...,__ ____ OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED (-t -+-'-'---- --r..-tir--M-~---r.::#:.:t-l SCHOOL REQUESTED ' I H-C DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORT A ION-~_ YES _ __ _ DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES ___ YES -~-- IF YES, PLEASE INDICATEEo,v SERVICES APE RECEIVED: ____ HEALTH PLAN ____ IBP/SPECIAL EDUCATION __ SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: C1 _r~ 0 ~ _C'\\ y - Form completed by: -------------Counselor' s office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES j/ J\\ 0vJ:. J3 ,I....Q,,u,)::::r\\. ) APPROVAL DATE I TRANSFER APPROVED: _____ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER .APPROVED: ____________ _ PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM MAY D 7 2004 This form is to track (M to :M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STIJDENT'S NAME Student ID # 5 {)dl /.p STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS:  0 K It=. - k IV City: N LR.  State: . Zip Code:::,....C.C\u0026gt;\u0026lt;l...-:1........,__,.,.. GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: },Q__ DATE OF BIRTH/1 /'7 i\".13SEX: - RACE:_ SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YE : C Lf t-ITOITELFMENtAR_ V PARENT OR G GCUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT --- { rvE I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to mplete the requested transfer. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: -+l--\u0026lt;--\"'--rra__'---r_'i._f\\ ._ _;_f;n--.d'----=~-1--=--lc._R__! __D ATE #+ ..........................    II    ~  Fonn completed by: _____________ Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICEpF EQUITY AND PUPIL SER VICES !J wJ! j3 . 7\\ ~ ~ APPROVAL DATE TRANSFER APPROVED: _____ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: -------------- 04/15/2004 08:15 5013709755 QUALITYSECURITY PAGE 02 PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. lf the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial mposition of the r uested school. STUDENT' S N STIIDENTS RESIDENCE ADORES . City: L,''1/-{ ICCJeJ\u0026lt;.. --\"C:~...._--\"\"\"-'~~--=-'--\"------::------ GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING -04 SCHOOL P ODY OR CHARGE PARE t , City: /.-_,.fife KJe ,t State: _.,__._.__._ _ Zip Code: 7 ,Po2c:J .;2..,. PARENT'S HOME PHONE NUMBER 5 c, / - ,Z!lr./ - ~ I 5 8' PARENT'S WORK PHONE NUMBER .So I~ 3 :2\u0026lt;2  'l 15 1/ OTHER NUMBER WHE13Ji_P ARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED  J )u.nba..r /YJ .  Sc.)----- --1-.,.....;t-t-\"\"-\"\"--......,..,,.. DOES THIS STIJDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION __ YES v DOES THIS STIJDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SER VICES ___ YES v-7 IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: NO NO _____ HEALTH PLAN ____ IBP/SPECIAL EDUCATION __ SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPOR TATTON I give permission to the school in which my child is cun-ently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer. -- - Form completed by: _____________ Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE QF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES i) B . ,,,... fi I  i\\ 00_.!( ..A--Q..,v\\..,\"'1-y\u0026lt;.__) APPROVAL DATE ' TRANSFER APPROVED: _____ DATES OF ATTENDANCE ____ _ SCHOOOL TO WIITCH TRANSFER APPROVED: ____________ _ Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU. . LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -1071  (SOI) 682-4475  hllp:/ / arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director June 30, 2004 Mr. M. San1uelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen Vf. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JUL 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION r110NITORlNG RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I an1 filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of June 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, IA  Wa,i ~ Tripp Walter Staff Attorney Arkansas Department of Education TW:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia An Equal Opportunity Employer ..' . ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECENEO JUL l - 1uu~ off\\Ct Or R\\RG tltStGPitG~i\\Oti i,10ti\\i0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for June 2004. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ ,, 6# ,, '1./~711 Alexis Tripp Walter, Bar # 2003183 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501 -682-422 7 .. ' . .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tripp Walter, certify that on June 30, 2004, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ a, \"~/'M/~JZf Alexis Tripp Walter    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1061","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004-06"],"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/1061"],"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 JUN 2 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION f,iONITORlNG Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting ENJOY A JAFE \u0026amp; HAPPY JUMMER! JUNE 2004 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor OFFICE OF DESEG. MO ITORING n~ \u0026gt;.\nmti ,,-- ,_-- 1E Oz o\u0026gt; ~ 31 m..,\nti C: -z\ngn o--1 ,,-- iz5 n\"' ~,- IX\n,c n IT =l 31: ,::.~ m~ zu (/) \"T e :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 24, 2004 5:30 p.m. 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: IV. V. A. Superintendent's Citations B. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) C. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Special Meeting - 05-19-04 Regular Meeting - 05-20-04 Special Meeting - June 8, 2004 Special Meeting - June 10, 2004 Special Meeting - June 11, 2004 B. Board Meeting Oates, 2004-05 School Year C. Personnel Changes Bargaining Rights of LRSD Paraprofessionals \u0026amp; Custodians Hiring of Additional Teaching Staff :- (\")\"ti ,.,\u0026gt;. .....\n.,.m,.:_..,. ... :!I: Oz o\u0026gt;\n,:,\ntJ C-\u0026lt; m..,\n,:, C: -z\n,:,n 0-1 ,....5 l\"'\"Z (\")(/) \u0026gt; F .\n=,, g ~mme ,.... C: (\")~ o,.... ~~ :::: m ~ Regular Board Meeting June 24, 2004 Page2 VI. CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INSTRUCTION: A. Program Evaluation Agenda for 2004-05 B. Contract for Technology Services C. Federal Grant Submission: Mentoring Programs VII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Proposed Budget for Annual School Election B. Memorandum of Understanding: Protection of Historic Resources \u0026amp; Cultural Landscape C. Donations of Property D. Financial Report VIII. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions IX. STUDENT DISCIPLINARY ACTION X. ADJOURNMENT n-,:, \u0026gt;,... ... ...\nm._D.. - ii: Oz o\u0026gt;\nD ~ ~ ...\n,\n, C: -z\n,\n,n o\"\"' i= ~ n v, ~ PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MA TIERS/ WELCOME Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATlbNS ti. KtMAKI\\.:, tKUM CITIZENS C. LRCIA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Junious Babbs OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501) 447-2955 E-Mail: junious.babbs@lrsd.org PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: Julie Wiedower, Director of Student Registration Requested Data DATE: June 24, 2004 In response to Student Registration Office (SRO) related questions in the June 10th agenda meeting, the following information is provided. Mrs. Wiedower will be present to provide appropriate updates and answer questions. 1. High School Enrollment Figures Central Hall Fair McClellan Parkview 04-05 Students Assigned 2402 1375 1147 1041 1121 as of June 15, 2004 03-04 Students Assigned 2197 1345 1082 1139 1161 as ofJunel7, 2003 03-04 Students Enrolled 2111 1327 1023 1006 1131 as of October 1, 2003 2. 2004-05 Central High Enrollment ~ !Othgr 11 thgr ~ New M to M students from PCSSD 33 4 0 New students to LRSD 61 6 18 3 :..n.. m C') :z:c 0 r- 8 -\u0026lt; RI c3 ~ f' CD C 8 !:!l .C,, 0 ~ m p CD 0 ozoz .O,, !.! l jg RI l\nc3 .C.'.). .\n.D.. u,_ !\" z.... m ~ ,\"f!.:. C 0 :::. 0\nD 3. 2004-05 Specialty Magnet Programs Enrollment Magnet Students School Magnet Program From Outside Name of School Population Population Attendance Zone B NB T B NB T B NB T CENTRAL 1251 1141 2392 256 286 542 205 244 449 HALL 1028 342 1370 57 55 112 26 35 61 FAIR* 922 206 1128 79 47 +126 56 38 94 McCLELLAN* 946 87 1033 22 7 +29 5 2 7 DUNBAR 490 316 806 95 260 +355 47 200 247 HENDERSON 519 135 654 113 56 169 53 34 87 CLOVERDALE * 589 117 706 13 II +24 0 3 3 MABELVALE * 485 149 634 63 51 +114 24 23 47 KING 342 266 608 43 182 225 WASHINGTON 388 157 545 41 108 149 ROMINE 234 91 325 27 53 80  All Specialty Magnet Schools have an established attendance zone (az).  After assignment of az students, magnet seats are then made available as space allows. *Entire school population participates in magnet courses (MSAP Grant). + Students magnet program application '54n Individual Approach to a World ef Knowledge\" DATE: June 24, 2004 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman ~ SUBJECT: June 2004 Construction Report - Bond Projects Several future construction projects have been added to this month's report. The Director of Facility Services is in the process of negotiating contracts with architects. The future projects are: Media Center expansion at Carver Addition to Fair Park Remodel at Forest Heights Addition to Gibbs Remodel at Meadowcliff There are several school projects that are supposed be finished by the time school starts. As always, it will be frantic. We are keeping our fingers crossed that there will be a limited amount of inconvenience to the students and staff. Please call me at 447-1146 if you have any questions. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.1rsd.k12.ar.us 501 -324-2000  fa,-x: 501 -324-2032 :..\"..' ~ :z:c 0  -\u0026lt;\no m  .r,\u0026gt;, m\no ~z z ,m... (\") ::c ~ C) m Cl\u0026gt; !\" .z... m ~ ,\u0026gt;... \u0026gt; C 0 :::\n0\no CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 24, 2004 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I I I t:st. t,\nompIetIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Baseline Renovation ______ _________ $953,520 1 Jul-04 Booker ADA Rest rooms ________ ~ $25,000 Aug-04 ,_B_o_o_ke_r_ __ _____---+ _R_o_o_f_ ___________ $48,525 Aug-04 Brady Addition/renovation___ ____ $973,621 Aug-04 Central Renovation - Interior $1Q,20Q,266 Aug-05 -C-en- tral --------HVACRenovation - Band Area ____ $225,000 1 Dec-04 Central Reflecting Pond - $50,000 Aug-04 Chicot 'Drainage ___ ----~- $64,700 1 Aug-04 Chicot I Sound Attenuation --------,.- $43,134 Aug-04 _D_od_dFire Alarm Upgrade--=- ___ ____,__ $9,200 . Aug-04 1 D_u_n_ba_r _______ __,Ren_o_va_tion/addition $6,149,023 Dec-04 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition ____ ____ $3,155,640 Jul-04 Geyer Spr-in_g_s-----+R- oo_f_R_e_p_a-ir- $161 ,752 - ---A-ug-04 Henderson ____ lGckers -- - --~ $80,876 Aug-04 Mablevale Elem - Fire Alarm Upgrade ____ $12,00Occ--=.-=_-=_-=_-=_:=:=:=A:=u~g--0-4 McClellan Classroom Addition-- $2,155,622 Jul-04 McDermott - Fire Alarm Upgrade - ~~~~--=---- $7,700- Aug-04 Mitchell Building Remediation __-= ._-:_- $165,000 Jul-04 Otter Creek Icooling Tower I $50,000 Jul-04 Parkview Addition - - - __ _,__ $2,12'f:'226 Aug-04 Pulaski Hgts. Elem _--Renovatio~ --------~-_ $1 ,193,259~-_- _-_-_A~u~g-04 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 ~ g-04 Southwest -- Addition - - - $2,000,000 ~ g-04 Tech Ctr / Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II - - $3,679,000 Jun-04 Wakefield _-_~---_ ~Rebuild ---- $5,300,000 ----J-u-1-04 Washington lfire Alarm Upgraae- ~- $11]60 ~ _ Aug-04 Western Hills --ADA Rest rooms - -- $25,000 _ A~ g-04 Western Hills -- Fire Alarm Upgrade -- $8,400 Auq-04 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - SUMMER/ FALL 2004 I I I t:st. 1.,\nompIet1on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Mitchell Renovation $2,212,493 Auq-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED I I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Booker ___ Electrical Upgrade _ Unknown Unknown Carver __ Media Center Expansion _ __ _ $167,490 Unknown Chicot : Electrical Upgrade Unknow\n-- Unknown Cloverdale Elementary Addition _____ t- $520,750~ Aug-05 Fair Park - Addition _ _ __ -= _ $799,000 __ Unknown Forest Heights _ Remodel _ ~ $1 ,547,000 Unknown Garland Remodel . Unknow\n::_ Unknown Gibbs =-~~~~- ~ dition -=_=-- -- __ - $705,670  Unknown Meadowcliff Remodel ___ $164,150 Unknown Pulaski Hgts~ - - Energy monitoring system installation - Unknown Unknown Rightsell _____ Renovation ::- $2,494,00_0__ Aug-06 Scott Field ____ Renovate Track $200,000 Unknown Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; 1::!VAC _-, - $640,000 - Aug-05 Woodruff Parkinq addition $193,777~ Unknown CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD JUNE 24, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration IAsbestos abatement __ $380,495 __ M_ar_-0_3 :~~:~:::~:::~~ I ~~~s:I=~~s~yst_em____ ___ _ __ :\n:~~~ :~~:~\nAdministration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation -- ___ $_1_5~, 1_60 ____ Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Badgett JFire alarm - - -- $18,250 Aug-02 Bale Classroom addition/renovation _ ___ $2,244 ,524 _ _ Dec-02 Bal_e _____ ~ nergymonitoring system Mar-02 Bale -Partial roof replacement $269,5~ Dec-01 Bale HVAC -- $664,587 Aug-01 Book~ Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 Book~ --- -7Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Oct-01 Booker l Asbestos abatement -- --+ - --$10,900 Feb-02 Book_er __ Fire alarm - ' $34 ,50_1~-- Mar-02 Brad Energy efficient lighting -T- - $80,593 Sep-02 Bradc\"-y ______ ~ Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 Carver I Energy monito- r-in_g_s-ys-te- m- in-stallation ----'$_14-',~480--'-___ May-01 Carver Parkinglot $111 ,742 Aug-03 Central Parkin=g ___ --'-S=-tudent pa~rk_in~g_______ $174,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair 7 $265,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement -~----$-3-8~,0-0_0_ Aug-03 Central/Quigley I rrigation System $14,500 1 Aug-03 Central P urchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 Central - Ceiling and wall repair 1 - - $24-,0-00-- Oct-01 Central 'Fire Alarm System -D-e-si-g-n/-ln-s-ta_ll_a_tio_n ______ $_8_0~,8-76_ Aug-01 Central 1Front landing tile repair -- $22,470 - Aug-01 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient ligh_tin~g__ $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,~ Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1 ,393,822 Nov-02 Dodd - Energy efficient lighting +- $90.~ Aug-01 Dodd - Asbestos abatement-ceiiing!ile $156,~ - Jul-01 Dodd Replace rooftop HVAC $215_,_570 Aug-02 Facilities Service Interior renovation -r- $84,672 Mar-01 Facility Services Fire alarm ---- ,. $12,000 - Aug-03 Fair Park -HVAC r-e-n-ov-a-ti-on/fire alarm $ 315,956~ Apr-02 Fair Park --Energy efficient lig~ ---..-- ~ 2 Aug-01 Fair Park ______. ..,.A.,. sbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 Aug-01 J. A. Fair Energy efficien_t_lig-ht-in_g_~------ $277,594 Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box $10,7~ Nov-00 J. A. Fair Security ca~m~e,-ras____ $12,500 - JJ~:~\nJ. A. Fair Athletic Field lmprovem_ ent__ _____ $38,000 Jul-0 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14_,_ooo 3 J. A. Fair Roof repairs t- $391 ,871 Aug-03 Forest Park _ __ _ Replace windowunits w/central HVAC----,... $485,258 Nov-03 Forest Park Diagonal parking $111 ,742 Aug-03 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting ,. - $119,788 May-01 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 ~ Jun-01 Fulbright Energy monitoring_s_y~st~em_i-nstallation __l -- $11 ,950 Aug-01 Fulbright Replace rooftop HVAC units $107,83~ Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbri ht I Roof repairs $200,000 Oct-02 2 !\"' ,::, m\n,o !S z z ,m-n ::c  z C) m \"' !Tl z_, m I  C: 0 :::. 0\n,o CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 24, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I l l Est. Completion Facility Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Date Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Mar-03 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447-- Apr-01 Gibbs Energy monitoring systerninstaliation\n----$11,770 - Jul-01 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition __ $8,637,709 - Sep-03 Hall !Asbestos abatement I $168,222_,__ Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting -i--- $42,931 Jul-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707=-~---- Apr-01 Hall I infrastructure improvements 1 - $93~657 Aug-01 Hall Intercom _______ Feb-01 Hall Security cameras -1-- $10,600 - Jun~01 Henderson Energy efficient lighting i ---r-, 93,679- --Juf:o1 Henderson Roof replacement gym___ i $107,835 ___ May-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I _ __ $500,000 Aug-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase 2 _ _ _ $250,oo_c - - Aug-02 IRC Energy efficientllgi,Ting $109,136 Jul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatement -----= ~ - $43,639 ~. -- Qci-01 Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm I $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 -- I - $300,000 Au.9.-02 Mabelvale Elem. TAsbestos Abatement I $107,000 - - Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting - $$1 1 0 34 6.,5 7 99 8 3 _:__ ~:~:~2 Mabelvale MS --Renovate bleachers ___-:= _-:=_-:=_-=-._ 1 Mabelvale MS - Renovation -- -.. $6,851,621- Mar-04 Man!!__ - -- 'Partia!Replacement __ ~ __ $11 ,500,000-=-- Apr-04 Mann -- - - _Asphalt walks -- -- - The total $1 .8 million Dec-01 Man~ _ Walkway canopies ____ __ _ iswhathasbeen Dec-01 Mann Boiler replacement used so far on the Oct-01 M~-- _ _:=_ - -\nFencing -~~~~- ___-:= _-:=_-:=_ __ projects listed - - Sep-01 Mann______ Part@!_Q_emolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Aug-01 McClellan_____ __6thletic Field Improvement ---\"- _ $38,000 Jul-03 McClellan Irrigation System __ + _ $14,750_ Jul-03 McClel~ _ 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 _ __ _Ene!ID'. efficient lighting_ - $79,411~ - Feb-01 McDermott__ __ Replace rooftop HVAC units __ _ -+---- $476,000 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Fire alarm __ __ _ - $16,175 Jul-01 Meadowcliff Asbestos abatement $253,412 Aug-02 Meadowcliff - - - - Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Dec-02 Metropolitar, Replace cooling tower -- - ~7,203- Dec-00 Metropolitan _ _ -Replace shop vent system_ + $20,000 - May-01 Metropolit~ Energy monitoring system installation +- _ $17,145 Aug-01 Mitchell Energy efficient lighting - $10f642 Apr-01 Mitchell -= _ ~ Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 - - Jul-01 Mitchell _2sbestos abatement __ $13,000 Jul-01 Oakhurs_t__ HVAC renovation $237,237 _ Aug-01 Otter Creek _ _ Energy monitoring system installation _ $10,695 May-01 Otter Creek __ _ - Energy efficient lighting $81,~ Apr-01 Otter Creek Asbestos abatement _ __!:10,00.Q_j_ Aug-02 Otter Creek Parking lot ___ __ $138,029 Aug-02 Otter Creek ____ 6 classroom addition $888,778 Oct-02 Otter Creek Parkinqlmprovements -- -- - $142,541 Auq-03 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 24, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 Jun-02 Parkview I Roof replacement $273,877 J__ ~-01 Parkview Exterior lights $10,784 Nov-00 Parkview I HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 =- Aug-01 Parkview 'Locker replacement I $120,000 Aug-0__!_ Parkview Energy efficient lighting 1 $315,000 Jun-01 Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 : Jun-02 Procurement I Fire alarm I $25,000 Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground I $17,000 Dec-02 ~ghtsell __ ....,..,Energy efficient lighting 1 $84,898 _ A~-01 Rockefeller I Energy e~ghting -- I $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller I Replace rooftop HVAC - $539,175 Aug-01 Rockefeller Parking addition ~-----~----_-_ ----$111)42--,- - - Aug-02 Romine Asbestos abatement I $10,000-- ~r-02 Romine -- Major renovation \u0026amp; addition ---- $3,534,675 - Mar-03 Security/Transportation Bus earner~ ---- - ~ -- $22,500 - Jun-01 Southwest jAsbestos abatement I $28,138___ Aug-00 Southwest New roof I $690,ooo - Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,71~ Jan-02 Southwest Drainage / street widening I --$25Q,OOO .L. Aug-03 Student Assignment ~ nergy monitoring system installation I $4,830 Aug-02 Student Assignment --Firealarm ' $9,000 --- Aug-03 Tech Center ptiase-, --+-Renovation -----,---=- --1-- $275,000 Dec-01 Technology Upgrade ---iu\"pgrade phone system \u0026amp; da-ta-- I Nov-02 Terry - ~ Energy efflCientlighting-- 1 $73,850 - Feb-01 Terry -- - Driveway \u0026amp; Parking ! $83,484 -r---- Aug-02 Ter- -- - --rMeciiaeenter addition-- I $704,932 Sep-02 Wakefield - - Security cameras _____ _,__ __ $8,000-r- Jun-01 Wakefield -- -- Energy efficient lighting $74,776 -, - - Feb-01 Wakefield -- ~ ----i-DemOlition/Asbestos Abatement ___ $200,000 Nov-02 Washington Security cameras -- --- .,. $7,900 -- Jun-01 Washington - - Energy efficient lighting -- ----1--- $165)81- -=- Apr-01 Watson _._Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Jul-01 Watson - - Asbestos abatement -+ -- $182,241 - Aug-01 Watson -=- --Energy efficient lighting ___ -- $106,868 _ Aug-01 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Wais~ ---- ~ ajar renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,_000 Aug-02 Western Hills Asbestos abatement -- -- -- $191,946 Aug-02 Western Hills -- --,Intercom ----.___ $7,100 - Dec-01 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting - _ $106,000 Jul-01 Williams Renovation -----t--- $2,106,492 Mar-04 Williams Parking expansions -----.....- $183,717' - Dec-03 Williams -- Energy efficient lighting ---+-~~~$122,719 -,--- Jun-01 Wilson - -- -Renovation/expansion $1 ,263,876 _ Feb-04 Wilson-- --- Parking Expansion ___ $110,000 Aug-03 Woodruff - Renovation - $246,419 Auo-02 4 .r.\u0026gt;, m\nJD is zz m,.... n :z: ~ Cl m \"' fT1 .z.... m\nJD z \u0026gt;,.... \u0026gt; C: C ::. 0\nJD Date: June 24, 2004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors From:@Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - June This is the fifty-sixth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two middle schools and two elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Facilitating technology upgrade in cooperation with the English Department for Yearbook and ewspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. .:n.. Pl ::c z 0 8 -\u0026lt;\nD m i3 ::!:l .r.\u0026gt;, m\nD ~z z ,m- C') ::c \u0026gt;z C) m \"' Audit Report - June 2004 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. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Implementing in coordination with Human Resources. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. c) Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. d) Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. e) Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. f) Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. g) Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. h) Reviewing leave accountability system. a) Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. b) Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. c) Served as District coordinator ofUnited Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2004). Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: June 24, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Information Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Technology Report  Both Computer Information Services and Instructional Technology departments are preparing for the move to the new LRSD Technology Center within the next few weeks.  The number of secondary language arts classrooms that utilize Read 180 software from Scholastic is expanding to five more sites. When the expansion is completed, there will be classrooms at 10 of the 13 secondary schools that use this software to help students learn language arts skills.  Staff from Computer Information Services is performing summer maintenance at all sites to ensure that all machines have the latest updates and service packs. 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 May 20, 2004 - June 24, 2004 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: June 24, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Information Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Technology Report  Both Computer Information Services and Instructional Technology departments are preparing for the move to the new LRSD Technology Center within the next few weeks.  The number of secondary language arts classrooms that utilize Read 180 software from Scholastic is expanding to five more sites. When the expansion is completed, there will be classrooms at 10 of the 13 secondary schools that use this software to help students learn language arts skills.  Staff from Computer Information Services is performing summer maintenance at all sites to ensure that all machines have the latest updates and service packs. 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 May 20, 2004 - June 24, 2004 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 324-2012 Date: June 24, 2004 To: From: Re: Board of Directors Morris L. Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent Board Meeting Dates, 2004-05 School Year The proposed schedule of meeting dates for the 2004-2005 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. The administration recommends approval of the following schedule: MONTH AGE DAMEETI G REGULAR MEETING July 07-08-04 07-22-04 August 08-12-04 08-26-04 September 09-09-04 09-23-04 October 10-14-04 10-28-04 November 11-11-04 11-18-04 December 12-09-04 12-16-04 January 01-13-05 01-27-05 February 02-10-05 02-24-05 March 03-10-05 03-24-05 April 04-14-05 04-28-05 May 05-12-05 05-26-05 June 06-09-05 06-23-05 Em n .z... .. , Om 2!,!C zm C..,,)..~.. ::0 C) 8~ ~z E..,. en .,.. ~:!! z Ca,  c ,- en !llz :cm gi:: ,.... gi m\n:o !ii~ ..,.m c5 en z p .., m ::0 lS zz I!) n ::c ~ C) m en DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 24, 2004 Board of Education \\ fj1Beverly 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 ail 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. !mI: n .z.... ., ., Om i!,!C zm c,~ -o,\n: o C, 8~ ~z !I: .... rn ::a, 15. ::!I: ::0 -C rn  \"\"n Om\n:oz l'i--t rn~\nJr- Personnel Changes Page 2 June 24, 2004 NAME Allison, Misty Reason: None Given Alverson, Raymond Reason: Retired Armstrong, J runes Reason: Retired Balenko, Mary Reason: Retired Batt, Ann Reason: Retired Brezee, Scott Reason: None Given Caruth, Phyllis Reason: Retired Davis, Kenneth Reason: Retired Davis, Waverly Reason: Retired Dugan, Frances Reason: Retired POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations Certified Emplovees Elem I 8-7-02 1-02 BOOKER 6-8-04 TCH925 Librarian 8-23-76 4-19 CENTRAL 6-1-04 LIB950 Science 8-16-94 4-13 FAIR 5-28-04 TCH925 Reading 8-20-79 5-20 BALE 5-28-04 CED925 Elem II 8-12-99 6-12 WASHINGTON 5-28-04 TCH925 Phyical Ed. 7-17-03 4-01 MCCLELLAN 5-28-04 TCHl0 Trigonometry 8-23-76 6-21 CENTRAL 5-28-04 TCH925 Special Ed 1-16-01 4-19 SPECIAL ED. 5-28-04 SPE925 Elem ill 8-15-94 1-17 FULBRIGHT 5-18-04 TCH925 Kindergarten 2-27-78 6-21 BRADY 6-1-04 K925 ANNUAL SALARY 27834.00 49737.00 42985.00 52205.00 44797.00 31431.00 54700.00 49737.00 43513 .00 54700.00 Personnel Changes Page 3 June 24, 2004 NAME Faulkner, Elizabeth Reason: Retired Foster, Nancy Reason: Retired Guest, Julia Reason: Health Grossman, Elizabeth Reason: Accepted Another Position Hall, Shirley Reason: Retired Hennessey, Jennifer Reason: Accepted Another Position Higginbotham, Patricia Reason: Retired Holcomb, Irene Reason: Retired Hornsby, Courtney Reason: Personal Isely, Randee Reason: Accepted Another Position POSITION SCHOOL Reading CHICOT Math PUl. HGTS. MID. Math HENDERSON English FAIR Elem I CLOVERDALE Psy. Examiner HENDERSO Math PUL. HGTS. MID. Economics MANN Oral Comm. CENTRAL Special Ed. START DATE END DATE 8-7-02 5-28-04 8-20-90 5-28-04 8-21-73 5-28-04 8-7-03 5-28-04 8-23-68 6-29-04 8-20-01 6-30-04 8-10-81 5-28-04 11-7-83 5-28-04 8-13-97 5-28-04 12-17-01 MABELV ALE MID. 7-1-04 SALARY CLASS 4-13 CED925 4-18 TCH925 5-20 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 6-21 TCH925 61-11 ADC105 6-21 TCH925 2-17 TCH925 3-07 TCH925 1-03 SPE925 ANNUAL SALARY 42985.00 48237.00 52205.00 27309.00 54700.00 43608.00 54700.00 44879.00 35291.00 28359.00 !I: mn z.... .. , Om 2!!C zm ~C) .~- ,0 C) 8~ ~z :1:\"\"' C/) .,,. ~\na z C: to \u0026gt;c: ,- C/) ~z ::i::m 8~ ,- Kl m\n,o i\n~ nm gt/) z ~::i::c-:o ::i::!I: ::i::O -C: C/). O\"m'n '\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; z.... gi~ m .,,. ~s\n,o . 8n ~ls :I: ,0 m\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; \u0026lt; C: ~ l:: . !I: \u0026gt;go C)_ mz ZC/\u0026gt; ,c.-.-. \u0026lt; Personnel Changes Page 4 June 24, 2004 NAME Lawson, Karon Reason: Leaving City Levin, Barbara Reason: Retired McDougal, Mark Reason: Accepted Another Position McGinness, Alana Reason: Accepted Another Position Mims,Mary Reason: Personal Mosby, Jimmy Reason: Retired O'Keefe, Lucille Reason: Retired Pritz, Colleen Reason: Leaving City Redmond, Rhonda Reason: Accepted Another Position Robinson, Susie Reason: Retired POSITION SCHOOL Art FRANKLIN Math MANN East Lab FAlR Business Ed. MCCLELLAN English DUNBAR Asst. Principal CE TRAL ElemN OTTERCREEK Pre-Algebra PUL. HGTS. MID. ElemN BALE ElemV GIBBS START DATE END DATE 8-12-96 5-28-04 8-23-76 5-28-04 8-9-00 5-28-04 8-2-00 5-28-04 8-18-92 5-28-04 8-24-73 6-8-04 8-24-87 5-28-04 8-22-88 5-28-04 8-7-03 5-28-04 8-20-90 5-28-04 SALARY CLASS 4-10 TCH925 4-19 TCH925 2-04 TCH925 5-05 TCH950 1-10 TCH925 66-20 ADC105 4-19 TCH925 2-16 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 4-19 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 39834.00 49737.00 30775.00 36000.00 35711.00 66240.00 49737.00 43379.00 36683.00 49737.00 Personnel Changes Page 5 June 24, 2004 NAME Schiffer, Amanda Reason: Leaving City Scrubbs, Verna Reason: Did not return from Leave Sharlow, Alan POSITION SCHOOL Elem III WASHINGTON Elem III BOOKER Music START DATE END DATE 1-5-04 5-28-04 8-21-89 6-1-04 8-7-02 Reason: Returning to School CENTRAL 5-28-04 Sneed, Mary Special Ed. 8-13-98 Reason: Accepted Another FOREST HGTS. 6-1-04 Position Watson, Billy Math 8-23-71 Reason: Retired CENTRAL 7-1-04 Watson, Gladystine Career Coor. 8-25-69 Reason: Retired HALL 7-1-04 Wood, Paula Spec. Ed. Supv. 8-19-91 Reason: Accepted Another SPECIAL ED. 6-30-04 Position New Certified EmJ?IOl'.ees Certified Promotion SALARY CLASS 4-01 TCH925 1-17 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 5-06 SPE925 6-21 TCH925 6-21 VOC105 68-12 ADCll ANNUAL SALARY 31431.00 44879.00 27834.00 37051.00 53213.00 54700.00 55380.00 !: m.z... .n. ., Om -\nmoo ~$? -,:,,-\no Cl 8 $? $? z !: .... \"' .,. ~~ z C: a,  C: ,- \"' !!lz :rm 8 gi ,- gi m\no ~~ ~~ 0z :r a, ci~ :r 0 = \"'.C : --\u0026lt;n Om ~z n--\u0026lt; \"'~ ~,- Personnel Changes Page 6 June 24, 2004 NAME NONE NONE POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees Bosley, Michael Custodian 9-5-80 1-11 Reason: Personal CLOVERDALE EL. 6-24-04 CUS12 Briggs, Bobby Custodian 9-7-76 1-11 Reason: Retired FOREST HGTS. 7-1-04 CUS12 Carpenter, Michael Care 11-17-03 1-02 Reason: None Given CARE 5-1-04 CARE Cadman, Suzanne Clerical 12-7-81 44-20 Reason: Retired Ilv1C 6-30-04 CLK12 Cranford, Rose Nurse 10-15-01 1-09 Reason: Retired FRANKLIN 5-28-04 NURSES Croswell, Carolyn Instr. Aide 8-20-98 1-06 Reason: Retired BOOKER 5-30-04 INA185 Frizzell, Jennifer Instr. Aide 2-28-04 1-07 Reason: Personal ROCKEFELLER 6-2-04 INA12 Germany, Lisa Child Nutrition 1-8-04 3-01 Reason: Personal CLOVERDALE MID.4-26-04 FSH550 ANNUAL SALARY 19385.00 19385.00 6.48 34344.00 34661.00 13166.00 17418.00 8364.00 Personnel Changes Page 7 June 24, 2004 NAME Grimmett, Bonnie Reason: Retired Holder, Alice Reason: None Given Jones, Jessinca Reason: None Given Land, Kitty Reason: None Given Modeste, Leon Reason: None Given Morgan, April Reason: Personal Peters, Novella Reason: None Given Poe, Lachunda Reason: Abandonment Reyes, Norma Reason: Abandonment Rodgers, Sylvia Reason: Abandonment Smith, Vernon Reason: Personal POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide CARVER Care CARE Care CARE P.O. Specialist PROCUREMENT Instr. Aide BRADY Child Nutrition WILLIAMS Care CARE Child Nutrition HALL Child Nutrition DUNBAR Child Nutrition SOUTHWEST Maintenance FACILITY SERV. START DATE END DATE 8-27-90 5-28-04 8-20-97 5-28-04 11-25-02 5-28-04 8-10-87 6-30-04 8-5-02 5-28-04 8-29-97 5-27-04 4-10-96 5-28-04 1-15-03 4-29-04 4-4-03 4-2-04 8-20-03 4-19-04 5-2-88 6-11-04 SALARY CLASS 1-10 INA925 2-12 CARE 1-03 CARE 46-20 AN12 1-10 INA925 3-07 FSH550 1-07 CARE 3-02 FSH550 3-01 FSH550 3-01 FSH550 57-20 ADN12 ANNUAL SALARY 14472.00 8.42 6.62 40116.00 14472.00 8606.00 7.17 8404.00 8364.00 8364.00 50628:00 !I:: m.z... .n. , Om -\n:moo .i.!,5,.~..\n:o C\u0026gt; 8~ !:!:i er, .,.. ~~ z  C: a, \u0026gt;,... cer:, ~z :,:m 8g: ,- gi m\n:o r-:5 mn ~~ 0 z :,: a, c\n~ :,::0 :!: C: er, ' -\u0026lt;n Om 2!!z (\")-\u0026lt; er,~\nj r- .,..\n\":o\".S On C\u0026gt; C: ~\n:o !l::\n:o m~ ~ ~ .\nI: \u0026gt;\" mC\u0026gt; -z z er, o-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\" Personnel Changes Page 8 June 24, 2004 NAME Stewart, Marcus Reason: None Given Wal ton, Coretta Reason: Accepted Another Position Weston, Ophelia Reason: Personal Woods, Teresa Reason: Abandonment Akins, James Benton, Jimmie Coats, Wanda Compton, Jerry POSITION SCHOOL Care CARE Child Nutrition FAJR Clerical FOREST HGTS. Child Nutrition HALL START DATE END DATE 9-29-03 4-1-04 2-14-03 5-12-04 8-18-92 5-24-04 11-3-03 4-29-04 SALARY CLASS 1-02 CARE 3-01 FSH550 39-12 CLK10 3-01 FSH550 ew Non-Certified Employees Custodian 5-6-04 1-01 BRADY CUS925 Custodian 5-3-04 1-05 BASELINE CUS928 Care 4-29-04 4-01 CARE CARE Custodian 5-24-04 54-12 FACILITY SERV. ADN12 ANNUAL SALARY 6.48 8364.00 23304.00 8364.00 5313.00 annual 519.75 prorated 12363.00 annual 1343.00 prorated 6.25 36456.00 annual 3937.25 prorated Personnel Changes Page 9 June 24, 2004 NAME Fairmon, Toney Foote, William Fresh, Andrea Hayman, Tera McGee, Effie Mohammed, Abdullah POSITION SCHOOL Custodian SOUTHWEST Custodian PARK.VIEW Parent Coor. SOUTHWEST Media Clerk MANN Custodain CENTRAL Custodian MANN START DATE END DATE 5-12-04 5-13-04 5-3-04 5-3-04 5-4-04 5-10-04 SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS12 1-01 CUS928 50-02 SOWRK 31-07 CLK925 1-01 CUS12 1-01 CUS928 ANNUAL SALARY 13784.00 annual 2052.94 prorated 10,626.00 annual 750.75 prorated 24012.00 annual 2501.25 prorated 15804.00 annual 420.32 prorated 13784.00 annual 2287.56 prorated 10626.00 annual 924.00 prorated !IC mn .z... .. , Om\nice -m .~.,,~...\n,c Cl 8~ ~z ii: .... CJ) .,,. ~~ z  C: a, \u0026gt;c: r-u, !!lz :cm 8g: ,...~ m\n,c r-s ~C') -\u0026lt;m 6(/) z :ca, i5 ~ :co :!: C: CJ). -\u0026lt;n Om\n!:!z C')-t CJ)~\njr- .,,. -\n,ca.s On Cl c: ~\n,c i:\n,c m~\nj\n:r- ,... C: . i: \u0026gt; po mCl -z ZCJ\u0026gt; c-t \u0026gt; \" Personnel Changes Page 10 June 241 2004 '..:4n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" NAME Palmer, Gladys POSITION SCHOOL Custodian CENTRAL START DATE END DATE 3-21-04 Reclassification SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS928 ANNUAL SALARY 10626.00 annual 2425.50 prorated Browning, Benita Bookkeeper Financial Services From Grade 55 to Grade 57 NONE NONE Non-Certified Promotion Non-Certified Transfer 810 WI. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 '54n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" June 24, 2004 To: LRSD Board of Directors From: Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent ~ Prepared by~ Beverly Williams, Director of Human Resources RE: Bargaining Rights ofLRSD Paraprofessionals and Custodians The Administration and LRCT A have agreed to the attached conditions with regard to the bargaining rights of the LRSD Paraprofessionals and Custodians effective June 18, 2004. 810 \\\\'. 1arkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  w,vw.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-44~-1001 31: mz.... .o. , Om 2!!0 zm ,C,\u0026gt; ~,....\n,o C\u0026gt; 8~ ~z :1:\"\"' (J) :C CD c:5 :c 31: :cO -C:: (J). --\u0026lt;o Om\nDz 0--\u0026lt; !S ~ m AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LRCTA AND THE LRSD ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE BARGAINING RIGHTS OF LRSD PARAPROFESSIONALS AND CUSTODIANS June 18, 2004 The Administration and the Association agree to the following approach to dealing with the current crisis surrounding the bargaining rights of the Little Rock School District paraprofessionals and custodians: 1. Both groups will receive, for the 04-05 school year, the 10% raise and the negotiated increase in the District's share of the insurance coverage. 2. The Association, acknowledging that a number of factors have resulted in both paraprofessionals and custodians falling short of the number necessary for the CTA to represent a majority of the employees in each group, agrees to forgo bargaining for the 2004- 05 school year. 3. The Administration will initiate two changes to the current agreement. These changes constitute the removal of the building engineers from the custodial bargaining unit and the placement of the paraprofessionals and the custodians on the LRSD Master Salary Schedule. 4. While no longer bound by the negotiated agreements covering the paraprofessionals and custodians, the Administration, whenever possible, with comply with the general spirit of the employment and working conditions outlined in those agreements until July 1, 2005. 5. Employee disputes will be handled in a manner consistent with Arkansas State Law 6-17-208 and the LRSD employee Handbook. 6. If the Association meets the verification terms outlined in the Recognition clause of the Paraprofessional contract by January 15 of 2005, the Administration will immediately honor the terms and conditions of that contact. 7. If the Association meets the verification terms outlined in the Recognition clause of the Custodial contract by January 15 of 2005, the Administration will immediately honor the terms and conditions of that contact. Katherine Wright LRCT A President // 0 ~ / /~91 Jc Grainger Ledbetter LRCT A Executive Director Dr. Morris Holmes LRSD Superintendent u~ BeverlyJliams Human Resources Director - ---- ([  -......~~, '.:An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" June 24, 2004 To: LRSD Board of Directors From: Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared byf tfeverly Williams, Director of Human Resources RE: Hiring of Additional Teaching Staff The Division of School Services has requested the addition of forty-three and four tenths ( 43.4) new teaching staff members, plus the potential of an additional nineteen (19) new pre-K classrooms. 12 Elementary ( From allocations) 5 Elementary (To undo split classrooms) 26.4 Secondary ( Program needs at five different secondary schools) 19 Approximate number of Pre-K Early Childhood (Grant proposal from the state with regard to additional funding of early childhood progran1s. The District will proceed with only the number of classrooms funded by the grant.) 62.4 Total - Potential new teaching positions School Services, Student Registration, and the Human Resources Department will continue to monitor the student enrollments, grant awards, and programs to implement those positions necessary for a successful 2004-05 school year. The administration is recommending approval to proceed with the hiring and staffing of these positions prior to the approval of the Little Rock School District budget for 2004- 05. 810 \\'( i\\Iarkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72.201  \\\\\"-vw.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 Im: n .z... .. , Om ,!!O zm C) ~ \"1:lr\n, o C) 8~ ~z I: .... \"' .,,. \u0026gt;s ~:- c: CD ,\u0026gt;.. ..C.,,: !/lz ::i:m 8g: .... ~ m\n,o J\n~ ngemn z % CD c:5  % I: %0 \"- ' C.: .... n Om\n,oz 0 .... ~~ m TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 June 24, 2004 Board of Directors Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Dr. Ed Williams, Statistician Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Program Evaluation Agenda for 2004-05 Short Summary-The Board is asked to approve the continued program evaluations for the broad areas of Elementary Literacy (K-5), Secondary Literacy (6-12), Elementary Mathematics (K-5), and Secondary Mathematics (6-12). The evaluation format for these programs will be standardized to the extent possible so that all of these programs can be evaluated on an annual basis with an added section each year that incorporates the latest student assessment data. In addition English as a Second Language (K-12) and the Pre-Kindergarten Program are proposed to complete the Program Evaluation Agenda for 2004-05. The primary research question will be, \"Was the program effective in improving the achievement of African-American students?\" (or Limited English Proficient students in the case of the ESL Evaluation). Individual components of the broad programs will be included in the program evaluations when feasible. Budget for external program evaluators and a Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation and an Evaluation Specialist are proposed in the 2004-05 budget. Objectives- to improve the education for all students, with a focus on African-American students, by evaluating selected programs (and their components when feasible) each year to determine their impact on student achievement. Expected Outcomes- Programs will be maintained, adjusted, or eliminated based on the findings of program evaluations over a sufficient period of time to determine the effectiveness of the program. Population- District staff and teachers will be involved in the evaluations, in addition to an external evaluator(s). Budget Amount/Source of Budget- Staff members' time and materials are included as a part of the regular operating budget for the Math/Science and Literacy Departments. External  ~onsultants will be contracted to help develop the evaluation design, write the reports, and ensure impartial findings and recommendations. A budget of $50,000 is included in the proposed PRE !mI: n .z... ., , Om ,!!C zm C.,\u0026gt;,, .~...\n:o C\u0026gt; 8~ ~z :I: .... CJ\u0026gt; fl 8 z ~ cz5 CJ\u0026gt; TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 June 24, 2004 Board of Directors Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Dr. Ed Williams, Statistician Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Program Evaluation Agenda for 2004-05 Short Summary-The Board is asked to approve the continued program evaluations for the broad areas of Elementary Literacy (K-5), Secondary Literacy ( 6-12), Elementary Mathematics (K-5), and Secondary Mathematics (6-12). The evaluation format for these programs will be standardized to the extent possible so that all of these programs can be evaluated on an annual basis with an added section each year that incorporates the latest student assessment data. In addition English as a Second Language (K-12) and the Pre-Kindergarten Program are proposed to complete the Program Evaluation Agenda for 2004-05. The primary research question will be, \"Was the program effective in improving the achievement of African-American students?\" (or Limited English Proficient students in the case of the ESL Evaluation). Individual components of the broad programs will be included in the program evaluations when feasible. Budget for external program evaluators and a Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation and an Evaluation Specialist are proposed in the 2004-05 budget. Objectives- to improve the education for all students, with a focus on African-American students, by evaluating selected programs (and their components when feasible) each year to determine their impact on student achievement. Expected Outcomes- Programs will be maintained, adjusted, or eliminated based on the findings of program evaluations over a sufficient period of time to determine the effectiveness of the program. Population- District staff and teachers will be involved in the evaluations, in addition to an external evaluator(s). Budget Amount/Source of Budget- Staff members' time and materials are included as a part of the regular operating budget for the Math/Science and Literacy Departments. External  ~onsultants will be contracted to help develop the evaluation design, write the reports, and ensure impartial findings and recommendations. A budget of$50,000 is included in the proposed PRE !D n 0 z U\u0026gt; .... ~~ n-\u0026lt; m=:i U\u0026gt; ~ :zc 0 8 -\u0026lt; ii: zm.... .n. , Om ,!!O zm .G,,,)..~..\n,:, G) 8~ ~z :1: .... U\u0026gt; :ca, G'i . :c !I: :c 0 - C: ~n Om\n,:,z c\"\u0026gt;-\u0026lt; !S ~ m p 8 z ~ 0z U\u0026gt; budget and an increase of $50,000 is sought to bring the total to $100,000. Future program evaluations will require the continued assistance of external consultant(s) along with greater internal capacity to conduct program evaluations. Two additional staff members with program evaluation expertise will be needed. The two positions will be a Director of the Department and an Evaluation Specialist. $183,475 is included in the proposed 2004-05 budget for salary and fringes for these two positions. Manager-Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Instruction Duration-The formal program evaluations of the elementary literacy program, secondary literacy program, and elementary and secondary mathematics (and science) program began during the 2002-03 school year and was continued in the Board's Evaluation Agenda for 2003- 04 school year. Additional assessment data will be available during 2004-05 as the Benchmark Exams expand to included grades 3-8. The reports to the Board on the 2003-04 evaluations will be provided this October. Continued evaluations of literacy and mathematics will continue for the next few years as additional data is gathered. The Little Rock Reading First Project was also on the Board's Evaluation Agenda for 2003-04 and that report should be available this fall. The LRSD Reading First Project will continue, at a minimum, for the three years of the grant period and will be included as a component within the elementary literacy program evaluation, starting with the proposed 2004-05 Program Evaluation Agenda. Reports on the programs identified for evaluation on the Board's 2004-05 Agenda will be finished and reports made in the fall of 2005. Long Range/Continuation-all program evaluations are used as a benchmark for program planning in future years. The formal literacy and mathematics evaluations will be recommended for continuation each year into the foreseeable future. The ESL and Pre-K evaluations will conclude at the end of the 2004-05 school year but may be continued if desired by the Board. Other Agencies Involved-The Arkansas Department of Education is involved in the LRSD Reading First component of the elementary literacy program evaluation. The Division of Child Care, which is part of the Department of Human Services, will be involved in using the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) to externally assess the Pre-K classrooms. ECERS will be used as a component of the Pre-K Program Evaluation. Expectations of Staff-Staff members from literacy, math, and English as a Second Language will serve on the evaluation teams for these program evaluations. Program evaluation is embedded in the job expectations of staff\nconsequently, this is an ongoing commitment for our staff. Needed Staff-External Program Evaluator(s) will be contracted to assist with the evaluations. Future program evaluations will require the continued assistance of external consultant(s), and the employment of two additional staff members with program evaluation expertise. The two positions will be a Director of the Department and an Evaluation Specialist. Comments-the program evaluation agenda as proposed includes the core curricular areas of literacy and math. Literacy and math are currently part of the high stakes testing programs required by NCLB. ESL is an area that was under supervision by the Office of Civil Rights until the district was released this past year. Continued evaluation of the program is recommended because LEP students are a sub-group under \"No Child Left Behind\" and because a new assessment was initiated this spring (Maculaitis Assessment of Competencies or MAC II) along with portfolio assessment. Pre-Kindergarten expansion is currently a major emphasis for LRSD. Evaluation of our structure for Pre-K expansion is important to guiding the development of the Pre-K Program in the future. Recommendations-we recommend approval of the six programs for program evaluation during the 2004-05 school year. !II (\") 0z 1/) ..... m~ ~!::l hl~ 1/) (\") :z:c 0 8 -\u0026lt; ~ mz n ..... .., Om iz!!mC C) ~ \"ti .....\n,a C) 8~ ~z ~ ..... 1/) % ID c:\n %~ ::cO - C: II)  ..... (\") Om\n,oz c')-, !S ~ m p 8 z ?\ncz5 1/) Action Plan Timeline for Board Approved Evaluation Agenda: School 2004-2005 Month Action May2004 Program evaluations for SY2004-2005 determined. June Board approves SY2004-2005 evaluation agenda. Staff teams assigned for each evaluation. July RFP for external consultant(s) developed and advertised. Benchmark and End-of-Course exam data arrives. August Contract for external consultant finalized. Completed staff teams meet to begin the evaluation process per IL-R September Protocol developed to determine level of implementation for programs. Staff teams begin preliminary analysis of achievement data. October Staff teams trained on implementation protocol. Begin collecting implementation data. Preliminary analysis of achievement data completed November - January 2005 Staff teams meet monthly to monitor adherence to IL-R February Implementation data completed. March Analysis of all data completed. April Draft reports completed. May Evaluation for SY2004-2005 reports finalized. Programs for SY2005-2006 evaluation determined. June SY2004-2005 reports presented to Board. Evaluation agenda for SY 2005-2006 approved by the Board. Staff teams assigned for each SY2005-2006 evaluation. External RFP External consultants are to provide planning support, interpretation, and technical writing of research results for one or all of the following program evaluations: 1. Elementary Literacy (K-5) 2. Secondary Literacy (6-12) 3. Elementary Mathematics (K-5) 4. Secondary Mathematics ( 6-12) 5. English as a Second Language (ESL) 6. Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-K) Essential duties include the following: 0 Provide research planning support 0 Analyze and interpret achievement and other statistical data  Compile and write evaluation reports. 0 Implement the assigned portions of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) program evaluation regulations Education and experience A minimum of at least a program emphasis (a terminal degree is preferred), or a record of working in the field of the aforementioned programs. Evidence of knowledge and experience in technical writing and research within the areas of Elementary and Secondary Mathematics and/or Literacy, English as a Second Language, and PreKindergarten. Description of Work Over an 11-month time period, August 2004 - June 2005, the external consultant will work with LRSD staff teams to plan and implement the District's Board approved evaluation agenda. The external consultant will meet a least monthly with the staff teams to establish research questions, determine the data needed and how to gather the data, and to analyze and interpret the data. In addition, the external consultant will be the lead writer of the evaluation reports, submit these reports to the staff teams and other District personnel for peer review, and complete the final reports.\ns:: mz.... .n. , Om j!!O zm .G.,',\u0026gt;...~.\n,o G'\u0026gt; 8~ ~z\ns:: .... u, ::,:: a, ci. ::,:: :I: ::,::0 - C: !!le-, Om \"0'-zt u,~\n:\njr-f\u0026gt; 8 z ~ cz5 u, Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 DATE: TO: June 24, 2004 Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director of Technology and Media Services THROUGH: Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Contract for Technology Services Subject Recommendation for Contract for Technology Services for 2004-2005 Summary Due to the increasing complexity of the E-Rate process, the fact that the District is now in the appeal process for most 2003-2004 applications, and the fact that we are funded for 8 additional schools with media retrieval systems, there is a need for technical assistance with these projects. Staff is recommending a contract with Sharon Dowdy for $78,000 plus travel for the 2004-2005 school year for services related to these projects. Objectives To provide expertise in acquiring funds available from the federal E-Rate program To provide expertise in the appeal process for funds that have been denied. To manage the installation of media retrieval systems in 8 LRSD schools Expected Outcomes To continue to implement the approved technology plan Budget Amount Source of Budget Manager Duration Long Range/Continuation Comments $78,000 + travel Dedicated millage technology funds Lucy Neal July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005 N/A The District formerly had contracts with A TS\u0026amp;R and with EDS for technology services. During the 2003-2004 school year the District contracted with EDS for the amount of $146,000. Sharon Dowdy, formerly with EDS, was project manager for the EDS contract from 2000-2004. She is now available to contract directly with the District. A Scope of Work is provided in a separate document. Recommendations It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve a contrc~ct with Sharon Dowdy in the amount of $78,000 + travel for technology services for the 2004-2005 school year. Im: n z.... .. , Om 2!!C zm C) ~ -0 ,\nx, C) 8~ ~z I: .... U\u0026gt; ::ca, i5 . ::c I: :-:\u0026lt;cO= U\u0026gt;  \"\"'n Om :nz c5 .... !S ~ m E-rate Technology Services Scope of Work Sharon Dowdy, Consultant 2004-2005  Advise on types ofE-rate filings that would benefit LRSD  Prepare all E-rate applications and submit to LRSD for review  Research and prepare documentation related to E-rate applications  Organize documentation for all E-rate related applications  Research and prepare correspondence related to E-rate Program Integrity and Selective Review requests  Research and prepare appeal documents  Do background research on FCC rules and orders related to E-rate Media Retrieval Projects  Act as project manager for implementation of Safari system at 8 new sites  Plan and facilitate regular meetings with project personnel including both LRSD staff and vendor team  Create implementation timelines for each site working with vendor and LRSD construction managers  Assist in preparation of materials lists and purchase orders for the systems  Walk schools with vendor and LRSD construction managers to determine locations and technical needs of head end rooms  Communicate with principals on all aspects of project implementation  Coordinate implementation schedule with vendor and LRSD construction managers  Monitor progress of implementation schedule and notify LRSD of any problems  Manage budget for project  Work with vendor on content of training sessions  Coordinate training schedule with principals and staff  Monitor training sessions Other  Develop technology-related RFP's in conjunction with LRSD Procurement staff  Assist in evaluation of technology-related RFP's  Participate in Technology Committee meetings  Update LRSD Technology Plan as needed When travel expenses are paid by Little Rock School District, the consultant will work exclusively on LRSD projects. Date: To: From: Prepared by: Subject: Summary: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 24, 2004 Board of Education Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Linda Austin, Director, Planning and Development Debbie Milam, Director, Volunteers in Public Schools Federal grant submission: Mentoring Programs The District proposes to submit a Mentoring Program grant application to implement a school-based mentoring program for children with greatest needs in the 4th through 8th grades. The government defines greatest need as those students who: (i) are at risk of educational failure or dropping out of school, (ii) are involved in criminal, delinquent, or gang activities\nor (iii) lack strong, positive role models. The program is designed to assist these children in receiving support and guidance from a mentor\nimprove academic performance\nimprove interpersonal relationships between the children and their peers\nreduce the dropout rate\nand reduce juvenile delinquency and involvement in gangs. The deadline for application is July rth. The grant period is September 2004- August 2007 Objectives: The LRSD Mentoring Program proposal includes three objectives: 1) The percentage of student/mentor matches that are sustained for a period of twelve months will increase: 0% by 2005\n25% by 2006\nand 50% by 2007. 2) The percentage of mentored students who demonstrate improvement in core academic subjects as measured by grade point average after 12 months will increase: 5% by 2005\n15% by 2006\nand 30% by 2007. 3) The percentage of mentored students who have unexcused absences from school will decrease: 10% by 2005\n.30% by 2006\nand 40% by 2007. Budget amount: $600,000\nno match required ~ 0 r- 0 \"z' C\u0026gt; :x, m ! \"\"'' ::C ID G'i ' ::c:I: ::r:O !- !lC. : on :x,m 0~ ens\\?\nl r-p 8 z ?\n0z \"' ., '.\n4.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" June 24, 2004 To: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED B~ark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services 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 2005-2006 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 2005-2006 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 !.=.,' z z\u0026gt; n\n!! en ~ ,n- 0 en z C\u0026gt; Rl ~\no\nen ?\u0026lt; ~c:: 0 :,,.m n......z.... ~o z~ z~ \u0026gt; ~ % a, i:'i. :z::IC :z:O -C:: e..n..,n Om \"\u0026lt;'5'..z.., gi ~ m p g z ~\nen PROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES TOGETHER WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2005, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2006 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 Rep!.) 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 $ 94,516,380.00 $ 24,885,682.00 $ 14,325,390.00 $ 13,842,581.00 $ 35,563,661.00 $ 675,000.00 $ 12,439,607.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 4,500,000.00 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 24th day of June, 2004. Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County Tony Rose, President Micheal Daugherty, Secretary H:ICFHUGHE\\ElectJon\\Elect1onBudget2004.doc '.\n4n Individual Approach to a World ef Knowledge\" DATE: June 24th . 2004 TO: ~[Directors FROM: ~~irector ofFacility Services THROUGH~ Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding, Protection of Historic Resources and Cultural Landscape The Little Rock School District is proud to report that it has become a signatory to an agreement between various agencies with the intended purpose of a mutual understanding of the importance of historic resources and the cultural landscape within and surrounding Little Rock Central High School Historic site, and to mutually commit to strive for the long-term protection of said resources. The U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service, The Little Rock School District, City of Little Rock, and the Central High Neighborhood, Inc agreed to the Memorandum of Understanding. This agreement, coordinated by Mr. Mike Madel!, Superintendent Central High National Historic Site, is the result of mutual caring and respect for the National Site, surrounding neighborhood and the desire for cooperation in the preservation and development of this portion of the City of Little Rock. 810 W. 1arkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 ?\u0026lt; u...., C: 0 :,..m .o....z... ~o Zi1j ,z~.. ~ MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Agreement Number 87310040001 Page 1 of 6 PROTECTION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPE Memorandum of Understanding Between The United States Department of the Interior National Park Service, City of Little Rock, Little Rock School District, and the Central High Neighborhood, Inc. This Agreement is entered into by and between the National Park Service (NPS), United States Department of the Interior, acting through the Superintendent of Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site, the City of Little Rock (\"the city\"), acting through the Mayor, the Little Rock School District (LRSD), acting through the Superintendent of Schools, and the Central High Neighborhood, Incorporated (CHNI), acting through its President. ARTICLE I - OBJECTIVES The objectives of this Agreement are to affirm a mutual understanding of the importance of historic resources and the cultural landscape within and surrounding Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site, and to mutually commit to strive for the long-term protection of said resources and landscape. ARTICLE II - BACKGROUND Little Rock Central High School is listed on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A (because of its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of American history) and Criterion G (because it achieved significance within the previous 50 years). In 1982 the Secretary of the Interior designated the school as a national historic landmark. The period of significance for the High School, as is listed on the National Register of Historic Places nomination form, is 1954-1959. In 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-356, designating the school and certain adjacent properties as Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site (hereinafter \"the historic site\"). The purpose of the historic site, as specified in the law, is \" ... to preserve, protect, and interpret for the benefit, education, and inspiration of present and future generations, Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, and its role in the integration of public schools and the development of the Civil Rights movement in the United States.\" Section 2.(b) of the law further states, \"Nothing in this Act shall affect the authority of the Little Rock School District to administer Little Rock Central High School nor shall this Act affect the authorities of the City of Little Rock in the neighborhood surrounding the school.\" A National Park Service Cultural Landscape Inventory completed in 1999 determined that the School's cultural landscape also is nationally significant under National Register of Historic Places Criteria A (because of its association with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of American history) and Criteria C (distinctive characteristics of a period and possesses high artistic values). Agreement Number G7310040001 Page 2 of 6 This historic site is managed under a NPS General Management Plan (GMP), which was approved on July 30, 2002. Pursuant to Public Law 105-356, the GMP sets forth a management framework that ensures the administration of the historic site does not interfere with the continuing use of Central High School as an educational institution. Among many other principles, the GMP states: 1. \"The [NPS] will work cooperatively with the Little Rock School District to develop a preservation plan/policy for the building and grounds of the entire 21-acre school campus that is amenable to the school district.\" 2. \"The [NPS] will work with city agencies to develop preservation strategies for protecting the documented architectural and cultural landscape values of the high school's surrounding neighborhood.\" 3. \"Partnerships will be established with the Central High Neighborhood Association to assist with development of neighborhood preservation initiatives.\" The city, the LRSD, and the CHNI all are on record as supporting the GMP. This Agreement will serve as the initial step towards achieving the principles stated above. ARTICLE Ill-AUTHORITY The authority for this Agreement is 16 U.S. C. 1-3. ARTICLE IV - STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT The parties to this Agreement recognize that Central High School is an active educational institution that must be maintained and adapted to continue to serve the community. Similarly, the parties recognize that the neighborhoods surrounding the historic site are living communities that also must be maintained and allowed to adapt to remain viable. Th~ parties acknowledge that visitation to the historic site will continue to grow. This increased use, Which is projected to reach more than 56,000 annual visits by 2007, has potential to impact public infrastructure in the neighborhoods surrounding Central High School, possibly necessitating repairs or improvements to the infrastructure. T.he parties affirm that Central High School and the surrounding cultural landscape are nationally sign1f1cant resources deserving of special protection measures. Given the above facts, the parties agree that the historic character and features of the high school and the cultural landscape of the school campus and surrounding neighborhood must be preserved and, Wh~n practical, restored to reflect the appearance of the school and the landscape during its historic Period of significance (1954-1959). The parties further acknowledge that most property in the surrounding neighborhoods is privately owned. Under current zoning the city can encourage, but not compel , private property owners to adhere to this goal. For the purposes of this agreement, the cultural la_ndscape shall be defined as the school campus and all areas within one block of the National Historic Site (as depicted in green on the attached map). ?\u0026lt; ~ C: C \u0026gt;m o....z.. ~~ n\ni2 z \u0026gt; ~ ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt; l:: 0 C: ~ :I: m z.. . fl g z ~ 0z \"' ARTICLE V - STATEMENT OF WORK A. All Parties will: Agreement Number G7310040001 Page 3 of 6 1. Strive to maintain and/or restore a high level of historic integrity for Central High School, the school campus, and the surrounding cultural landscape that reflect the resources' period of historical significance (1954-1959). 2. Strive to identify innovative solutions to challenges associated with increased tourism and neighborhood revitalization (such as traffic flow, public transportation, parking, and pedestrian safety) that help promote the attractiveness of the neighborhoods surrounding the historic site as a place to live, work, and recreate. 3. In planning any project that might alter the historic integrity of Central High School, the school campus, or the surrounding cultural landscape, provide early opportunity for all other parties that are signatories to this Agreement to review and offer input about the project. 4. Participate in a semi-annual meeting to update other parties on the current status of projects (planned or in progress) that could affect the historic integrity of the school or the cultural landscape. 5. Participate in other meetings that might be called, as necessary or desirable, to discuss projects that merit additional discussion or that begin to emerge between semi-annual meetings. 6. Participate in development of cultural landscape management guidelines which will provide more specific guidance to all parties on key features of the school, the campus, and the neighborhood that should be preserved or restored. 7. In developing the cultural landscape management guidelines, strive to optimize consistency with the guidelines and requirements set forth in the Centennial Neighborhoods Design Overlay District (CNDOD), provided that the CNDOD guidelines and regulations, (a) are approved by the city, and (b) do not encourage or require measures that would be inconsistent with the preservation or restoration of the cultural landscape to its period of historic significance. 8. Work together to identify programs and funding sources to assist private property owners in their efforts to preserve and restore homes and businesses in a fashion that will be consistent with the cultural landscape's period of significance\nwork to disseminate information about such programs to homeowners and business people. B. The National Park Service will: 1. Serve as lead agency and provide principal staff (or contractor) for development of cultural landscape management guidelines as funding becomes available. Ensure that request for NPS funding of the guidelines is assigned a high park priority ranking. 2. Provide technical assistance on historic preservation and restoration techniques that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 3. Coordinate involvement, as necessary, between the parties and the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. Agreement Number G7310040001 Page 4 of 6 4. Provide any necessary clerical or logistical support that may be necessary to facilitate the semiannual meetings discussed in Article V, Section A.1 (including recording and distribution of meeting minutes). 5. Provide a summary of input received from other parties on NPS projects, including a summary of unresolved issues (if any), to NPS decision makers (including, as appropriate, the Superintendent of the historic site, the Regional Director of the NPS Midwest Region, and/or the NPS Design Advisory Board). C. The City of Little Rock will: 1. Host one of the semi-annual meetings discussed in Article V, Section A.1 . 2. Provide a summary of input received from other parties on NPS projects, including a summary of unresolved issues (if any), to City decision makers (including, as appropriate, the City Board of Directors or the Planning Commission). 3. Encourage private property owners within the cultural landscape to voluntarily maintain or restore their homes to reflect an appearance consistent with the period of significance for the landscape (1954-1959). D. The Little Rock School District will: 1. Host one of the semi-annual meetings discussed in Article V, Section A.1 . 2. Provide a summary of input received from other parties on NPS projects, including a summary of unresolved issues (if any), to District decision makers (including , as appropriate, Central High School administrators or the Board of Education). E. The Central High Neighborhood Association will: 1. Assist in ensuring that neighborhood residents are aware of and engaged, as appropriate, in matters that the parties to this Agreement are considering. 2. Provide a summary of input received from other parties on NPS projects, including a summary of unresolved issues (if any), to Association decision makers (including, as appropriate, Association officers or the Board of Directors). 3. Participate actively in planning and review activities related to the historic site and cultural landscape. ARTICLE Vi - TERM OF AGREEMENT ~his _Agreement will be effective for a period of five years from the date of final signature, unless it is errninated earlier by one of the parties pursuant to Article VIII that follows. ARTICLE VII - KEY OFFICIALS A. Key official are essential to ensure maximum coordination and communication between the parties and for the work being performed. They are: 1. For the NPS Superintendent Little Rock Central High School Nat. Hist. Site 700 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3527 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 E-mail: michael_madell@nps.gov Telephone: (501) 374-3067 Facsimile: (501) 301-7762 2. For the City City Manager City of Little Rock 500 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 E-mail: bmoore@littlerock.state.ar.us Telephone: (501) 371-4510 Facsimile: (501) 371-4498 3. For the LRSD Agreement Number G7310040001 Page 5 of 6 Director of Facility Services Little Rock School District 3601 South Bryant Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 E-mail: douglas.eaton@lrsd.org Telephone: (501) 447-5281 Facsimile: (501) 447-5251 4. For the CHNI President Central High Neighborhood Association 1514 South Schiller Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone: (501) 375-1829 B. Communications - All parties will copy all other parties on any communication regarding this agreement. C. Changes in Key Officials - Any permanent change in key officials will be made only by modification to this Agreement. ARTICLE VIII - MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION A. This Agreement may be modified only by a written instrument executed by the parties. B. Any party may terminate this Agreement by providing the other parties with thirty (30) days advance written notice. In the event that one party provides the other parties with notice of its intention to terminate, the parties will meet promptly to discuss the reasons for the notice. ARTICLE IX- STANDARD CLAUSE - CIVIL RIGHTS During the performance of this Agreement, the participants will not discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin , or disability. ARTICLE X - SIGNATURES Agreement Number 87310040001 Page 6 of 6 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date(s) set forth below. FOR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: Signature: Name: R. Michael Madell Title: Superintendent Date: FOR THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK: Signature: Name: Bruce T. Moore Title: City Manager Date: FOR THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: Signature: Name: Dr. Morris Holmes Title: Interim Superintendent Date: FOR THE CENTRAL HIGH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: Signature: Name: Ethel Ambrose Title: President Date: ?\u0026lt; ~ C: .o\u0026gt;..m.zC.. ~~ 0\n!i z \u0026gt; ~ ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt; C \u0026lt;- 0 C: ~ ~ ~ _J LJUUULJLJ - \" - Boundary of National Historic Site --- Boundary of National Historic Landmark W utt1r, Rocf Cemra, '\"i1qr, Schoo1 1' ::,01~oe-s LJ.-uc bbJrc Q: \\/1s1cn .. -E:nle f1v1a9r-to11F ,v,ooi ::,e~!IC'2 Station, {\n) vac,rn ,_o ~ ,.:\nomrnemoranve Garoer {I, Qu191e1 3tad1urr   Sf.te r~rr.a1p , u tie nm:k ~entra~ High scnoob Nationa, Historic SitB United States Department of the Interior  National Park Service DSC  037  20007  AUG 2001 DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 24, 2004 Board of Education FROM: /j(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!De12artment Item Donor Brady Elementary A check in the amount Bank of the Ozarks School of$1,000.00 to purchase trophies and ribbons for the Science Fair Awards Program Central High School $300.00 cash to be Marilyn Marshall applied toward a scholarship to benefit Meleknur Asian Central High School Services, valued at Mike and Che Dolan $2,228.22, to the of Pro Pies of AR Central High Jazz Band Cloverdale Magnet Coke products, valued The Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Middle School at $500.00, to provide refreshments at parent and faculty meetings, special programs and student activities Cloverdale Magnet $450.00 cash for 11 sixth Wal-Mart/Baseline ($400.00) Middle School grade honor roll students, Ida Pettus\" Kid Smart ($50.00) all with perfect attendance and good behavior, to begin savings accounts for college ~ C') r- 0 !z!? C\u0026gt; i UI ?\u0026lt; U--I, C: 0 n\u0026gt;mz _,--, c5 0 z~ '6 r- z ),,\n,:, -\u0026lt; ?\u0026lt; ),, 0 \u0026lt;- 0 C: ~ :I:: mz --, Board of Education June 24, 2004 Page 2 School/Department Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Fair Park Elementary School Forest Heights Middle School Geyer Springs Elementary School Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Middle School Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Middle School Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Middle School HP Computer System and printer, Canon scanner and a computer desk, valued at $1,000.00 Teaching materials, art supplies and children's books, valued at $700.00, to be used by young teachers starting their careers $500.00 cash to FHMS Athletic Department to sponsor five (5) students to the U of A Football Camp A \"Children of Promise Foundation Scholarship Fund\" which will guarantee ten 5th grade students a scholarship in the amount of$1,000.00 each. Donation of $10,000 will be made each year thereafter. $2,550.00 cash toward the purchase and lighting of the Henderson School Marque $100.00 cash to be applied toward the purchase and lighting of the Henderson School Marque $250.00 cash to be applied toward the purchase and lighting of the Henderson School Marque Ms. Alice Wickliffe, sixth-grade teacher at CMMS Ms. Sherry Sherwood Convenience Stores Plus, Inc. dba Big Ben Truck Stop BPI/Waste Services of AR in conjunction with the Geyer Springs Neighborhood Association and Geyer Springs Elementary School Henderson PTSA Pennbrook/Cloverhill Property Owners' Association City of LR through Westbrook Neighborhood Association Board of Education June 24, 2004 Page 3 !=' Schoo I/Department Item Donor .., z \u0026gt;z 0 Henderson Health $3,256.00 cash to be Combined School-Wide ,~... en Sciences Magnet Middle applied toward the and PT A Fundraiser School purchase and lighting of the Henderson School Marque Henderson Health $1,000.00 cash to be Match for Foundation Grant for Sciences Magnet Middle applied toward the Student Incentives/Combined ~ School purchase and lighting School-Wide \u0026amp; PT A Fundraiser ,0. .. of the Henderson e0n School Marque z C)\n,o m Henderson Health Second Baptist Church/John Barrow ~ Mulch, valued at $230.00,\n,o\n,,: en Sciences Magnet Middle for the Henderson School Road School Marque Henderson Health Landscape plants and United Way's Day of Caring Sciences Magnet Middle materials, valued at ?\u0026lt; en School approximately $150.00, ..... C 0 for the Henderson School :,,.m o......z.... Marque i5 0 z~ :\nMabelvale Magnet ,... Portrait package, valued Wayne Smith Photography z \u0026gt; Middle School at $450.00, donated during\n,o -\u0026lt; the dedication of the \"Carl Martin Library\" at MMMS Mabelvale Magnet Two (2) name plates MMMS Builder's Club Middle School engraved with \"Carl Martin Library\", valued at $78.64 ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt; 0 Mabelvale Magnet Refreshments, valued Mabelvale United Methodist c.... 0 C Middle School at $150.00, for the Church ~ :I: Carl Martin Library mz ..... dedication at MMMS Mabelvale Magnet Gift certificate, valued Wal-Mart Supercenter/Baseline Middle School at $25.00, for refreshments for the Carl Martin Library dedication at MMMS Mabelvale Magnet Desk, valued at $50.00, Richard Thompson of Tom James Middle School to the Carl Martin Library ofLR atMMMS Board of Education June 24, 2004 Page 4 School/Department Mabelvale Magnet Middle School Mabelvale Magnet Middle School Mabelvale Magnet Middle School Williams Traditional Magnet School Williams Traditional Magnet School Mahlon Martin Professional Library Equipment and labor (two hours), valued at $400.00, for moving columns for the Carl Martin Library at MMMS Books, valued at $100.00, to the Carl Martin Library atMMMS Carnegie columns (priceless) to the Carl Martin Library at MMMS $13,200.00 cash to be distributed as follows: Staff Appreciation: $2,112.00 Classroom Supplies: $6,663.00\nStudent Recognition: $3,950.00 Parental Involvement: $475.00 A \"Drug Free\" banner, valued at $300.00, to the counseling program Five (5) Olympus digital cameras and bags, two (2) each HP Photosmart digital cameras, Olympus deluxe digital imaging kits and picture cards, valued at $2,200.00 Lando Patton Wrecking, Inc. Mollie Martin Wiseman Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Carl Martin Williams Traditional Magnet School PTA Mr. Randy Wilson of Oxford Screen Printing, Inc. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MEMORANDUM Date: June 2, 2004 To: Darral Paradis Director of Procurement From: lik v Ada Keown Principal Subject: Donation The Bank of the Ozarks, one of our Partners in Education, has made a contribution in the form of a check numbered 10254 7 and dated May 17, 2004. They have made this contribution in the amount of $1,000.00 to our school for the following:  Trophies and ribbons for our Science Fair Awards Program We are grateful to the Bank of the Ozarks for this generous donation. The donor's mailing address is: Bank of the Ozarks Chenal Parkway \u0026amp; West Markham Little Rock, AR 72211 It is recommended that this cash donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. ,- 1 I Attachment RECEIVED JUN 4 200~. P~ - --~.1\nfNT \"'t:: \\ft ,es: t,1a''7,.~ S 'E-\"''  Phone 150 \\ .1.:,.3900  Fax (501) ,:j7.3901  Little Roel-\n, Arka-is2.s 72205 Litt{e 'Rock Centra{ Jf113fi Scfioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt[e 'Rock, .Jlrkansas 72202 'Pfione 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 5/10/2004 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: ANCY ROUSSEAU, PRI CIPAL7 }:_~/t~l/4--(__ SUBJECT: DO ATIO Marilyn Marshall of 42 Eagles est Court, Little Rock, AR 72210 graciously contributed $300.00 toward a scholarship to benefit Meleknur Aslan. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. RECEIVED MAY 11 200~ PROCURE rli t rJ T ittfe 'Rock Centra{ JfifJFi Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 'Phone 501-447-1400 ]\"ax 501-447-1401 DATE: MAY 11, 2004 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NA CY ROUSSEAU, PRI CIPAL ~ SUBJECT: DO ATION Mike \u0026amp; Che Dolan of Pro Pies of Arkansas, 8122 Cantrell Road, Little Rock, AR 72227 very generously contributed $2,228.22 in kind services to the Central High Jazz Band. It is my recommendation that this donation be approved m accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ... \"~~ '-,~~~ .. ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt; C ls C: s1 I: m z... . CLOVERDALE MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL To: From: Mr. Darral Paradis Director of Procurement Angela M~~ Principal Dates: May 12, 2004 Re: Donation The Coca-Cola Bottling Company donated $500.00 in Coke Products to Cloverdale Magnet Middle School for the 2003-2004 school years. The products were used to supply refreshments at parent meetings, faculty meetings, special programs and student activities. Business Coca-Cola Bottling Company 7000 Hwy I-30 Little Rock, AR 72209 Donation value $500.00 6300 Hinkson Road  Ptione (50') 4.!7-2500  Fax /50 1 ) 447-250-  Little Rock Arkansas 722c9 CLOVERDALE MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL To: Mr. Darral Paradis Director of Procurement I ,+ /J\\._ From: Angela Munns, Principal Date: May 10, 2004 Re: Donations A donation of $450.00 was given to Cloverdale Magnet Middle School. The donated money was given to eleven 6th grade students to begin saving accounts for college. The students who earned and received the awards had perfect attendance, good behavior and made the honor roll each 9 weeks. Business Wal-Mart Shopping Center 8801 Baseline Road Little Rock, AR 72209 Ida Pettus' Kid Smart Geyer Springs Road Little Rock, AR 72209 Donation $400.00 $50.00 6\"~ 00 H inkson Road  Pnone 1501) 447-250 o  F ax (501) 447  2~i\no ,  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 CLOVERDALE MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL : Mr. Darral ParadiS-Dir. Of Procurment OM: Ms. Angela Mh~Principal Cloverdale Magnet Middle School DATE: May 28, 2004 RE: Donation from teacher to school Ms. Alice Wickliffe, a 6th grade teacher here, would like to donate a computer system for school use. It consists of the following equipment: 1. Hewlett Packard Monitor SIN THTBE 19703 MIN PI267 A 2. Hewlett Packard CPU SIN MX03 703160 System Num. P1372A 3. Hewlett Packard Printer SIN Mx:0801270 MIN 61 0CL 4. Canon Scanner SIN CZJ107273 MINN650OU 5. Computer desk 6. All necessary cords for connection This has a value of $1,000.000. Please submit this to the Board for approval. Thank you. Ms. Alice Wickliffe 5530 Arthur Drive North Little Rock, AR 72118 6300 Hinkson Road  Phone (501) 447-2500  Fax (501) 447-2501  RECEfs:,1 MAY 2 8 L'.U04 PROCURE fvh:fuT Little Rock. Arkansas 72 209 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis Procurement Dept. I d3 From: Samuel Branch, Principal Fair Park Elementary Date: May 19, 2004 Re: Donation Ms. Sherry Sherwood is donating teaching materials, art supplies, and children's books, valued at $700.00 to Fair Park to be used by young teachers starting their careers. I am recommending the District accept this donation. RECEIVED MAY 2 1 2004 PROCURE rli EfJ T Little Rock Arkansas 72205 ~ C..\".) 0 en z C\"l\n,c m fi\n,c :,\u0026lt;\nen ?\u0026lt; )\u0026gt; ~ 0 c:: sl :I:: m .z.. .. FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL To: From: Date: RE: Mr. Darral Paradis Director of Procurement Elouise J. Hudson 7f' jr' Principal May 27, 2004 Donation Convenience Stores Plus, INC. DBA Big Ben Truck Stop, 3102 W. 34th St., Suite 3, Pine Bluff, AR 71601 , wishes to donate $500.00 to Forest Heights Athletic Department to sponsor 5 students to the University of Arkansas Football Camp. It is recommended this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. ...   ., t\"\":i ,. '  r- ,_ i ! ~  ~ .. -\n. .... 5901 Evergreen Street  Phone (501) 447-2700  Fax (501) 447-2701  Little Rock, Arkansas 72 205 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management From: ~a Hall, Principal @ Geyer Springs Elem. School Date: May 111\\ 2004 Re: Donation BFI, our school's Partner,.. In- Education, working with the Geyer Springs Neighborhood Association, and our school, has graciously and generously set up a \"Children of Promise Foundation Scholarship Fund\", which will guarantee 10 of our students currently in the 5th grade a scholarship. Each student will receive $1000, to be placed in a trust in his or her name, at Metropolitan Bank. BFI will donate a grand total of$10,000, each year for another group of (ten) 5th grade students thereafter, for the purpose of a savings for their education. It is recommended that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. BFI Waste Services of Little Rock Dale Stevener General Manager 1911 West 65th Little Rock, AR 72209 5240 Mabelvale Pike I \" ! /' 1 ,- ~ ._ ,t I J. -.I ... ._, Phone (501) 447-4800 Little Rock. Arkansas 72209 !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z n ~ u, ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt; C g ~ :I: m .z... . HENDERSON HEALTH SCIENCES MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Marvin Burton, Principal - Henderson Magnet Middle School Date: 5/27/2004 Re: Donation Please accept the following donations to Henderson Middle School. Henderson Magnet Middle received the following donations toward the purchase and lighting of the Henderson Magnet Middle School Marque. Henderson Magnet Middle School PTSA Pennbrook / Cloverhill Property Owners Associaiton City of Little Rock thru Westbrook eighborhood Association Combined School Wide and PTA Fundraiser Match for Foundation Grant for Student Incentives Combined School Wide and PT A Fundraiser Second Baptist - John Barrow (purchased mulch) $2,550.00 100.00 250.00 3,256.00 $6,156.00 1,000.00 230.00 United Way's Day of Caring (landscape plants \u0026amp; materials) Approx. 150.00 Overall Total $7,536.00 RECEIVED 401 Barrow Road  Phone (501) Ll.47-2800  Fax (501) 447-2801  Little Rock. Arkansas iJ MABELVALE M~~m Mmrn m~m To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Ann Blaylocl.\u0026gt;Principal Date: May 20, 2004 Re: Donation Please accept the following donations, which were made during the dedication of the \"Carl Martin Library\" at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Wayne Smith Photography, 8300 Stagecoach Road, L.R., AR 72210 $450.00 Portrait Package-Includes sitting, proofs, \u0026amp; portrait Mabelvale Magnet Middle School Builders Club, 10811 Mabelvale West Road, Mabelvale, AR 72103 Purchased 2 name plates-(1 bronze/1 aluminum) Engraved-Carl Martin Library Value - $78.64 Mabelvale United Methodist Church - (UMW)- 10500 Woodman, Mabelvale, AR 72103 Donated refreshments for dedication - Value $150.00 Wal-Mart Supercenter, 8801 Baseline Rd, Little Rock, AR 72209 Provided gift certificate for refreshments - Value $25.00 Richard Thompson, Tom James of Little Rock, 14 Office Park, Ste. 101, L.R. AR 72211 Donation of Desk-Valued at $50.00 Lando Patton Wrecking, Inc., 8222 Stagecoach Rd., L.R., AR 72210 Moving of columns- 2 hrs. (Equipment \u0026amp; workmen) $400.00 Mollie Martin Wiseman, 5708 C Street, Little Rock, AR 72205 Book Donation - $100.00 Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Carl Martin, 10610 Baseline Road, Little Rock, AR 72209 Donation of \"Carnegie columns\" - priceless REC E i VE D MAY 2 1 200, PROC.U~~~?JT ~ ,n- 0 \"z' C, ~ I \"' ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt; ~ C: ~ !IC m .z.. . WILLIAMS RADITIO 'AL MAGNET SCHOOL A CHOICE FOR EXCELLENCE June 1, 2004 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: JNV,, Mary Menking, Principal SUBJECT: Donations The Williams Traditional Magnet School PTA has graciously donated $13,200.00 to our school for the following: Staff Appreciation Classroom Supplies Student Recognition Parental Involvement 2,112.00 6,663.00 3,950.00 475.00 Mr. Randy Wilson, Oxford Screen Printing, Inc., 7900 Asher Avenue, Little Rock, Ar. 72204 donated a Drug Free Banner in the amount of $300.00 to our school's counseling program. It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ECEIVED JUN 4 2004 PRG\"UD,.., ,. - ~ n t L /\nL . .. ~ 7'.:\u0026gt;C' Everg'eer. Stree!  P\"one (50  4..:7.,100  Fax (50 ) 44,--~01  L tie Rock Arkansas 72207 To: From: Through: Subject: Mahlon Martin Professional Library Professional Development Department Instructional Resource Center 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 447-3345 May 20, 2004 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement ~o .Anna Harris, Media Secretary n\\ifn Woods, Coordinator of Professional Development Donation to the Mahlon Martin Professional Library Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA) very graciously donated 5 Olympus and 2 hp photosmart digital cameras, 2 Olympus deluxe digital imaging kits, 2 Olympus picture cards, and 5 digital camera bags valued at $2,200.00 to the Mahlon Martin Professional Library. It is recommended that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. r 1 RECEIVED MAY 2 1 2004 .!=.,' ,z.. z 0 i\n: ~ ?\u0026lt; ~ C: ~ :I: m .z.. . 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 June 24, 2004 Little Rock School District Board of Directors Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY:~Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes  Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending May 31, 2004. To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial condition. NIA NIA Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District NI A  Needed Staff NIA  Comments None  Recommendation Approval of the May 2004 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2003 AND 2004 - APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2002/03 05/31/03 COLLECTED 2003/04 05/31/04 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% 57,547,800 55,681,497 96.76% DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 9,875,297 123.44% 10,100,000 11 ,812,732 116.96% 40% PULLBACK 29,400,000 17,610,502 59.90% 29,600,000 17,3 11 ,912 58.49% EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 209,598 112.08% 210,000 199,031 94.78% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 174,515 45.33% 180,000 135,184 75.10% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 337,232 249.80% 150,000 206,062 137.37% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 313,397 92.18% 380,000 284,958 74.99% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 190,439 69.25% 200,000 190,480 95.24% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 193,394 120.87% 240,000 195,578 81.49% TOTAL 97,432,000 86,052,153 88.32% 98,607,800 86,017,433 87.23% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 20,836 86.82% 21,000 11 ,594 55.21% TOTAL 24,000 20,836 86.82% 21,000 11,594 55.21% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 48,781,766 88.91% 53,226,139 48,387,399 90.91% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 7,265,757 95.73% 8,300,000 7,127,622 85.87% VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 1,272,587 94.97% 1,400,000 1,210,036 86.43% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 1,250,666 73.57% 1,675,000 1,385,206 82.70% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 273,358 100.00% 273,358 273,358 100.00% TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% 3,875,562 2,487,683 64.19% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TOM 3,265,000 3,436,977 105.27% 3,900,000 3,722,338 95.44% ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 620,758 61.70% 920,337 693,365 75.34% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 658,607 100.00% 560,545 534,979 95.44% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% 285,245 285,245 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 283,224 43.57% 360,000 349,855 97.18% TOTAL 75,441,106 66,582,056 88.26% 74,776,187 66,457,086 88.87% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 226,443 20.11% 1,350,000 220,518 16.33% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 1,109,625 66.67% 1,632,430 1,088,287 66.67% TOTAL 3,410,671 1,336,068 39.17% 3,752,430 1,308,804 34.88% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 153,991,115 87.34% 177,157,418 153,794,918 86.81% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 17,121,861 68.07% 24,075,790 17,265,045 71.71% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 3,183,037 79.98% 4,000,000 3,567,745 89.19% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 19,472,465 77.68% 24,689,351 18,649,440 75.54% TOTAL 54,198,923 39,777,363 73.39% 52,765,141 39,482,229 74.83% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 193,768,477 84.06% 229,922,559 193,277,147 84.06% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2003 AND 2004 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2002/03 05/31/03 EXPENDED 2003/04 05/31/04 EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 87,129,343 86.38% 100,684,982 88,478,756 BENEFITS 24,838,361 22,050,704 88.78% 26,483,772 23,191 ,165 PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 17,012,549 85.94% 19,719,297 17,344,990 MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 6,545,663 78.42% 8,185,459 7,677,235 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 1,037,938 64.19% 1,575,580 1,153,149 OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 5,662,958 66.56% 8,384,567 5,633,897 DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 12,213,572 99.97% 12,098,342 12,191 ,763 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176,189,538 151,652,727 86.07% 177,131,999 155,670,954 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 15,093,286 57.72% 26,056,193 17,310,162 DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 3,284,313 82.52% 4,000,000 3,592,622 MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 20,018,609 79.86% 24,689,351 20,563,641 TOTAL 55,194,668 38,396,208 69.57% 54,745,544 41,466,425 TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 190,048,935 82.14% 231,877,543 197,137,379 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 3,719,541 (1 ,954,984) (3,860,233) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,645,440 3,558,580 3,558,580 OPERATING 8,557,652 8,557,652 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 3,026,595 1,578,177 1,574,384 OPERATING 8,675,891 10,896,039 9,052,274 7,150,819 TOTAL 9,325,586 13,922,634 10,630,451 8,725,203 % EXPENDED 87.88% 87.57% 87.96% 93.79% 73.19% 67.19% 100.77% 87.88% 66.43% 89.82% 83.29% 75.74% 85.02% ?\u0026lt; !!l C: C :,,,m .o.....z.... i5C Zjil ~ z \u0026gt; ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2004 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 05-31-04 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 (15,326.00) 17,956.90 MCCLELLAN 77,219.02 77,219.02 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE 15,326.00 15,325.88 0.12 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 110,501.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,325.88 95,176.04 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 87,000.00 97,962.91 9,782.50 12,056.96 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 1,794,877.15 14,870,559.04 3,402,258.40 2,136,605.11 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 27,732.72 14,541.25 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 8,679.00 21,190.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 5,176,217.33 2,635,818.36 493,635.36 4,815,343.42 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31,306,506.59 158,459.00 17,647,102.58 5,519,415.76 8,298,447.25 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 1,007,370.04 224,021 .96 1,103,627.24 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 7,216,553.48 36,295,224.65 9,649,113.98 16,401 ,811.79 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 1,000.00 445,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 (3,754,994.48) 18,319,604.75 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 1,175,653.56 (3,461 ,559.00) 5,002,871 .45 SUBTOTAL 31,107,082.11 1,176,653.56 (7,216,553.48) 0.00 0.00 25,067, 182.19 GRAND TOTAL  ~!z 1ac az l lZ :i\n! :i 2.l!.12\ni ~a:i ~2! :i a ~!\nll! a !l :i~ lZC,0. PROJECT ALLOCATIONS PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 05-31-04 I ADMINISTRATION 673,846.55 NEW WORK PROJECTS 37,113,937.95 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,883,405.13 I MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 16,409,827.84 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51,647,866.04 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 11,735,611.78 UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 19,613,425.72 TOTAL 142,343,735.18 lN3WNMnorov x LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2004 EXPENSE 2000-01 889,772.32 1 443,467.00 113,930.47 2,641,482.13 1 791,385.63 397,615.34 575,016.53 I I 5,852,669.42 I I I EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE ENCUMBERED 2001-02 2002-03 i THRU 05.31.04 I THRU 05-31-04 1 (485,325.77) I 149,597.63 1 97,962.91 I 9,782.50 I 4,589,606.29 11 ,671,442.11 14,870,559.04 3,402,258.40 109,609.73 27,732.72 0.00 1,832,392.06 I 379,661 .38 1 8,679.00 I 0.00 4,218,294.40 I 3,455,350.67 2,635,818.36 493,635.36 1 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 17,647,102.58 5,519,415.76 I 4,325,201 .40 4,500,374.61 1,007,370.04 1 224,021.96 I 18,708,823.32 I I 35,822,666.30 36,295,224.65 1 9,649,113.98 I NOUOV AMVNlldl::\u0026gt;SIO lN30nlS \"Xl S\u0026gt;IMVW3M ~NISOlO 'IIIA ENDING ALLOCATION SUBTOTAL 05-31-04 661,789.59 12,056.96 34,977,332.84 2,136,605.11 251,272.92 14,541 .25 4,862,214.57 1 21,190.56 11,594,484.42 I 4,815,343.42 43,349,418.79 I 8,298,447.25 10,631,984.54 I 1,103,627.24 I I 19,613,425.72 106,328,497.67 36,015,237.51 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2004 I I  l Interest Rate I Fund I Purchase Maturity I Institution Type I Principal Date Date Operating I 05-28-04 TFN I Bank of America 0.830% Repo 8,400,000.00 Operating I 05-28-04 I 06-01-04 Bank of America 0.830% Treasury Bills 7,200,169.88 Operating 05-14-04 06-01-04 Twin City Bank 1.860% CD 4,612,566.63 Total I 20,212,736.51 I I l I Food Service 05-28-04 TFN Bank of America 0.780% Repo 690,000.00 l 690,000.00 I I I Activity Fund 05-25-04 I TFN Bank of America 0.790% Repo 1,000,000.00 Total I 1,000,000.00 ' I Bond Account 03-08-04 09-06-04 Regions I 1.050% I CD 400,000.00 l Capital Projects Fund 01-16-04 07-14-04 Metropolitan I 1.930% I I CD 1,000,934.31 Capital Projects Fund 01-16-04 07-16-04 I Bank of the Ozarks 1.400% CD 5,231,393.21 Capital Projects Fund 01-30-04 I 01-31-05 Bancorp South 1.850% CD I 2,100,244.72 ' I Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 I 08-16-04 I USBANK 1.420% CD 11,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-16-04 06-10-04 Bank of America 0.910% I Treasury Bills I 5,365,126.36 Capital Projects Fund I 05-14-04 06-18-04 I Twin City Bank 1.430% CD 9,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 05-03-04 11-05-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.350% CD 3,076,650.06 Capital Projects Fund I 03-15-04 09-15-04 Bank of the Ozarks I 1.400% CD 10,293,800.80  I I Capital Projects Fund 05-28-04 TFN I Bank of America 0.850% I Repo 4,315,000.00 I I Total I I I I I 51,783,149.46 ' I Deseg Plan Scholarship 12-05-03 06-15-04 I Bank of America I 1.020% I Treasury Bills 668,325.28 Total I I 668,325.28 ' I Rockefeller Scholarship I 01-15-04 06-10-04 I Bank of America 0.910% Treasury Bills 252,059.89 I Total 252,059.89 ' Risk Management Loss Fund I 05-17-04 I TFN I Bank of America 0.250% Repo 400,000.00 I 400,000.00\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"pth_baac_metapth17369","title":"Fanny Mae Tyson Caldwell's Funeral Service Bulletin","collection_id":"pth_baac","collection_title":"Building the African-American Community","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Texas, Travis County, Austin, 30.26715, -97.74306"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004-05-14"],"dcterms_description":["The bulletin from the funeral service for Fanny Mae Tyson Caldwell at St. John Regular Baptist Association Tabernacle. Mrs. Caldwell was a long-time educator in Pflugerville, TX.  Included in the bulletin are one of her favorite poems, \"The House by the Side of the Road\",  the order of the service, her obituary, a Litany of Gratitude in her honor, and a family tribute."],"dc_format":["image/png"],"dcterms_identifier":["local-cont-no: frm-0002","ark: ark:/67531/metapth17369"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Persons--Texas--Austin","Baptist associations--Texas--Austin","African Americans--Texas--Austin","African American women--Texas--Austin","Funeral rites and ceremonies--Texas--Austin","African American women educators--Texas--Austin"],"dcterms_title":["Fanny Mae Tyson Caldwell's Funeral Service Bulletin"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Jacob Fontaine Religious Museum"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth17369/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["bulletins"],"dcterms_extent":["8 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Caldwell, Fanny Mae Tyson"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_124","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2004-05","2004-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/124"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nArkansas CEIVED J' \\l~ 1 - 200~ DEPARTMENT OF EDUC'ifE .F TORING 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.kl2.ar.us May 28, 2004 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Dr. Kenneth James, Director Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 BNfHOl/NOV/ NOl1V93H93S3U :l033H:l0 OOl - I tmr 03Al303H RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of May 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell'Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Luke Gordy, Van Buren  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUM 1 - 2004 Off\\CE OF DESEGREG~TION ,10NITORIMG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for May 2004. Respectfully Submitted, .gJt_gdb Scott Smith, #92251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on May 28, 2004, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS DESEGREGATION r,10NITOR!NG V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Based on the information available at April 30, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1 . Projected Endin_g Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Based on the information available at April 30, 2004, the ADE calculated for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 On April 30, 2004, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 03/04 were as follows: LRSD - $43,548,659 NLRSD - $22,970,520 PCSSD - $41,700,933 The allotments of State Equalization FundinQ calculated for FY 03/04 at April 30, 2004, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $53,226, 139 NLRSD - $28,075,080 PCSSD - $50,967,808 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 2004 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. . 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal SeNices Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 2004 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic _adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 2004 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Distributions for FY 03/04 at April 30, 2004, totaled $10,189,336. Allotment calculated for FY 03/04 was $12,459,153 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Calculated for FY 02/03, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Distributions for FY 03/04 at April 30, 2004, 2003 were: LRSD - $3,252,281 NLRSD - $2,817,736 PCSSD - $8,974,855 The allotments calculated for FY 03/04 at April 30, 2004, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4, 192,396 NLRSD - $3,832,804 PCSSD - $11,854,856 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 In January 2003, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 02/03 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three-equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Encfmg Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 In September 2003, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 02/03 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2003, the following had been paid for FY 02/03: LRSD - $3,835,562.00 NLRSD - $742,399.62 PCSSD - $2,252,050.92 In September 2003, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2003, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $1,243,841.33 NLRSD - $263,000.00 PCSSD - $727,406.63 In February 2004, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2004, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $2,487,682.66 NLRSD - $526,000.00 PCSSD - $1,454,813.26 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. N. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD- 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, 1he ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1 , 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magn-et and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. Specifications for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M school buses have been forwarded to State Purchasing for bidding. Bids will be opened on May 12, 2003. The buses will have a required delivery date after July 1, 2003 and before August 8, 2003. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1 . Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. S. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1 . Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1 , 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01 /02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. 10 V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring.(Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1 . Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 an_d concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was-provided on the school improvement process. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LASO on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to. improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 1 O, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 1 O was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1 . Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support _their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State oard of Education once the process is completed. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature tor repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued} 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The com.mittee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet tor the first time on June 11, 2001 ar9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school distr.ic15 in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, anJ regulations of the Districts. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued} 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued} On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the. school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress mad~ in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposin~ the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas StateBoard of Education reviewed and aporoved the PMT and its executive summary.tor the month of March. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board qt Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the:. month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. 37 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCNCOE peer team visits. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education prograrr,.s. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of blaek children. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the AD E's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a sc.\nhool that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Eock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On Jurie 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LASO. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LASO personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LASO. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On January 1 O, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted tor the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership T earns.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessrr,ant Portfolio System Training was provided tor testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Bl.lilding. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct obseNation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Ro.ck. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was condu.:ted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued} On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1, 100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 1 O and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held ~t the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001.  The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators coukJbecome involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE reoelved from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31 , 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. oo May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known sp~aker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACT AAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented \"Smart Steps to Creating a School Culture That Supports Adolescent Comprehension\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On August 8, 2002, Steven Weber held a workshop at Booker T. Washington Elementary on \"Best Practices in Social Studies\". It was presented to the 4th grade teachers in the Little Rock School District. The workshop focused around the five themes of geography and the social studies (fourth grade) framework/standards. Several Internet web sites were shared with the teachers, and the teachers were shown methods for incorporating writing into fourth grade social studies. One of the topics was using primary source photos and technology to stimulate the students to write about diverse regions. A theme of the workshop included identifying web sites which apply to fourth grade social studies teachers and interactive web sites for fourth grade students. This was a Back-to-School ln-seNice workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. On August 13 Steven Weber conducted a workshop at Parkview High School in the LRSD. Topics of the workshop included: 1. Incorporating Writing in the Social Studies Classroom 2. Document Based (open-ended) Questioning Techniques 3. How to practice writing on a weekly basis without assigning a lengthy research report 4. Developing Higher Level Thinking Skills in order to produce active citizens, rather than passive, uninformed citizens 5. Using the Social Studies Framework 6. Identifying state and national Web Sites which contain Primary Sources for use in the classroom The 8:30 - 11 :30 session was for the 6 - 8 grade social studies teachers. The 12:30 - 3:00 session was for the 9 - 12 grade social studies teachers. Several handouts were used, also PowerPoint, primary source photos and documents, and lnternet --.-eb sites (i.e., Library of Congress, Butler Center for Arkansas Studies, Natisnal Archives, etc.). This was a Back-to-School ln-seNice workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. Marie McNeal is the Social Studies Specialist for the Little Rock School District. She invited SteVn Weber to present at the workshop, and was in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On September 30 through October 11, 2002, the ADE provided Professional Development for Test Administrators on the End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport. All three districts in Pulaski County sent representatives to the training. On October 3, 2002, Charlotte Marvel provided in-service training for LEP teachers in the Little Rock School District. On December 6, 2002, the Community and Parent Empowerment Summit was held for parents of children attending the LRSD. It took place at the Saint Mark Baptist Church in Little Rock. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented information on No Child Left Behind, Supplemental Services, after school tutoring, how parents can help, and the Refrigerator Curriculum. Mr. Reginald Wilson, Senior Coordinator for Accountability, presented information on ACTAAP, including how to find information on the AS-IS Website and what is included in the school report cards. Donna Elam spoke on the topic \"From the School House to the Jail House\". On December 1 O - 12, 2002, the Math Workshop \"Investigations in Number, Data and Space\" was held at the Clinton Elementary Magnet School in Sherwood. Training for Kindergarten and First Grade Teachers was held on December 10, and included Making Shapes and Building Blocks, Quilts, Squares and Block Towns. Training for Second and Third Grade Teachers was held on December 11, and included Shapes, Halves, Symmetry and Turtle Paths. Training for Fourth and Fifth Grade Teachers was held on December 12. Fourth grade covered Seeing Solids and Silhouettes. Fifth Grade was about Containers and Cubes. The sessions provided quality time for teachers to discuss the curriculum, reflect on implications, provide mutual support, and co\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":99,"next_page":100,"prev_page":98,"total_pages":3369,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1176,"total_count":40428,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":307},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":37},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":34},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":23},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"worksheets","hits":5},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":4},{"value":"study guides","hits":4},{"value":"learning modules","hits":3},{"value":"slide shows","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"Sound","hits":1050},{"value":"StillImage","hits":803},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":213},{"value":"Collection","hits":10},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2076},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":1425},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":777},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":464},{"value":"South Carolina Council on Human Relations","hits":397},{"value":"AFL-CIO. Civil Rights Department","hits":326},{"value":"Hunter, Charles N., approximately 1851-1931","hits":323},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":289},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":244}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Race relations","hits":4661},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":3223},{"value":"People--Ethnic Groups--Hispanics","hits":2928},{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":2321},{"value":"African Americans","hits":1792},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":1747},{"value":"Civil rights--South Carolina","hits":1739},{"value":"Civil rights movements--Mississippi","hits":1550},{"value":"League of United Latin American Citizens","hits":1531},{"value":"LULAC","hits":1517},{"value":"Race","hits":1483}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1501},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1413},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":713},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":639},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":623},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":608},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":582},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":582},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":418}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2592},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1497},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":622},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":608},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":579},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":360},{"value":"De Laine, Joseph A. (Joseph Armstrong), 1898-1974","hits":345},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":315},{"value":"Samet, Seymour, 1919-2014","hits":279}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1567},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":663},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":386},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":299},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":188},{"value":"Birmingham Bombing (Sixteenth Street Baptist Church)","hits":125},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":104},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":83},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":68},{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":55},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1964","hits":43}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":10939},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4304},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":3804},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":3648},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2519},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2032},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1863},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":1801},{"value":"United States, Texas, Harris County, Houston, 29.76328, -95.36327","hits":1564},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":1236},{"value":"United States, New York, New York County, New York, 40.7142691, -74.0059729","hits":1198}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"South Carolina","hits":6466},{"value":"Georgia","hits":5551},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":3826},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":3452},{"value":"Texas","hits":3432},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":2359},{"value":"Alabama","hits":2352},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1657},{"value":"New York","hits":1561},{"value":"Florida","hits":1185},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":1167}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1962","hits":5885},{"value":"1964","hits":5684},{"value":"1963","hits":5401},{"value":"1965","hits":5249},{"value":"1966","hits":5016},{"value":"1961","hits":4941},{"value":"1968","hits":4914},{"value":"1967","hits":4901},{"value":"1969","hits":4708},{"value":"1960","hits":4681},{"value":"1957","hits":4182},{"value":"1958","hits":4010},{"value":"1977","hits":3976},{"value":"1959","hits":3971},{"value":"1971","hits":3904},{"value":"1970","hits":3870},{"value":"1976","hits":3790},{"value":"1955","hits":3718},{"value":"1974","hits":3664},{"value":"1972","hits":3650},{"value":"1975","hits":3649},{"value":"1956","hits":3611},{"value":"1973","hits":3461},{"value":"1994","hits":3357},{"value":"1995","hits":3332},{"value":"1950","hits":3315},{"value":"1978","hits":3266},{"value":"1954","hits":3261},{"value":"1979","hits":3249},{"value":"1996","hits":3225},{"value":"1980","hits":3158},{"value":"1948","hits":3126},{"value":"1953","hits":3050},{"value":"1997","hits":3036},{"value":"1949","hits":3022},{"value":"1998","hits":2990},{"value":"1999","hits":2983},{"value":"1952","hits":2967},{"value":"1947","hits":2958},{"value":"1951","hits":2907},{"value":"1981","hits":2856},{"value":"2000","hits":2833},{"value":"2001","hits":2792},{"value":"2002","hits":2693},{"value":"1982","hits":2691},{"value":"1946","hits":2690},{"value":"2003","hits":2675},{"value":"1983","hits":2652},{"value":"1945","hits":2610},{"value":"1985","hits":2584},{"value":"1943","hits":2578},{"value":"1944","hits":2577},{"value":"1984","hits":2573},{"value":"1942","hits":2499},{"value":"1941","hits":2473},{"value":"1940","hits":2447},{"value":"1986","hits":2438},{"value":"1939","hits":2375},{"value":"1930","hits":2352},{"value":"1938","hits":2341},{"value":"1937","hits":2323},{"value":"1936","hits":2303},{"value":"2004","hits":2296},{"value":"2005","hits":2270},{"value":"1931","hits":2252},{"value":"1990","hits":2186},{"value":"1987","hits":2183},{"value":"1991","hits":2181},{"value":"1935","hits":2174},{"value":"2006","hits":2165},{"value":"1934","hits":2161},{"value":"1933","hits":2160},{"value":"1932","hits":2150},{"value":"1992","hits":2139},{"value":"1993","hits":2123},{"value":"1989","hits":1879},{"value":"1929","hits":1874},{"value":"1988","hits":1753},{"value":"1928","hits":1509},{"value":"1921","hits":1393},{"value":"1925","hits":1275},{"value":"1927","hits":1272},{"value":"1926","hits":1266},{"value":"1924","hits":1263},{"value":"1923","hits":1208},{"value":"1922","hits":1188},{"value":"1920","hits":1187},{"value":"2007","hits":1029},{"value":"2011","hits":1029},{"value":"2008","hits":1017},{"value":"2010","hits":992},{"value":"2009","hits":980},{"value":"2012","hits":967},{"value":"2013","hits":965},{"value":"2014","hits":924},{"value":"2016","hits":876},{"value":"1919","hits":850},{"value":"1918","hits":849},{"value":"1900","hits":831},{"value":"2015","hits":826}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":301323,"missing":11},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"correspondence","hits":9610},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4200},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3564},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1925},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1690},{"value":"records (documents)","hits":1429},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":1385},{"value":"reports","hits":1362},{"value":"clippings (information artifacts)","hits":1156},{"value":"articles","hits":903},{"value":"transcripts","hits":816}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":13560},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":9168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8110},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6150},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1673},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":1494},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":40},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-NC/1.0/","hits":20},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":12},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-OW-EU/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3271},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":1843},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1717},{"value":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","hits":1696},{"value":"Memphis World","hits":1484},{"value":"James W. Silver Collection","hits":1430},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":1423},{"value":"Integration Correspondence","hits":1420},{"value":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","hits":1403}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":3821},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":3419},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3316},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3287},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3250},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2174},{"value":"South Carolina Digital Library","hits":2167},{"value":"University of South Carolina. South Carolina Political Collections","hits":1793},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":1663},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":1641},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":1435}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":40191},{"value":"Collection","hits":237}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":40278},{"value":"true","hits":150}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}