{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"tws_oid16_31290","title":"Floyd Newman, 2012","collection_id":"tws_oid16","collection_title":"Crossroads interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2012-06-28"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4","application/pdf","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Memphis, Tenn. : Rhodes College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["https://vimeo.com/281653791"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Music","Memphis (Tenn.)","Stax Records"],"dcterms_title":["Floyd Newman, 2012"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/31290"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"kai_chm-oh_247","title":"Chicago Cold War: Jim Darby","collection_id":"kai_chm-oh","collection_title":"Oral History Collection (Chicago History Museum)","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["France, 46.0, 2.0","Morocco, 31.791702, -7.09262","United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637","United States, Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, 41.85003, -87.65005"],"dcterms_creator":["Darby, James","Hudzik, Maribeth"],"dc_date":["2012-06-26"],"dcterms_description":["James Darby served in the United States Navy during the early 1950s. He was a coder and typist, stationed in the Mediterranean, and he was trained in the Russian language. He was also a gay man in the military and left after this service. He was concerned that he would be discovered and discharged. Darby later worked with the Chicago Mayor's Council on Veterans Affairs."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","image/jpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Chicago, Ill. : Studs Terkel Center for Oral History, Chicago History Museum","Chicago, Ill. : Chicago History Museum"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Oral History Collection (Chicago History Museum)","Chicago Cold War Oral History Project"],"dcterms_subject":["United States. Navy","Oral history","Interviews","Cold War","Vietnam War, 1961-1975","Military intelligence","Sexual minorities","Veterans"],"dcterms_title":["Chicago Cold War: Jim Darby"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text","StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Chicago History Museum"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://collections.carli.illinois.edu/cdm/ref/collection/chm_oh/id/247"],"dcterms_temporal":["1952/1965"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["© 2017 Chicago Historical Society, all rights reserved","For permission to reproduce, distribute, or otherwise use this image, please visit https://images.chicagohistory.org or contact rightsrepro@chicagohistory.org."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Audio file: 1:09:49 minutes"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tws_oid16_33732","title":"Noah Bond, 2012","collection_id":"tws_oid16","collection_title":"Crossroads interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2012-06-26"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4","application/pdf","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Memphis, Tenn. : Rhodes College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["https://vimeo.com/282877349"],"dcterms_subject":["Oral history","Interviews","Memphis (Tenn.)","Segregation","Education"],"dcterms_title":["Noah Bond, 2012"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33732"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"kai_chm-oh_321","title":"Chicago Cold War: Inese Stokes","collection_id":"kai_chm-oh","collection_title":"Oral History Collection (Chicago History Museum)","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Germany, 51.5, 10.5","Latvia, 57.0, 25.0","Soviet Union, 51.220643, 51.363519","United States, Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, 41.85003, -87.65005","United States, New York, New York County, New York, 40.7142691, -74.0059729"],"dcterms_creator":["Stokes, Inese","Ohlson, Walter H."],"dc_date":["2012-06-20"],"dcterms_description":["Daughter of activist and staunch anti-communists, Arnold and Verena Strautnieks of Jelgava, Latvia, Inese Stokes lived in a Displaced Persons camp in Germany for five years, before her family immigrated to a farm in New York state when she was seven. Hearing of good jobs in the city of Chicago, Mr. Strautnieks moved his family to a boarding house on Chicago's Near North Side. Inese then grew up in Chicagos Austin neighborhood. She was active in working for a free Latvia."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","image/jpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Chicago, Ill. : Studs Terkel Center for Oral History, Chicago History Museum","Chicago, Ill. : Chicago History Museum"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Oral History Collection (Chicago History Museum)","Chicago Cold War Oral History Project"],"dcterms_subject":["Republican State Nationalities Council of Illinois","Oral history","Interviews","Cold War","Anti-communist movements","Protest movements"],"dcterms_title":["Chicago Cold War: Inese Stokes"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text","StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Chicago History Museum"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://collections.carli.illinois.edu/cdm/ref/collection/chm_oh/id/321"],"dcterms_temporal":["1949/1991"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["© 2017 Chicago Historical Society, all rights reserved","For permission to reproduce, distribute, or otherwise use this image, please visit https://images.chicagohistory.org or contact rightsrepro@chicagohistory.org."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Audio file: 1:10:58 minutes"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"kai_chm-oh_300","title":"Chicago Cold War: Michael McConnell","collection_id":"kai_chm-oh","collection_title":"Oral History Collection (Chicago History Museum)","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Guatemala, 15.5, -90.25","Nicaragua, 12.3724928, -84.8700308","United States, Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, 41.85003, -87.65005"],"dcterms_creator":["McConnell, Michael","Alter, Peter"],"dc_date":["2012-06-14"],"dcterms_description":["Born in Decatur, Indiana, Michael McConnell came to Chicago in 1968 to attend McCormick Theological Seminary. McConnell became active in anti-Vietnam War protests while in college in Ohio, and continued his activism in Chicago. He became involved with Chicago's immigrant and refugee communities through his work with Universidad Popular, a group that taught English to Spanish-speakers. This led to his involvement with the Chicago Religious Task Force on El Salvador, and subsequently, to extensive involvement with the Sanctuary Movement."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","image/jpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Chicago, Ill. : Studs Terkel Center for Oral History, Chicago History Museum","Chicago, Ill. : Chicago History Museum"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Oral History Collection (Chicago History Museum)","Chicago Cold War Oral History Project"],"dcterms_subject":["Oral history","Interviews","Cold War","Vietnam War, 1961-1975","Sanctuary movement"],"dcterms_title":["Chicago Cold War: Michael McConnell"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text","StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Chicago History Museum"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://collections.carli.illinois.edu/cdm/ref/collection/chm_oh/id/300"],"dcterms_temporal":["1975/1984"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["© 2017 Chicago Historical Society, all rights reserved","For permission to reproduce, distribute, or otherwise use this image, please visit https://images.chicagohistory.org or contact rightsrepro@chicagohistory.org."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Audio file: 1:30:42 minutes"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_68","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":["2012-06"],"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. 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/68"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"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-I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PLAINTIFFS 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 June 30, 2012 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. 1 -I I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 ,Bi~ed.: QQ _fhej ntpr,~~-i.?ry .a ~~l/a~_IEr~: ~t Mi:!y~3J\n-gp12, th.f '6Q)f tiL~glafed-fo(FY 1:1 O 2_, _su!)Ject to penod1c-a_dJU!l'Jl~nts. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. D. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 0~s-n}aM1 1aoyw, s3:1 , . 2012, -d-istrib-\"-u tio ns\" o f sf-a- te-  r o~u-n-ciation E-un-o,ng f o_,h .. F-Y =J f-i-i.2 w e re Cgso --$ss\nsi15,44s NLRSD l:-$3{.797,()38 PGSSD :'$3'8\n'992\n228 ~ri:~,i~IJotrnE:gtf6.f,~tat~ F.,91\ni~~-~!~of,f'!5:~b.Sfi~'.~~+~~~t~~,:f9r,.ft\n)Jf1Z,at ,9y_3t' ~o~ 2\nsubJ~ct tg :Renod1~:stdJt1strn~nts.,: \\Y,~n=U?? J9.!l9w~: 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 June 30, 2012 ,:[{~~:9~)~:~~i~f9l~,~li_i?.}\n'~'l:~J~~w~ah~~'.~Plf9~fctilaf~J1~i~f::May}M r 2012? fo~ ffY,1:111.2, subJeGt1tP\nP~F19.9Jf:\u0026gt;.9dJ!-.!~Ji]Em,ts: 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 June 30, 2012 Base(~ri !hE: inforryiption\n~v~ila~I~:: fht1\n'AfS~_j\naJgul~~d {af _M~~y'9f ,2QJ2~-for FY111.:f 2, sybject Jo peri9qffadjy_Jrne!:)!s, 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 June 30, 2012 On October 26, 2010, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,336. BJ1~~-~~pn,: . ~~:,.~~f9rrj,~ti,q~~~'Q!i1~~9!~.\nth,f\nAD!\n:\u0026amp;~Iffi_yl~t\\td.\\~-.~~J~-~j_42Q_12\n\u0026amp;f6.r: FY11 /J2\n' subject, to:J?,enoq_i_q ~dN.fill1Jerit,~, 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 June 30, 2012 Qi~tf~~.~ti?P~}qrJ:Y.,,:1) l,1~ -~fM~Y':~)\n\\?Q1t1\n,lqt~W~ . -~,1~1t~1\n~ffe4,\\\\'.~lf9Nn~ht alcyJated fqf:FXJ\n1/17)tJ~s $14\n-s7a\n72_o-:~y_bj~c.(fifpefi9~ic: agjQ$trn~off 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 June 30, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2011, for FY10/11, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actal as of Jun~3o, io12 Q!Stf_[~utiofis-f9.fr\ny\n:I1if2 aLrvi.Y j_:1, -~gJ~\n-~!~ [~e.t_c1JJ9![ferts.\n(aJc\nula}e~ ,fcfr_FY ~11f1'2, at..rviay,~1\n\\?Q1g'/suTuje~[ t9:~p~'i-12dl9 a~dju~trr'lDi~\n:wre: J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of June 30, 2012 In September 2010, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 10/11 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 June 30, 2012 In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. In January 2011, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays Districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 In September 2010, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 09/1 O: LRSD - $4,054,730.00 NLRSD - $1,471 ,255.67 PCSSD - $2,544,356.20 In September 2010, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $1,354,368.33 NLRSD - $510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 In February 2011 , General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $2,708,736.66 NLRSD - $1,020,436.26 PCSSD - $1 ,810,218.30 In December 2011, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31 , 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $3,977,759.00 NLRSD - $1 ,456,077.37 PCSSD - $2,320,249.40 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. M. ADE pays Districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) In December 2011 , General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11/12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31, 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $1 ,297,333.34 NLRSD - $515,623.32 PCSSD - $889,000.35 In February 2012, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11 /12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. North Little Rock was overpaid $271 ,487.69 over the last two payments. The current payment reflects what is due less the amount of the overpayment. At February 29, 2012, the following had been paid for FY 11/12: LRSD - $2,594,666.67 NLRSD - $689,693.05 PCSSD -$1 ,778,000.70 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 June 30, 2012 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. 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 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. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 June 30, 2012 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. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/66 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/10 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2010, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 10/11 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 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. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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. 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: i..::RSD - 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. 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 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. 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. 8 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. 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 Magnet 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. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. 9 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 In July 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,036,115. In March 2008, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses with wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In March 2009, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,049,584.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010, for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71,210 per unit and two 4 7 passenger units at $69,510 per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. In September 2010, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Diamond States Bus Sales $1 ,135,960. 10 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Bids were released in July 2011 , for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The bid was awarded to Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,078,790. There were ten 65 passenger buses at $67,398 per unit, four 47 passenger buses at $65,835 per unit and two 47 passenger with lift buses at $70,735 per unit. As of September 30, 2011 all buses have been delivered. Little Rock received 7-65 passenger buses and 1-47 passenger with lift bus. Pulaski County Special received 1-65 passenger bus, 4-4 7 passenger buses and 1-4 7 passenger with lift bus. North Little Rock received 2-65 passenger buses. On March 14, 2012, The Division of Public School Academic Facilities \u0026amp; Transportation submitted paperwork requesting that DFA solicit bids on sixteen (16) buses for the three Districts. The breakdown of the buses is listed below. Little Rock NLR PCSSD Eight (8) 65 Passenger buses Two (2) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 47 Passenger buses On April 3, 2012, The Office of State Procurement sent out the request for bids for the sixteen (16) Magnet and M to M buses being purchased. The bid opening will take place on April 19, 2012. The breakdown of the buses was submitted previously. On May 9, 2012, The Office of State Procurement was awarded the bid for the sixteen (16) Magnet and M to M buses from Diamond States Bus Sales in Conway, AR. Three (3) 47 passenger buses@ $67,054.00 each Thirteen (13) 65 passenger buses @ $68,575.00 each Total bid awarded is for $1,092,637.00 Buses should be delivered sometime in August. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 June 30, 2012 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 June 30, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 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 June 30, 2012 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. 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 June 30, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 2. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each School Year through June 30, 1996. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 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 June 30, 2012 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. 13 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 June 30, 2012 Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 11 /12. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 . 14 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was- $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11 . Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 11/12. 15 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 June 30, 2012 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 percent 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. Then it was filed with the Court.- Tfie 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 vis its 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 fi led 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. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. 16 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 June 30, 2012 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 conciuded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additionai 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. A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts were held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and School Improvement visits. 17 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 18 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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 from 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 and 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. 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. 19 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) Staff Development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5 and 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 from 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. On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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. 20 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 from 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. On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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. 21 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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 from 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 from 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. 22 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 from the previous quarter. Mr. Will ie 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. 23 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was Chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE Attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three Districts in- Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two School Districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasibility study of having only a North School District and a South School District in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. ADE Staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 24 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase Activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., declared the LRSD unitary and released the District from Federal Court supervIsIon. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County Districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper Federal Court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County Districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County Districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the School Districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the Federal District Court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the .Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 12, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The Court ruled that the District could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain Elementary School assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County School Districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 11 , 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the LRSD being declared unitary and the Joshua lntervenors filing a notice of appeal to the 8th Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua lntervenors have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a mediated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua lntervenors. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the Districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The Joshua lntervenors filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lntervenors. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lntervenors requested that School Desegregation Monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the District, or on the District's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua lntervenors. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lntervenors objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County Districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the Federal District Court no later than June 14, 2008. Act 2 was passed in the Special Legislative Session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31 . Also discussed in the Implementation Phase Meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the District. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an Independent District. He said that taking Jacksonville out of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the Court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in Federal District Court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (QOM), a Federal Desegregation Monitoring Office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article said that QOM has proposed a 2008-2009 Budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the School Districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then. Each of the Districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that Legislators, Attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and Representatives of the three School Districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 27 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, the three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 update on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated that in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"district-wide, discipline rates continue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to either seek or be awarded unitary status by the District Court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 28 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful iri monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson, Arkansas Assistant Attorney General received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration\". Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the Office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation .funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics of discussion in the meeting included the School Choice Law and the Charter School Law. The LRSD has said that Charter Schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. , withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County School Desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 29 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney, General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to schedule Court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states that Arkansas Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments. Another- article talked about the first Court hearing with U.S. District Judge, Brian Miller on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an Attorney for the Pulaski County Special School District, Stephen Jones, an Attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an Attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three Districts to continue even if the Districts are all unitary. John Walker, an Attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 30 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enrollments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since State Funding is based on average enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1.6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public Charter Schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge, Brian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had requested delays in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a Federal Court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the District. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure, provided updated information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of Elementary Schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for Districts to be sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said Charter School Applications will appear in the next State Board Meeting Agenda. 31 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, said U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson is preparing a case in response to the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. On January 13, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark White from ADE Legal Services said that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock- School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that the Little Rock School District had requested information about individual students that cannot be released because of Federal Student Privacy Regulations. Little Rock School District Superintendent Linda Watson resigned. The Little Rock School Board chose Morris Holmes as the Interim Superintendent. Facility plans by the Pulaski County Special School District to close several schools caused concerns by parents in the district. The plan included closing Robinson High School and sending students to Maumelle High School. Closing College Station Elementary was also part of the plan. 32 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 7, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. There was discussion about the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. The ADE has asked U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to reject the Little Rock School District subpoena of information about students attending Charter Schools. An attorney for the ADE stated that the requested information could not be released because of Federal Student Privacy Regulations. Judge Miller said that he would delay a decision about the subpoena until after his decision about whether or not the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts should be given unitary status. A report released by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel stated that some of the desegregation funding provided to the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts was placed in their general funds instead of being used for desegregation purposes. The financial records for the Little Rock School District are being analyzed. The 88th Arkansas General -Assembly passed an act to provide oversight of and accountability for state desegregation funding received and expended by the Pulaski Gounty School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2011, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 7, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about Plan 2000. This is an amended desegregation plan for PCSSD approved in March of 2000. Judge Brian Miller ruled on May 19, 2011 , that PCSSD did not successfully meet their plan in the areas of student assignment\nadvanced placement, gifted and talented and honors programs\ndiscipline\nschool facilities\nscholarships\nspecial education\nstaff\nstudent achievement\nand monitoring. Judge Miller ruled that the NLRSD was in substantial compliance with their desegregation plan except for District Staffing. The Attorney General's Office has recommended that the ADE provide more assistance to the PCSSD with the areas of Plan 2000 that have not been fully implemented. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2011, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 33 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 13, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. The instrument has been through the ADE Legal Department for approval and is currently at the Attorney Generals' Office under review. Once approved, Mr. Morris will take a team of monitors to PCSSD and will utilize the new monitoring instrument in order to help them better address the 9 areas of compliance that were designated non-unitary. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, updated the group on his trip to St. Louis where the 8th Circuit Court heard the appeals for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD. No decision was made on the appeals. Mr. Lasiter said Judge Miller really liked the PMT and stressed that it will be very important for us to continue documenting everything this way. Mr. Morris informed the group that Judge Miller has stepped down and Judge Marshall is now presiding over this case. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 34 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On January 5, 2012, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. Mr. Morris met with PCSSD and will monitor the District starting the second semester. There were nine (9) areas from the Court for PCSSD that did not meet compliance requirements. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated that Judge Miller said the desegregation funding should stop. The 8th Circuit Court said that NLR is fully unitary but funds should continue until after the hearings. The State has spent over a billion dollars for desegregation funding in Pulaski County. The ADE must document how the desegregation agreement has been implemented. LRSD filed motion in Court over Charter Schools and achievement gap. The hearing will be held in March. Charter Schools can be part of the hearing where the case reiates to Charter Schools. They can't contest the funding for desegregation. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. PCSSD said ASCIP does not address all the items that are in their Plan 2000. PCSSD wants ACSIP changed. ADE is supposed to help PCSSD get in compliance with the nine (9) compliance items. PCSSD wants to help with Professional Development because of their budget constraints. The Legislature changed laws so that there was no longer a limit to the number of Charter Schools. Charter Schools were put in Pulaski County. The LRSD argued that Charter Schools don't provide transportation so the racial makeup of the Charter Schools is racially identifiable and cause more segregation. People have complained about PCSSD putting new and very expensive buildings in areas where black students are not likely to attend. Standards Assurance Monitoring and Federal and State Monitoring will be done for PCSSD like the other Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 35 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 5, 2012, 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 Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, stated that on March 19, 2012, they were still waiting for Judge Marshall to release the State from the 1993 Settlement Agreement. The settlement schedules had not been discussed in the last two years. Mr. Richardson also stated that on March 29, 2012, the two main things that were submitted to the Courts were Charter Schools Open Enrollment and Achievement Gap. Mr. Morris stated the big issue is trying to address the nine (9) non-unitary areas in the last Court Order while in fiscal distress. The funding for the facilities in the Western part of the County is better than the funding for pre-existing facilities. On March 1, 2012, Dr. Stein received the PCSSD facilities plan. Due to bad weather conditions during Spring Break, Mr. Morris was unable to visit any facilities. Next week, if the weather permits, he will visit facilities that are not testing. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. Transportation and facility funding are to continue being provided until being released from the Court. There has been no feedback on LRSD from Mr. Heller. The Charter School Laws are the only thing having a negative impact on their litigation. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated there has been no response to letters in the past 5-6 years. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 12, 2012 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 36 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 June 30, 2012 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 June 30, 2012 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 37 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 June 30, 2012 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 June 30, 2012 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 June 30, 2012 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 June 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 38 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 June 30, 2012 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 impedes desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and Worker's Compensation was 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 81st 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. 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. 39 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 40 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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 and 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 scho-oi 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. 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. 41 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. 42 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 June 30, 2012 (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 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws wfll 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 Distriets were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. In July 2007, 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 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. The ADE attorney is reviewing laws and regulations to look for any that may impede desegregation. In June 2011, 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 88th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 43 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 June 30, 2012 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 June 30, 2012 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 June 30, 2012 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 44 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 June 30, 2012 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. 0n 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. 45 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 June 30, 2012 (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. 0-uring 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 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 ADE'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. 46 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 June 30, 2012 (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 attarning 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. 47 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 June 30, 2012 (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 8evelopment, (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. 48 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 June 30, 2012 (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 I ntervenors 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. 49 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 June 30, 2012 (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 and 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 and 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 met 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. 50 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 June 30, 2012 (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 Si:immary 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. 51 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 June 30, 2012 (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. 52 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 June 30, 2012 (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. 53 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 June 30, 2012 (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. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. 54 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board or Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. 55 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. 56 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 21 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 11, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. 57 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 16, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 11 , 20\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":"kai_chm-oh_307","title":"Chicago Cold War: Walter Massey","collection_id":"kai_chm-oh","collection_title":"Oral History Collection (Chicago History Museum)","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, 41.85003, -87.65005","United States, Pennsylvania, Dauphin County, Londonderry, Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant, 40.15417, -76.725"],"dcterms_creator":["Massey, Walter E.","Alter, Peter"],"dc_date":["2012-05-31"],"dcterms_description":["Walter E. Massey was raised in Hattiesburg, Mississippi by his mother, Essie, and stepfather, Elmore Massey, who adopted him. Dr. Massey earned his Ph.D. in physics in 1966 from Washington University, St. Louis. As a professor at Brown University, Massey was hired as director of the Argonne National Laboratory and took over Argonne a month prior to the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979. While working at Argonne, Dr. Massey was theoretical physicist. Throughout the Reagan years, he oversaw many facets of nuclear energy and dealt with Cold War policy shifts from one administration to the next."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","image/jpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Chicago, Ill. : Studs Terkel Center for Oral History, Chicago History Museum","Chicago, Ill. : Chicago History Museum"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Oral History Collection (Chicago History Museum)","Chicago Cold War Oral History Project"],"dcterms_subject":["Argonne National Laboratory","Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant (Pa.)","Oral history","Interviews","Cold War","Nuclear energy","Nuclear physicists","Political science"],"dcterms_title":["Chicago Cold War: Walter Massey"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text","StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Chicago History Museum"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://collections.carli.illinois.edu/cdm/ref/collection/chm_oh/id/307"],"dcterms_temporal":["1966/1991"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["© 2017 Chicago Historical Society, all rights reserved","For permission to reproduce, distribute, or otherwise use this image, please visit https://images.chicagohistory.org or contact rightsrepro@chicagohistory.org."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Audio file: 54:34 minutes"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"gych_rogp_139","title":"John Lewis, 30 May 2012.","collection_id":"gych_rogp","collection_title":"Reflections on Georgia Politics oral history collection, 2006-2010","dcterms_contributor":["Short, Bob, 1932-"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Short, Bob, 1932","Lewis, John, 1940-2020"],"dc_date":["2012-05-30"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview John Lewis discusses his early years in rural Alabama and his work as a civil rights leader and U.S. Representative. He covers his early activism and education in non-violence in Nashville as a student of Fisk University's American Baptist Theological Seminary, his participitation in the Freedom Rides, and his work organizing demonstrations as chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). He discusses his relationships with other civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, Jr., Hosea Williams, and James Lawson, and his involvment in sit-ins and marches, including his experiences being assaulted and jailed. He also gives details about his experience in the famous march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965.","Finding aid available in repository.","John Robert Lewis was born February 21, 1940 in Troy, Alabama. He graduated from Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee, where he became a leader in the Nashville sit-ins. While a student he was invited to participate in non-violence workshops in the basement of Clark Memorial United Methodist Church, and he later participated in the Freedom Rides. From 1963 to 1966, Lewis served as chairmen of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Along with Martin Luther King, Jr., he spoke at the August 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. In 1964 he helped coordinate the \"Freedom Summer\" in Mississippi, a campaign to register black voters across the South. Lewis was a leader in the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, where, in Selma, he and other marchers were beaten and dispersed with tear gas by state troopers and deputized white citizens. The event, which came to be known as \"Bloody Sunday,\" helped inspire the passage of the Voting Rights Act later that year. Lewis entered the political arena in 1981 when he earned a seat on the Atlanta City Council. In 1986 he successfully ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. He would go on to be relected many times and serve in various leadership roles in the House Democratic caucus.","Interviewed by Bob Short."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Athens, Ga. : Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Reflections on Georgia Politics Oral History Collection","http://sclfind.libs.uga.edu/sclfind/view?docId=ead/RBRL220ROGP.xml"],"dcterms_subject":["United States--Congress--House","Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.)","Selma to Montgomery Rights March--(1965 :--Selma, Ala.)","Selma to Montgomery Rights March","Freedom Rides, 1961","Civil rights workers--Interviews","Civil rights movements--Georgia","Civil rights movements--Alabama","Legislators--Georgia","Legislators--United States","Civil rights movements","Civil rights workers","Legislators","Alabama","Georgia","United States"],"dcterms_title":["John Lewis, 30 May 2012."],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.libs.uga.edu/russell/RBRL220ROGP-139/ohms"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Reflections on Georgia Politics Oral History Collection, ROGP 139, Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies, University of Georgia Libraries, Athens, Georgia, 30602-1641."],"dlg_local_right":["Resources may be used under the guidelines described by the U.S. Copyright Office in Section 107, Title 17, United States Code (Fair use). Parties interested in production or commercial use of the resources should contact the Russell Library for a fee schedule."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","interviews"],"dcterms_extent":["1 interview (40 min.) : sd., col."],"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","Lawson, James M., 1928-","Lewis, John, 1940-2020"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tws_oid16_33574","title":"Bob Buckman, 2012","collection_id":"tws_oid16","collection_title":"Crossroads interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2012-05-23"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4","application/pdf","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Memphis, Tenn. : Rhodes College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["https://vimeo.com/278731672"],"dcterms_subject":["Oral history","Interviews","Memphis (Tenn.)"],"dcterms_title":["Bob Buckman, 2012"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33574"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tws_oid16_33573","title":"Emerson Able, 2012","collection_id":"tws_oid16","collection_title":"Crossroads interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2012-05-18"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4","application/pdf","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Memphis, Tenn. : Rhodes College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["https://vimeo.com/278729491"],"dcterms_subject":["Oral history","Interviews","Memphis (Tenn.)","Education","Music","Neighborhoods","Manassas High School (Memphis, Tenn.)"],"dcterms_title":["Emerson Able, 2012"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33573"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"fda_houck_390141","title":"Mourning Emmett Till","collection_id":"fda_houck","collection_title":"Davis Houck Papers","dcterms_contributor":["Pool, Heather"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2012-05-18"],"dcterms_description":["Summary: Article on the murder of Emmett Till and its influence on the Civil Rights Movement."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Sage Publications"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["http://purl.fcla.edu/fsu/MSS_2015-007"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights--History--20th century","African Americans--Crimes against","Civil rights","Journalism--Political aspects--United States","Mississippi--Race relations","Racism in the press","Rhetoric--Political aspects--United States--History--20th century","Trials (Murder)--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Mourning Emmett Till"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Florida State University Libraries. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_MSS_2015-007_S03_SS03_I003"],"dcterms_temporal":["1900/1999"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_177","title":"Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts, and reports","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":["2012-05-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts, and reports"],"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/177"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["agendas (administrative records)","minutes (administrative records)","handbills","reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nI. Call to Order MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA May 15, 2012 II. Reading of the Minutes of April 17, 2012 Ill. Executive Director's Report A. Correspondence B. Financial Transactions C. Newspaper Articles D. Recruitment Update E. LRSD Original Magnet Schools Personnel - Vacancies and New Hires IV. Business or Action Items A. Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report- Discussion and Vote B. Set Next Meeting Date C. Stipulation Magnet Schools' Annual Principal Reports 1. Booker- Dr. Cheryl Carson, Principal - 8:35 a.m. 2. Carver- Diane Barksdale, Principal - 9:10 a.m. 3. Williams - Sandra Register, Principal - 9:45 a.m. 4. Mann - Patricia Boykin, Principal -10:30 a.m. 5. Gibbs - Dr. Felicia Hobbs, Principal -11:05 a.m. 6. Parkview - Dr. Dexter Booth, Principal -11:40 a.m. V. Adjournment DRAFT MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES April 17, 2012 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Tuesday, April 17, 2012. Members Present: Bobby Acklin, NLRSD-Acting Chairperson Dr. Robert Clowers, PCSSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Danny Reed, ADE Joy Springer, Joshua lntervenors Absent: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, LRSD- Chairperson Guest: Margie Powell, Monitor- Office of Desegregation Monitoring The meeting was called to order at 8:40 a.m. by Acting Chairperson, Bobby Acklin. He immediately called for a reading of the minutes of December 13, 2011. A motion was made by Joy Springer to approve the minutes as presented, and Danny Reed seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Donna Grady Creer provided the Executive Director's report. She called the Committee's attention to items in correspondence, with the first item being a memorandum to all three Superintendents and to the Education Commissioner inviting them to attend the Magnet Fair to be held at Park Plaza Mall on DRAFT DRAFT January 21, 2012, from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Copies were given to each Committee member for their information. A memorandum was sent to all three districts' student registration personnel requesting their assistance for Magnet Fair. Copies were given to each Committee member, but no action was required by the MRC. The next memorandum was a thank-you to all student registration personnel who worked at the Information Booth at Magnet Fair. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. A thank you letter was sent to Melissa Griffith, Assistant General Manager at Park Plaza Mall, thanking her for her and her staff's help during Magnet Fair. Copies provided the MRC were for information only. Last, but not least, a memorandum was sent to all the school volunteer participants for Magnet Fair. Ms. Creer thanked everyone for their help in making the Fair a success. Copies were given to MRC members. A Court Order was received which approved the interdistrict magnet schools' final 2010-11 budget and proposed 2011-12 budget. No parties objected, so Judge Marshall issued the Order dated 27 December 2011. Copies were given to MRC members. Bills in the amount of $12,500.36 were presented for payment. Ms. Creer explained that the bulk of the expenses covered the Magnet Fair and enrollment advertising, form printing, etc. for the early enrollment period which began on January 23, 2012. Danny Reed made a motion to pay the bills, and Oliver Dillingham seconded it. The motion carried unanimously. Newspaper articles since the previous MRC meeting were given to MRC members for their perusal. Ms. Creer provided a brief recap. An article from Hogan Lovells providing information about how school districts may use race and race-neutral approaches in making student assignment -2- ORAFT Decisions was given to each Committee member. No action was required by the MRC. With regard to a recruitment update, a packet of information that was used during the registration process this year was given to Committee members. A detailed timeline was presented, advertising about locations where to apply, copies of the letters that the MRC Office provided to parents of rising 6th and 9th grade students, and the actual allotment numbers provided by the LRSD Student Registration Office was included in the packet. Each Committee member received their own copy of the packet, but no action was required by the MRC. Ms. Creer reminded MRC members about the process Little Rock School District used this year for registration. The first week of registration was held at an offsite location, while the second week registration returned to the Student Registration Office. The registration went so well that it most probably will be used again next year. Magnet Fair was a success again this year. Some of the schools want it to be earlier next year. The MRC Office is looking into this possibility. We want to do all we can to do what is best to maintain enrollment in magnet schools. All three districts would have to agree to this. Oliver Dillingham asked if a significant number of people asked to make this change. Bobby Acklin asked if the first day of application could be pushed back. Mr. Dillingham also mentioned that the time the Mall can accommodate the Fair is another thing that has to be considered. Parkview's Spring performance, Annie, had a great turnout, and Parkview's Senior Art Exhibit is being held this date. Several other events are scheduled, and Ms. Creer said that Parkview is making a big effort to advertise about applying to attend a magnet school at each of these events. The Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report was the next item on the agenda. A copy of the final draft was given to each Committee for their review. Ms. Springer said that she wants to read this first before making comment and voting on approval. It was agreed by consensus that all members would peruse the document and be ready to vote at our next meeting scheduled in May, 2012. -3- DRAF1 Mr. Dillingham says he wants to see something that addresses the disparity gap. It was further agreed by consensus that MRC read the report and e-mail the MRC Office with any questions. These questions would then be forwarded on to Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, Consultant, for clarification. Dr. Robert Clowers noted several items that he questioned. There were a number of places that are printed in bold, and he felt that this needed clarification. A discussion was held with regard to the Stipulation magnet principals' reports. Ms. Springer said that she wants to see the information disaggregated by race and gender in all the data that is presented. Wants to see things as to who met AYP, etc. Dr. Clowers says he is interested in seeing the gap closed over time. Ms. Springer said this type of information should be available. Gibbs' principal was able to talk about who was not performing on items in the tests. Booker was one of the other ones. We need to get on the same page. It was agreed by consensus to hold the next MRC meeting on May 15, 2012, with the principals' reports on the agenda. The MRC meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m., and the principals' reports will begin right after the meeting. When no further business was brought before the Committee, Oliver Dillingham made a motion to adjourn, and Joy Springer seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m. -4- MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE BILLS TO BE PAID May 15, 2012 1. Capital Business Machines 70.20 (Monthly Billing for MRC's Office Copier Maintenance Contract) 2. Aire Ark, Inc. 65.90 (Two Monthly Billings - February and March - to Provide Hosting for MRC's Website and e-Mail) 3. Mass Enthusiasm, Inc. 866.67 (Second Installment for Services Rendered to Provide New Website for MRC) 4. Aire Ark, Inc. 65.90 (Two Monthly Billings -April and May- to Provide Hosting for MRC's Website and e-Mail) 5. CompSys 240.30 (Services Rendered to Repair MRC Office Computer) 6. American Home Life 825.00 (MRC's Office Rent for May, 2012) 7. American Home Life 182.50 (MRC Communications Expense for April, 2012) 8. Capital Business Machines 70.20 (Monthly Billing for MRC's Office Copier Maintenance Contract) 9. Staples, Inc. 116.57 (Supplies for the MRC Office) 10. Central Arkansas Newspapers 229.00 (Advertising in the 2012 Baseball Magazine for North Little Rock, Jacksonville, Sherwood and Maumelle) TOTAL BILLS TO BE PAID $2,732.24 State gets 2 plans to cut costs School district has to find $11 million CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Pulaski County Special School District and its two employee unions submitted to state Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell by Monday's deadline conflicting proposals for cutting about $11 million in costs in the state-controlled, fiscally distressed district. In a letter late last week, Kimbrell \"respectfully request[ed]\" that the school district, the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff provide to him \"specific, written recommendations on how the staffing and the fiscal practices of the [district] should be modified in order to realize $11 million in cost savings by the end of the 2012-13 school year.\" Kimbrell told the two sets of parties that the Arkansas Department of Education staff will use the proposals in deciding \"what binding recommendations\" to impose on the district. The Pulaski County Special district of 17,000 students and 3,000 employees is classified by the state as fiscally distressed because of past financial mismanagement and for expenditures exceeding revenue. The district is operating  See DISTRICTP,a ge ~ District  Continued from Page 1 B with a state-appointed superintendent and no locally elected school board. It has only until the end of the 2012- 13 school year to correct its financial problems or, by law, face merger with one or more other districts .. The budget-cutting plan offered Monday by Superintendent Jerry Guess and his staff includes slicing two days from the teachers' 192-day work year, discontinuing \"severance\" pay to retiring teachers and phasing out the salary credits that employees receive for completing district-taught short courses. In all, the district's proposal calls for cutting about $4 million in the 2012-13s chool year from provisions in the teacher and support-staff contracts that don't expire until the end of the 2014-15s chool year. The district plan envisions the budget cuts growing to $5.6 million in 2013-14, and $6.67 million in the next year, which would help the district cushion the possible loss of $11.6 million a year in special state desegregation aid. The state has asked a federal judge to end desegregation aid to the three Pulaski County districts, an amount that totals $70 million annually. The proposed $4 million in cuts identified by district administrators in the contracts would be paired with about $6.5 million in cuts outside the Professional Negotiations Agreements and include eliminating about 77 positions through layoffs, retirements and resignations, plus altering the school opening and dismissal times to save transportation and supervision costs. Those $6.5 million in cuts are not in dispute. The district plan envisions ending the coming school year with $14.1m illion, or 8.28 percent of annual expenditures, which is short of the district's goal ofl0 percent in reserves. But the district would attain its goal in future years as more of the salary costs for the district- taught short courses are removed. While the district is proposing $4 million in cuts directly affecting employees and their contracts, union leaders Marty Nix and Emry Chesterfield in their documents submitted to Kimbrell proposed an alternative $5.9 million in budget cuts that would not require a change in the contract language. Instead, the associations offered several short-term memoranda of understanding that would freeze or reduce employee costs next year but preserve the contract benefits over the long term. The associations, for example, proposed memoranda that would suspend employee attendance incentives\nreduce the amounts paid to employees for district-taught training and short courses\nand reduce the amounts paid to employees for supplemental work, such as coaching or sponsoring spirit group, music, drama and journalism programs. Employees with those supplemental contracts and are eligible for pay based on seven or more years of work would be frozen for one year at the pay level for six years of work. The unions' plan does not include reducing the teacher work year. The plan calls for saving $2.5 million by ~placing as many as 125 retiring teachers with lesser-paid teachers. The plan also calls for cutting by 10 percent the cost of district-purchased services and cutting by 10 percent the cost of materials and supplies purchased by the district - but not those supplies affecting students. District officials in their plan to Kimbrell anticipated that the unions would seek the 10 percent discount and argued that it wasn't realistic savings unless it could be ap-plied to fuel, insurance,utilities and building repairs. \"Fiscal prudence requires these expenditures to be budgeted sufficiently since there is often little control over the actual cost,\" district leaders wrote. Nix, the president of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, said the unions' proposed plan would result in total expenditures of $167.6 million and yearend balances of $16.9 million, which is 10.1p ercent of annual expenditures and the goal of district leaders. In the documents sent Monday to Kimbrell, the unions accused district leaders of attempting to void the Professional Negotiations Agreements in their entirety and replace them with their own set of personnel policies. The leaders of the unions \"appealed\" to Kimbrell to direct Guess to resume talks with the union leaders to resolve the budget issues. \"We too, as employees, voters and taxpayers are committed to a win/win result,\" Nix and Chesterfield wrote. \"The Unions and the Professional Negotiations Agreements are not the enemy,\" they continued. Kimbrell has invited the leaders of both unions to meet with him at 8 a.m. today. Arkansas Democrat-Gazettef ile photo William Goff, Pulaski County Special School District chief financial officer,( left)a nd districtS uperintendentJ erry Guess answer lawmakers' questions last week. On Friday the state ordered the district to cut its budget. PCSSD  Continued from Page 1 A est - are to receive letters by May 1 notifying them of the contract changes, including some pay reductions, Guess said. Kimbrell's Friday letter to Guess brings to an end several weeks of budget discussions between the district and the unions. Those talks began after Guess announced in midFebruary that failure to make millions of dollars in budget cuts - including contract concessions from the unions - would be \"fatal\" to the district, which has been categorized by the state as fiscally distressed. The district is operating with a state-appointed superintendent and no locally elected school board. It has only the next school year to improve its financial condition or face being ordered by state Board of Education to merge with other districts. . The district has an operatmg budget of about $170 million. Leaders of the two unions offered in the talks with Guess to forgo across-theboard raises and increases in district contributions to their insurance costs. Union leaders also proposed one-year suspensions of some benefits through \"memoranda of un, derstanding,\" but refused to agree to any changes in actual language of the contracts. Statet o districtC: ut budget,l op off unions County schools told to slash $11 million CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASOEMOCRAT-GAZETfE The teacher and support- staff unions in the Pulaski County Special School District lost all collectivebargaining rights, and their 2010-15 negotiated contracts were terminated as a result of Friday directives from the state's education chief. Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell di- Last week, Kimbrell asked the two sides in the talks to present to him their budgetcutting plans with the admonition that he would make a fmal, binding decision. \"I would have preferred that PACT, PASS and PCSSD arrive at a mutually-acceptable agreement because that would have been the best outcome for the district's students, staff, administration, patrons,\" Kimbrell wrote to Guess in the Friday letter, copied to the leaders of the two unions. \"Regrettably, that did not occur,\" he said ''If PCSSD is to rected Pulaski County Special School District Superintendent Jerry Guess in a six-page letter to sever ties with the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff, and to carry out nearly $11 million in budget cuts for the corning school year. days, ending employee attendance incentives, eliminating \"severance\" pay to teachers who re.tire, and phasing out over three years the salary increases paid to a majority of employees for courses taught in the district that fall short of college credit courses. Those budget cuts will include reducing the teacher work year by two days to 190 All state-certified employees in the 17,000-student district - the state's third-largSee PCSSDP, age 7A return to local control as a district that is fiscally sound now and in the future, significant action must be taken without further delay. In this regard, the PCSSD administration must be given the flexibility to swiftly implement several necessary actions aimed at removing the district from fiscal distress within one year.\" Marty Nix, president of the teachers association, and Emry Chesterfield, president of the support-staff association, issued a terse statement calling the action by the commissioner and the superintendent \"mean-spirited.\" The associations have called an emergency joint meeting of their members for 5 p.m. Monday at the Arkansas Education Association building for the purpose of taking direction on how to respond to the Kimbrell directives. A representative of the associations declined to speculate Friday on the possibility of employees taking a job action, such as a strike. Both associations have gone on strike in the past but, in.more recent years, successfully relied on Pulaski County court decisions to preserve their contracts and bargaining rights. Guess, the former superintendent of the Camden-Fairview School District who was appointed by Kimbrell to the Pulaski County Special district job last July, responded immediately on several fronts to Kimbrell's directives. His actions included sending e-mails to the union leaders and to all district employees and asking a fedem.l judge presiding in the 29-year-old Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit to expedite a judicial review of Kirnbrell's More information on the Web PACT and PASS. PACT and PASS wouldn't even seriously discuss this possibility with me.\" \"So be it,\" Guess said. \"I re-the Pulaski County Special School District, filed a federal court motion asking U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. to quickly issue a judgment declaring that the state's binding recommendations to the district are \"legal, proper, and binding and should be obeyed by all parties to this action,\" including the two unions. tion taken in the long-running desegregation case, nor do I have the luxury to adopt the sense of certainty possessed by PACT/PASS.\" He said the unions overlooked the fact that the district must be declared unitary, or desegregated, by the federal court. To accomplish that, the district must have adequate funding to improve its school buildings that serve high percentages of black students. Kimbrell's letter, filings, and more arkansasonline.com/desegdocs actions, declaring them legal. new my commitment to you to be here with you - and for you - doing everything in my power to make this school district work. \"[T]h.is letter serves as notice to you both that the PCSSD is withdrawing recognition of PACT and PASS as the collective bargaining units for the District's licensed and classified staff effective immediately,\" Guess wrote to Nix and Chesterfield. \"Working together we can give you, the PCSSD employees, real job security - the real job security that is found in an economically sound, conservatively managed school district. It is found in hard-working, dedicated teachers guided by fair-minded, hard-working administrators working together Both unions have announced intentions to challenge the state's withdrawal of their recognition in state court, Jones said. But the federal court is the proper forum to decide the dispute \"and to do it most efficiently and with the greatest economy of time,\" Jones continued. \"Further, this letter serves as notice that the PCSSD is immediately terminating the PACT. and PASS [professional negotiations agreement] and simultaneously implementing the personnel policies for certified personnel and support- staff personnel. However, the District will continue to observe the co.mpensation/ fringe obligations of individual employee contracts until June 30, 2012.\" Guess sent a more conciliatory e-mail to the district's 3,000 employees, saying the onions \"simply weren't interested in making a deal.\" \"I want to prepare you for the coming bombardment,\" he said after assuring employees that their current salaries will continue for the remainder of this school year. 'Tm sure you'll hear over and over in days to come that getting rid of PACT and PASS was my main goal all the time. That's simply not true. I assure each of you that I did everything humanly possible over the past four months to negotiate new [professional negotiation agreements] with to provide the best possible education for their students.\" In an interview, Guess said the district's reliance on personnel policies committees to advise school boards and district leaders on employee working conditions is consistent with what is done in almost all Arkansas school districts. He said the new sets of proposed policies for teachers and the support staff are \"sit-ting on Dr. K.irnbrell's desk.\" Kimbrell, who serves in the role of the district's school board, will have to approve the policies. The unions last month filed two lawsuits in Pulaski County Circuit Court challenging the legality of forming personnel policies committees at a time when the district had recognized unions as contractbargaining agents. \"We are going to finish the year well, and we are going to have a good 2012-13,\" Guess said Friday. \"Parents should be reassured that th.is is a move to put the district in solid fmancial condition. It is a move in the right direction.\" Sam Jones, an attorney for Much of K.irnbrell's Friday letter dealt with the budgetcutting measures presented to him earlier this week by the unions, including a position statement in which the unions argued that the district was likely to win a multimillion- dollar court award from the state for inadequate transportation funding. Kimbrell called the associations' financial plans, in part, \"unclear\" and inadequate in terms of assuring the district's solvency in later years should the federal court allow state desegregatic\n\u0026gt;n aid to the district - about $ll million a year - to be terminated at once or phased out. \"PACT/PASS appear to request that PCSSD defer important decisions until a later date, arguing that beyond salary freezes for the 2012-2013 school year, '[t]here is no urgency for anything more at the present time,\"' Kimbrell wrote. \"I will not attempt to argue the merits of any legal posi- \"Second, whether state desegregation funding ends in one year or several years hence, sound budgeting practices dictate that PCSSD should not depend upon state desegregation funding in order to continue its operations,\" Kimbrell said. \"PCSSD must be able to show that it can continue its operations for the benefit of its students with or without state desegregation funding.\" Kimbrell said the district's budget plans, which include nearly $ll million in cuts the first year and will grow to $13 million when fully realized in the 2014-15sc hool year, address the potential loss of desegregation aid. Kimbrell said that without action, the school district would spend more than it receives in revenue to the point that it would have only $3 million in reserves next year, and by the 2013-14 school year, it would have an illegal $5 million deficit. \"It is my utmost hope and desire to return control of the PCSSD to whom it belongs - the district's patrons and locally elected school board,\" he said. Information for the article was contributed by Evie Blad of the ArkansasD emocrat-Gazette. . Educationno tebook CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE 3 state schools getd iamontda g Cabot Middle School South in.Cabot, Paris Middle School in Paris and Hells tern Middle School in Springdale have been named Arkansas Diamond Schools as part of the state's Schools to Watch initiative, a national recognition program developed by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. The schools were cited for using research-based strategies within a school schedule to give every child access to a rigorous\nhigh-quality education. The schools are studentcentered with teachers and administrators who are deeply committed to the academic achievement of all students,  .Arkansas Schools to Watch co-directors Charles Green . and Mona Briggs said last week in announcing the selections. 4rkansas has had 10 schools feceive the honor since 2007.,Schools are designated fqr a three-year period, after which they must be redesi~ated. ,. Sho.wto feature studentsa'r tistry The Little Rock School District will showcase to the public the artistic talents of its students in kindergarten through 12th grades at the second annual Artistry in the Rock event April 29-30 in the Metroplex Event Center at 10900 Colonel Glenn Road. Musical and dramatic performances, as well as artwork exhibits, will be part of the free event that will be from 1-7 p.m. April 29 and 9 a.rn. to 2 p.m. April 30. The Artistry in the Rock is the result of work by the Little Rock School District's fine arts department that includes among its offerings elementary beginning band, piano laboratories at some elementary and middle schools, band and choir at all middle and high schools, orchestra at some middle and high schools, drai:ha at all high schools and dance at magnet seconda,ry sch9ols. Additionally, l3 of the fine arts specialists in the district have achieved national certification by .the National Board for Professiopal Teaching Standards. App developed ons tate'ss chools The Arkansas Department of Education's Research and Technology Division has developed an application that enables users of smart phones ard computer tablets to access information on Arkansas school districts, schools and educational cooperatives. The application, which can also be used on desktop and laptop computers, includes contact information and quick links to maps locating each school. The application is available for use by the general public. Those wishing to access the sitecan open a browser and navigate to adedata.arkansas. gov/mobile/. 8 LRp upils4, teacherws in StephenAs wards and Akef Abu-Rmaileh\nof Anne andJeffSimmermakMargaret Anne Beetstra of er\nAaron Yin of Little Rock Episcopal Collegiate School, Central High School, son of daughter ofJoan and Stephen Fengjuan Zhang and Wendud Beetstra\nCatie Edwards of Yin\nTiancheng Zhang of PuParkview Arts and Science laski Academy, son of Jinfen Magnet High School, daugh- Li and Werile Zhang. ARKANSASDEMOCRAT-GAZETfE Eight Little Rock high school seniors and four teachers received 2012 Stephens Awards on Monday. This, year, The City Education T,rust is providing $5,000 scholarships to the outstanding students and $7,500 cash awards to the instructors, a new~ release said. Jackson T. Stephens and W.R. \"Witt\" Stephens formed, the trust in 1985 with proceeds from the sale of the Stephens' interest in River- \"Ii. Video on the Web www.arkansasonline.com/video side Cable Television Co. The ceremony was Monday in the AT\u0026amp;T Auditorium at the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce office. Student winners were: Muhammad Abu-Rmaileh of Little Rock Central High School, son of Aida Shanti ter of Joanne Edwards\nWhit- Winning teachers were: ney Gao of Little Rock Cen- Kara Branscum of Little Rock tral High Schoo.I, daoghter Christian Academy, Michelle of Li Tong and Xiang Gao\nDowell of Episcopal ColleRachel Madigan of Mount giate School, Melissa Anne St. Mary Academy, daughter \"Missy\" Gazette of Mount of Susie and Steve Madigan\nSt. Mary Academy and Betsy Tom Simmermaker of Cathe- Hall of Little Rock Central lie High School for Boys, son  High School. EDITOfUALS Itf inallyh appened Necessityc ouuin't lYaifto rever \"I'm tired of negotiating with you.\" -Every boss who ever lost patience with a staff of demanding whiners. \"I'm tired of negotiating with you.\" -Every long-patient, over-stressed teacher who ever had to put up with a spoiled brat in her classroom \"I'm tired of negotiating with you.\" -Every judge who was ever exasperated with an attorney who thinks of himself as some kind of privileged character. \"You're so 'SPE-cial.\" - The Church Lady on the old Saturday Night Live show. THE TEACHERS' union and its mate, the one representing staff workers in Pulaski County's long mismanaged school district, can't say they weren't warned. Time and again. The last warning came February 13th from the school district's emergency supennteilde\"nt \"and surgeon, Jerry Guess, who put it as plain as he could, as plain as it was, as plain as it should have been for years: \"What I will do if we do not succeed [in these negotiations], suffice it to say that I do have a plan for unilateral  implementation of the district's last, best and final offer to the unions during these negotiations.\" . Sure enough, he did what he had to do. It had long been time to either fish or cut budget He cut The school distric:t could go oI).ly so long dithering with unions that had been allowed essentially to negotiate with themselves. And the result was years of special privileges that ran  counter to the interests of public and  taxpayers, students and parents, the  State of Ark\nmsas and good sense in general. Not' to mention just plain economic necessity. At day's end Friday, necessity finally caught up with the special pleaders and especially privi-leged.  ,The unions .lost all their collectivebargaining powers, and a total of $ll million in budget cuts is to. be made during the corning year. The day of reckoning finally came: Friday, April 20, 2012. It took long enough. . Pulaski County's school district, now under new and long-needed management, just couldn't go on eternally dithering with its unions. The bills had to be paid. The school district had to be saved. For years the ruinous results of letting the unions have their every little way and whim have been all too obvious: Featherbedding contracts that were costing the much-burdened taxpayers millions in unnecessary expenses. How much? An estimated $13 million a year as of last February. And it hasn't been reduced by much since. Now it's down to $ll million and must be cut Eleven million dollars. That's how much fat still needs to be cut to avoid the school district's not being a school district any more but just part of anoth- er. (little Rock's? North little Rock's?) How to put this delicately? Folks, Pulaski County's school district is broke. And the brokenness is because of all the provisions in contracts \"negotiated\" by that former, elected, pandering management. (Read: the now-disbanded school board) The district could no longer afford those provisions, not that it ever could. Llke \"severance\" pay for teachers that were retiring, not being severed from the payroll. What a sweet deal. That, too, is over. How did this all happen? Well, there were elections to win, seats to hold, influence to peddle, unions to please. So what if the books got worse year after year? That would be somebody else's problem Kick it down the road. Well, we've come to the end of the road Somebody else rs now representing the long-suffering public, Le., the State of Arkansas. His name is Jerry Guess, appointed superintendent and.respon-sible party.    Over the I past few months, there were some piddling agreements, but no Agreement. And now the state has done what it needed to do. Jerry Guess' message to the unions was unmistakable Friday. \"I'm tired of negotiating with you\" MUCH TO the union's chagrin, an employer-in this case, the S~te. of Arkansas-can't just go on negotiating forever. Not without conducting its end of the negotiations from a banlauptcy court. Under the law, management can simply impose its final offezA: nd now it has done just that The taxpayers had been soaked enough by a school district run entirely too long by\nfor, and of the teachers' unions. The head of the teachers' union ~all~~ th~ state's decision \"mean-spirited, w~~h we g_uess is her synonym for realistic. But m a way the unions deserve . to be congratulated At last they've ended all their own special benefits and privileged positions. By abusing therp. for years. . Since the district is now the state the State of Arkansas has gone ahead and made the cuts it needs to make to keep the district solvent. And eliminated all the excesses in the contracts signed, lo, these many years ago. It had to. So we can keep school next year in Pulaski County. \"!'m d.:ed of negotiating with you,\" D:\"'1ght Eisenhower might as well have said to Orval Faubus in 19.57t,h e year when defiance and delay fmally came ' a-cropper here in Arkansas. Only Ike didn't need words\nhe had the 101st Airborne. In 2012, the people of Pulaski County and the State of Arkansas have a D~partment of Education, Tom W. Kimbrell, Commissioner. And now he's taken action, too. Let's hope it'll be an education, the real thing, for all concerned Not just the end of a contract stuffed with all manner of supposedly ever-flowing goodies at taxpayer expense for a couple of spoiled unions. 1-/-Z.'lIL Schootu nionsr uleouts trikeb utp lano thers teps CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOl\nRAT-GAZEITE Teachers and supportstaff employees in the Pulaski County Special School District won't strike but will take other steps to preserve their union representation and negotiated contracts, leaders of the two unions said Monday. \"Morale is low, but they. are going to go ahead and work out the year,\" Marty Nix, pr.esident of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, said about district teachers and the support staff after a 2-hour emergency membership meeting that was closed to the public. \"We want to put people's fears to rest,\" she said. \"There won't be a strike, especially in the near future. These students are going to finish the year on a good note.\"  The joint meeting of the teachers' union and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff was called in the wake of Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell's directive Friday telling Pl).laski County Special district Superintendent Jerry Guess to PCSSD  Continued from .Page 1 A sever ties between the district and its unions and terminate the employee contracts negotiated with those unions. Kimbrell further directed Guess and the school district - the state's third largest, with 36 schools and 17,637 students - to proceed with making nearly $ll million in cuts in the district's 2012-13 operating budget, including $4 million from employee benefits in the contracts. Guess welcomed the nostrike news Monday night. \"I'm really pleased they aren't contemplating any kind of job action,\" he said. \"I think what we do is really important, and. missing days for some sort of job-related statement - I would hate to see that happen to kids in the district.\" The budget cuts are intended in part to rebuild the financial reserves in a district designated by the state as \"fiscally distressed.\" It is operating under state control, with a state-appointed superintendent and no locally' elected school board.  Union members at the meeting affirmed support for their leadership and formed a crisis committee to involve parents and taxpayers in the dispute. \"We are going to handle it in court and in the court of public opinion,\" Nix said about the efforts to retain collective- bargaining rights and contracts that carry an expiration date of June 30, 2015. \"We're not going anywhere,\" she said. Teachers interviewed after the meeting said repeatedly that it was unfair that they will lose pay and other benefits while the superintendent makes a salary of $200,000 plus benefits. \"No one wants to give up a percentage of their salary when they see what the others are making,\" teacher Mi gnon Hatton said. Another teacher questioned why she should suffer losses as the result of the district being placed in }seal distress. \"I was in my classroom teaching,\" she said. \"I didn't sign a single check _or hire a single person.\" The stage is already set for the legal fight in both federal court and Pulaski County Circuit Court. The district filed a federal- court motion Friday asking U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. declare that the state's directives are \"legal, propet, and binding and should be obeyed by all parties to this action,\" including the two unions. Attorneys for the associations will file a response in opposition to that in the next few days, Nix said. ,  '. , Additionally, the associations last month filed lawsuits against teachers and supportstaff members elected to new district personnel policies committees. The committees are authorized in state law to malce recommendations on employee working conditions and benefits'in lieu of a union-negotiated contract: Nix said. she expects that those lawsuits, now pending in two different Pulaski Conty Circuit Court venues, will be expanded in light of more recent developments. Earlier Mond.i.y, Guess sent to all certified employees in the district a letter telling them that th,eir contracts will not be renewed for the2012- 13 school year. He is recommending instead that their employment be continued for the 2012-13 school year on different terms and conditions. The letter lists about a dozen changes that include reducing the teacher work year and pay by two days, from 192 to 190 days. O~her changes include the elimination of two days of sick leave a year, elimination See PCSSDP, age 6A of one day of bereavement leave, elimination of pay for some bus and recess duty, elimination of art attendance incentive, and the elimination of '.'severance\" pay~ents to teachers who retire. The attendance incentive is $100 per semester if a teacher takes no more than one day of leave, or $300 for the school year if no leave is taken. The severance payment is one day's pay times years served in the district.  Another significant changes is the phaseout of salary credits that teachers receive for taking district-taught courses r\u0026lt;1ther than collegecredit courses. More than 570 teachers are placed on advanced steps on the salary schedule because of district courses rather than college courses. Guess' letter advises the employees that they have a right to a hearing on the proposed changes to their PCSSDc osctu tsa tfe.ctingem ployeceo ntracts TheP ulaskCi ountyS peciaSl choolD istricti s makinga bout$ 11m illion in budgetc uts in the2 012-13 schooly ear,i ncludinga bout$ 4 milliont hat will be takenf rom benefitsp rovidedt o teachersa nds upport staff in theirn egotiatedco ntracts.T hes cho'odl istrict,a t the directiono f ArkansasE ducationC ommissioner TomK imbrelol n Fridayw ithdrew-recognitioonf thee mployeeu nionst hat negotiatedth ose contractsa nd terminatedth e contractsfo r teachersa ndf or supports taff. Followinga re thec uts thata re beingm adet hat affectt hee mployeesc'u rrentb enefits. Costs avings 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Eliminateb us duty overages paid to teachers En.niirlatepayme3n6tm sitfo1ru t8'SuperVpiS8ifOOn re . .\n. ...  $35,002 $35,.00~ $35,002 breakfast tutoring Eliminatel unch/recessd uty compensationt o teachers Reduce the number of bus duty stipends by 1/3 Reduce the teacher salary schedule by two days, from 192 to 190 days Eliminatet he annuala ttendancei ncentivep a'y fort eachers: adn,inistrators, support staff El_iminaoten e bereavementl eaved ay. . . Phase oui over three.years the.4% payment for proiessionai 101,578 107,678 132,599 795,000 102,615 30,000 101,578 101,578 107.,678 107,678 132,599 132,599 795,000 795,000 102.,615 102,615 }.0_.090 30_.000 gr~.Vvt~.~~.ntf~f~~rt ~t~. a,chers... .... .. ..... _ .. .. ....... . ... 409,.000 800,000 1,200,000 P.~~~~ .out.~t.a.ff..~~~~l~p_rn~~.t.son,p.f~~nr.,~~a.~t!p~p.ons~ ta .t.t. .............. 1.1.~A?..~. :)~~/~~. :::: :3-~1 ~6.?~ Phase out placement on salary schedule based on district courses 1,396,542 2,308,917 2,800,383 01sdiiiiiiiii\"1i\"s\"ii'ver~\nEeiiaimeiii\"iii.reiir1riii.iii.i.i ii1:iiyeiis\":'' .:: ::~~ :.s .~:.. q:o$..::~::o:~.:~.:: ~ao: s.:oa~ ctiann.agmee'6 f accruecfl eafvoe si ck'lea.:,eaii.d.. ................... ,. reduce by two days .. Totalc oste duclionfrso mt hee mployees'ineg91iated contractasn dr elatedp oliciefso ro there mployees Additionaels tirTJacteods to f unusesdi ckl eavlbonus for supporst tafft o matchp olicyfo r t~achers..-, ' Netc ostr eductionfsro mn egotiatecdo ntractasn d relatedp.o liciefso ro there mployees SOURCEP:u 1asCklo untyS peciaSl chooDl istrict contract and that the hearing must be requested within. 30 days of receipt of the letter. Nix said Monday that the employees will fight the changes in their contracts by asking for those hearings. The hearing is typically held before the school board. In the case of a district in state control, the state education commissioner serves as the school board. Guess' letter gives a website [pr the district's newly completed set of personnel policies, which will replace the terms of the current contract: www.pcssd.org. Communityreaction to the state action agasf the llilion recognition and tliircontracts, as well as the budget cuts, was mixed Monday.  , . Gov. Mike Beebe :is supportive ofKimbrell's d_edsion to end union recognition and mandate budget cuts, spokesman Matt DeCample said. . '1Commissioner Kimbrell kept the governor apprised throughout the process, and he obviously felt that this was the step that had to be taken to resolv~ ~e problems in the district,\" DeCample said. The governor's office trusted the Education Department's attorneys to consider potential leg\n hurdles before Kimbrell opted to end union contracts, I\n\u0026gt;eCample said. \"Y,,e trust them that they k\u0026gt;oked through all the possibilities before takil).g that step,\" he said. State Sen. Linda Chesterfield, D-Little Rock, said she originally spported the state's takeover of the district. But Chesterfield, a former teacher union member and husband of Pulaski Association of Support Staff leader Emry Chesterfield, has since developed concerns about the \"broad and vague powers\" that state laws give leaders qver~eeing fiscally distressed districts.  Particularly \"distressing'' is having two appointed employees - Guess and Kimbrell - making major decisions once voted on in public meetings by an elected school board, Linda Chesterfield said. 218,970 218,970 218,970 .. \\. t \" . :/ ,  $4,239,941 $5,667,190 $6,673,530' .-:-1$4\n03~-~154 038 -154,038 ...... \\ 'ti  ... , 1 , t $4,085,903$, 5,513,152 $6,519,492 ArkansaDs emo~rat-Gazette \"I have not seen any change in the spending powers of this administration versus the previous one,\" she said. \"What I have seen is a lack cif parental involvement, period.\" L Ending union recognition is not the solution to the . district's financial pr.oblems, Chesterfield continued.  Under.proposed cuts, administrators will keep their current contract l.eri.gths while teachers will lose time, she said. \"No one identified the  unions as a problem\n, Chesterfield said. ''If we're going to change what is going on, there has to be shared sacrifice.\" In addition to parts of Little Rock, the district covers several smaller commui: J.i.tiesi,n cluding Jacksonville and Maumelle. . . Maumelle Mayor Mi.~hael Watson said he supported trimming some teache't benefits that weren't \"on par with the rest of.tM.state\" but he hadn't yet.formed an opinion .OI_l Kimbrell's decision to end union recognition.  . \"I think there were sorpe ltems that needed to be looked at,\" he said. \"I don't know if doing away with the contract completely was the way to go, but Ilhink it needed to be addressed in some form or fashion.\" In Jacksonville, residents are hopeful that the state's takeover and financi~l deci-  sions will put the city a step closer to its goal of having a separate, independent school district, Mayor Gary\"Fletcher said.  \"I th0k that we're getting to a pomt to recognize that the district is just too big to be managed,\" he said. . Information for this article was contributedb y Evie Blad of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. NLRsets deadline in schools chiefhunt CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE North Little Rock School Board members and a consulting firm hired last week to assist them in selecting a new' superintendent agreed Tuesday to a May 21 deadline for candidate applications and took other steps to get the search under way.  Kieth Williams, a retired Arkansas superintendent and now representative of the executive search firm McPherson \u0026amp; Jacobson of Omaha Neb., told board membe\ns that the timeline that calls for the po'ssible hire of a new superintendent by early June with _a start-work date of July 1 1s the shortest with which he has ever dealt. \"Nothing is goi~g fo ~e lessened in the process m regard to what we are doing in our home office and the effort [ we] are .putting into this \" Williams said in referenc~ to himself and his colleagues Bobby Lester and Diana Julian, who are both retired central Arkansas educators who work with the recruiting firm. The School Board voted in mid-March to seek a superintendent to succeed Ken Kirspel, whose contract does not actually expire until June 30, 2013, See SEARCHPa, ge 10Bf Search the characteristics and skills that the School Board would like to see in a new superin-  Continued from Page 1B tendent and will meet with community members at a 6 which is when he has said he p.m. meeting next Tuesday to wants to retire. do the same. Board members Board members have said are in the process this week they want'to try to put a new of nominating people to be superintendent in plac~ right invited to participate in that away, if possible, so the new \"stakeholders\" meeting. leader will be on hand for the Board members said they start of the district's five-year, would like a new leader to be $266 million school building a visionary, charismatic and and renovation program rath- experienced superu:itendent er than starting the job a year with proven leadership, ac~from now in the midst of the demic-improvement and f1- planning and construct_ion. nancial skills. School Board members The new superintendent said earlier this month that also should be willing to work Kirspel continues to have the in partnership with the School full support of the board and Board and able to work well he will remain the superin- with a diverse student body tendent in the coming year and staff in an urban setting, if a satisfactory successor is the board members agreed. not found. They also called for a new \"If we start this process leader to be open to instrucnow we are going to be with tional innovation, committed you until it is finished,\" Wil- to community health initialiams told the board Tuesday. tives and embrace technology \"If it is not finished July 1, then-as a learning tool. we are going to be with you To get further informaagain in September, starting . tion about what the general again, and we will go through public would like to see in the whole gamut of the pro- .a new sc.hool-district leader, cess and assist you in finding the McPherson and Jacobson someone. Our goal would be firm will place on its website to find someone by the end of and on the district's website December.\" a survey open to the general The district is expected public that will ask about the to pay no more. than $22,300 strengths of North ~ittle Rock in fees and expenses for the and the North Little Rock search, although Williams School District, and what a said that total will be less than new superintendent should that if a candidate is selected accomplish and what the obthis spring. stacles the new superinten- The company has already dent might face: , begun placing advertisements The_ supenn tendent s about the job opening in the salary m the 9,000-student Arkansas Democrat-Gazette . district is currently about ~d with state and national $152,000. Willi~s said t~at education organizations and the avera~e p~d _to supe~mpublications. The job is also tendents ll_l d1stncts_ similar advertised on the company's to North Little Rock 1s about website, http://www.mac- $170,000. He ur_ged ~o~rd njake.com. members to begm thmking The consultants spent about the amount t~ey want time Tuesday determining to pay a new executive. School Board member Scott Miller told his board colleagues that some North Little Rock businessmen approached him this week with a plan of possibly supplementing the district's salary offer to entice a \"world class\" superintendent candidate. That funding raised by the business community could be up to $100,000 a year for multiple years if the qistrict chooses to accept it, Miller said. . If the board is successful m hiring a new superintendent,  it plans to retain Kir~pel to assist the new supermtend~~t and possibly serve as a lJaJson between the board and the building plan consultants, DLR Group of Overland Park, Kan. LR schoolsu, nion.. to startm ediation Pay impasse takes federal step Friday CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETfE Representatives of the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock Education Association will start work with a federal mediator Friday morning to resolve an impasse in negotiations on a compen~ation package for this school year. Cathy Koehler, president' of the Little Rock Education Association, which is the union that represents all district employees except administrators, said Wednesday that there is \"a significant difference\" in the positions taken by the two negotiating ,teams on issues related to raises and health-insurance benefits. The association's team declared an impasse in the talks April 13. That prompted the call to mediator MarkMartin of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. tonight includes no items related to employee contracts and so no board action is ex~ _pected. Teachers in the 25,000-student district have a three-year contract that calls for annual negotiations on salaries and other financial benefits. In recent years, inclui:ling this year, district leaders and teachers have waited until mid-school year to begin salary talks so that the district officials have more accurate information on revenue that is available for across-theboard pay raises that are then retroactive to the beginning of the school year. Koehler said Wednesday that the association membership \"has been exceptionally patient\" and that won'.t happen next year. \"We are well aware of tlie responsibility of the district to not allow its fund balance to drop, but that' does not mean we ar~ .. going to lay over a.d t~e ri~yiing wh~J?:'th~y\n~aV\\:/ chosen to spend money Jar eignt:o).\"n ,inem 9.nths without thinking.about their emplo'f ee.s _t,all\"'K'b l  ,-,i,~dr, a,1 ,,., oe ,er sai ::f Koehler and Associate Superintendent Dan Whitehorn, who is the district's chief nego_tiator, both declined Wednesday io describe the offers and counteroffers in the nego_tiations, citing restrictions! in the ground rules that are used by the bargaining teams. \"I'm certainly coming to listen and learn and keep an open mind,\" Whitehorn said about the mediation session. \nDi~tric:t employee's' l'iave no't: !eceived aqross-the bbard raises this year, but eligil\n\u0026gt;lee mployees who have not reached the !OP of the salary scale have-received step increases for their additional yeru\n, di\"Jw\nt\u0026gt;erk}'P erience. \"My true hope is that we get this resolved using the federal mediator,''. said Koehler, who plans to lead informational pic)\u0026lt;ets to inform the public about the dispute, outside today's 5:30 p.m. Little Rock School Board meeting. The board's agenda for  FRIDAY, APRIL 27, 2012  3B No chan' gef orN LRs choolv ote, Boards taysw ithr egulare lections chedulea fterz oesr edrawn EVIE BLAD exemptions for districts that  cree, similar to North Uttle er was the soJevote against ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE 'meet certain criteria, includ- Rock's, to prove it qualified the resolution, citing some The North Little Rock ing compl\\ance with the fed- for the exemption. uncertainties about the state School Board voted Thurs- era! Voting Rights Act. The state Jaw s,ays certain Jaw. day to continue with its.reg- The district has never districts \"shall be exempt,\"  The three board members ular election schedule rather opened all of its zones in Jones said .. ' . whose terms expire this year than opening all seven seats one election sinceit began \".Courts have found that are Miller, who represents up for election in Septem- its current voting schedule. 'shall' is mandatory unless Zone 2\nDarrell Montgomery, ber.  in 1989, Superintendent Ken it results in absurdity,\" he. who represents Zone 3\nand State law requires re- Kirspel said. said. John Riley, who_represents drawing boundary lines in \"I would advise that we Abo.ut eight protesters Zone 7. , all zoned Arkansas school continue as.we have done,\" gathered outside the dis- The district's seven newdistricts where zones have he said. trict's administration build- ly reconfigured zones, apgrown unequal in population North Little Rock School ing to demand the board proved in March, are similar since a U.S. census. North District attorney St~phen open up all seats for elec- to the previous zones, but -Little Rock's board had al- Jones told board members tion. They waved signs with Zones 1, 2 and 3 that encomready approved new zone that federal courts previ~ slogans like \"shall is not pass the southern half of the boundaries. ously upheld the decision of mandatory.\"  clistrid are more compact In those situations, the. the Marvel] School District No one spoke in opposi- than before. Jaw also requires alJ school to claim an exemption from tion to' the board's plan reboard seats to be open for the election requirement. gardihg elections during the election after the zone lines That district pointed to a 30- meeting. ' are altered\nbut it provides year-old desegregation de- Board member Scott Mill- I NLR School Board rejects proposaflo rt eacherr aises EVIE BLAD ARKANSASDEMOCRATGAZETIE The North Little Rock School Board rejected a request from _itsP ersonnel Policies Committee on Thursday to provide a 3 percent raise to the district's teachers. Financial .uncertainty makes it a difficult time to increase salary costs, board members said. But they did not rule out potential raises in the future as administrators settle que~tions about projected enrollment, building timelines and plans to trim the district's budget in other areas. \"We want you to understand that we have not forgotten you,\" School Board Presi dent Dorothy Williams said. \"You are still on our radar.\" Without the raise, most teachers will receive a pay increase next year as an additional year of experience brings them to a new \"step\" on the district's salary plan. The raise proposal from the committee of certified personnel would have added 3 percent to each of those \"steps,\" costing' the district about $806,000, committee Chairman Majoice Thomas said. The cornrnittee proposed app,lying the raises retroactively for the 2011-201s2c hool year. If they had been approved, teachers would have received back pay. \"All we ask is that, in all of your planning, you do not forget about the teachers,\". Thomas said. She noted the board'~ decision to cut a !\n\u0026gt;onus it previously provided for teachers who have perfect attendance  during a given semester as another example of belt-tightening some teachers have faced. Board members said they would be willing to consider raises after the Arkansas Department of Education clarifies when it expects to contribute to the district's building plan and after enrollment proj.ections give leaders a better sense of the school system's financial fu-ture.  North Little Rock schools have lost enrollment for the last two academic years, Superintendent Ken Kirspel said. LR districtu, nionf ail to reach' ~c~Qrd .  ~- CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETfE . Representatives of the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock Education Association ended a full day of mediation Friday over employee pay raises for the current school year, with plans to resume talks at 1 p.rn. Wednesday. it up today but we didn't,\" said Deborah Desjardin, a middle school math teacher and chairinan of the association's negotiations team. The association is the ~nion and contract bargains ing agent for teachers as well as for most .support staff, except for administrators.  \"It's ongoing,\" said district \"We were hoping to wrap Associate Superintendent Raises  Continued from Page 1 B the bargaining teams' ground rules. The negotiations are not open to the public. . \"As long as you are talking, you are doing all right,\" Peggy Nabors, a spokesman for the union team, said at the conclusion of the session, which started about 8:30 a.m. and ended after 5 p.m., with a break for lunch. I, Teachers in the 25,000~ student district, the state's largest, have a three-year contract that calls for annual negotiations on salaries and other financial benefits. In recent years, including this year, district leaders and teachers have waited until mid-school year to begin salary talks so that the district officials have more accurate information on any revenue that is available for across-the-board employee pay raises. The union team decla.red an impasse in the talks April 13, and the teams then brou.ght in mediators Mark Martin of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and Barry Strange from the Arkansas Department of Labor. The mediators will continue to work with the teams Wednesday, Desjardin said Friday. While there has been no agreement on an acrpssthe- board pay raise,, eligible employees did receive a step increase for their additional year of teaching experience, as, they do every year. 'However, the district's longest tenured employees - those at the top of their salary schedules - are ineligible for the step increases, which range between 2 percent and 3 percent. Friday's talks came on the heels of a Thursday night School Boarcj. meeting that started with tejlchers and other association members lining both sides of the ,800 block of Markham Street chanting an~ waving signs that called for employee raises. Cathy Koehler, president of the association, told the School Board that it is time to resolve their differences, \"We have conducted ourselves for 10 or 11 months now as a peace-loving group of people who have not -disrupted school or not in any way disrupted student learning,\" Koehler said, \"The time has come to get a resolution on a financial agreement.\" Thursday's board meeting  agenda included no items directly related to the negotiations, The board members took no action on the matter other than to express appreciation for employees and urge that all parties work together and remain partners to benefit students despite any differences of opinion on how to operate the district. Dan Whitehorn, who is the spokesman for the district's negotiations team. _ \"We listened to their proposals and tried to keep an open mind,\" Whitehorn said, \"We look forward to meeting with them again Wednesday.\" The district and union teams are atte,mp'ting to reach a tentative agreement on a compensation package - includin~ .a possible pay raise or changes in the district contribution to employee health insurance - for the 2011-12s chool year that ends for students on May 30 and for teachers on May 31. Neither team would describe the offers and counteroffers, .citing restrictions in See RAISESP,a ge1 2B \"We strive for consensus and to work together because we know that if we pull together , .. we do our best work,\" board member Greg  Adams said. \"We know there are going to be disagreements.\" In the 2010-11 schoolyear, teachers and support staff received a 1.5 percent across-the-board pay increase, an increase to the distriizt's contribution to health-insurance premiums and a $750 bonus.,  In the 2009-10 school year, the Little Rock School Board and the teachers union approved a 1.25 percent pay raise for teachers. In 2008-09, the pay raise was 0.5 percent\nin 2007-08, it was 2 percent. In 2006-07, employees received a 3 percent raise. Step increases for experience were also paid in each of those years to eligible employees. Allowc ounty-districspt lit, aid phaseoutj~u dgeu rged CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSADSE MOCRAT-GAZETTE The Pulaski County Special School District on Monday proposed an eight-year phaseout of millions of dollars in state desegregation aid and the formation of a new, 10-school Jacksonville school system as a way to ~eet desegregation obliga-tions. , Attorneys for the 17,000- stude.n,t district made the proposal to U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. in response to a March 26 :request by the state to be Schools  Continued from Page 1 A gation funding. The 1989 settlement serves as the basis for special state d~segregation funding to the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. That funding _is now about $70 million a year and totals more than $1 billion since the agreeme?t. The money helps finance Little Rock's six original magnet schools and all three districts' majority-to-minority interdistrict student transfer programs, employee health and retirement costs, and general operating expenses. The magnet schools and majority-to-minority student transfer program in particular \"':'ere designed to promote racial desegregation of schools and the districts. Sam Jones of Little Rock and Allen Roberts of Camden tl:e Pulaski County Special dis~ tnct attorneys, said that instead of accepting the state's motion, the judge should modify the 1989 settlement because released from financial and other desegregation obligations in a 1989 settlement agreement to the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The Pulaski County Special district attorneys said the state's motion to immediately end desegregation aid should be denied. Attorneys for the Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts also responded Monday to the state's motion, urging the court to deny the request to end desegre-ree SCHOOLPSa, ge 7~ the agreement nas not completely _fulfilledi ts purpose of producmg three unitary or desegregated districts in Pulaski County. . ~e Pulaski County Special distnct has yet to achieve unitary status in nine areas of its operation, including its faciliti~ s-The Little Rock and North Little Rock districts have been declared fully unitary by the courts. \"The State essentially arg: ues for a complete obliterat10n of the 1989 Settlement Agreement,\" Jones and Roberts wrote. \"However, while the agreement might warrant the substantial changes proposed  by PCSSD, it has not yet reached the point where it should be jettisoned wholesale.\" They said that \"much of 0e agreement should remain m place, or even enhanced\" un~ the district becomes fully urutary. \"The District proposes that the Court approve the creation of a separate Jacksonville area school district,\" Roberts and Jones wrote. ''Its creation would ~ot ~ave a segregative impact m either a new Jacksonville School District, or in PCSSD sans Jacksonville. Its creation would be popular among the patrons of Jacksonville and the residual PCSSD. Popular support remains a critical element in attaining unitary status.\" The attorneys said the new Jacksonville district would be eligible for a far greater share of state funding for new and renovated facilities than the Pulaski County Special district could receive on its own for the Jacksonville area schools. And the detachment of the Jacksonville area would reduce the number of facility projects that the remaining Pulaski County Special district would have to address to comply with the_ terms of its 2000 desegregation plan, they said. Some Jacksonville civic and government leaders have wor~ed for several years to establish a school district independ_ ent ~f 0e Pulaski County Special distnct, saying a Jacksonville district could be more competitive with nearby school systems such as Cabot. A move to form a Jacksonville district was thwarted in 2003 \"\".hen, at the urging of the Pulaski County Special district, a federal judge detennined that d~taching Jacksonville would hinder desegregation efforts in the remaining Pulaski County Special, Little Rock and North Little Rock districts. _Jerry Gues~. the state-appomted Pula_skCi ounty Special School D!Stnct superintendent, said in an interview Monday that a 4,500-stud_ent Jacksonville school system could be eligible to receive more t~an half of its building renovat10n funds from the state. The Pulaski County Special district, determined.to be a 'wealthy' district, is eligible to receive from the state less than 3 percent of its building and renova-tion costs.   The remaining Pulaski County Special district would have about i2,500-students and 26 schools, Guess said. \"We think it would greatly enhance the operational efficiencies for this district and that district,\" he said. A Jacksonville district would likely include both Jacksonville and North Pulaski high schools as well as Jacksonville Middle 'and seven elementary schools - Bayou Meto, Arnold Drive, Tolleson,' Adkins, Tay\\or, Pinewood, and Dupree. Jones and Roberts t~ld the judge that they agree Wlth the state that it.is time to end the ,\nprotracted litigation\" in.what will be a 30-year-old school desegregation lawsuit this )'.ear. In addition to formmg a separate Jacksonville district, they recommended that the judge modify the 1989 s~~lement agreement by requmng the district and state to comply with the district's desegrega~ tion plan within three y_e~rs, and fix the school fac1ht1es within a reasonable amount of time. A federal appeals court in December.affirmed a lower court's finding that the Pulaski County Special district h~d failed to meet its obligations m. regard to student as.sigriment to schools and classrdoi:ns, Advanced Placement and gifted education, discipline, ~c\nhool facilities, scholarships, special educ,i.tion, staffing, student achievement ahd monitoring. : Jones and Roberts also pr_oposed a phaseout of the special state desegregation funding that amounts to about $20 million a year to the district. That phaseout. would be done -by providing the full amount of funding for the coming 2012-13 school year and then reducing the annual amount over the next eight years so that the final desegregation payment in 2019-20 would be 80 percent of the amount paid to the district this coming year. Additionally, Roberts and Jones proposed the three Pu. laski County school districts present the court with a pl'.111 for phasing out state and district financial support for the six original special-program magnet schools in Little Rock and the majority-to-minority interdistrict student transfer program over no more than seven years. The magnet schools - Booker, Carver, Gibbs and Williams elementaries, Horace Mann Middle and Parkview High - along with the interdistrict transfer program were designed to promote racial desegregation in the three school districts. The state pays one half tl,ie education costs for the magnet schools and incentive costs to participate in the interdistrict transfer program, as well as all student transportation costs. Adding an unusual twist to the case, the Pulaski County Special di.strict is currently classified by the state as fis-  cally distressed and is operatingi under state contrcil, with a state-appointed superintendent and no elected school board. Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell serves as the school board for the district. However, because the state and the district have opposing interests in regard to the 1989  settlement and desegregation .agreement, the school district by court order doesn't confer with Kimbrell and the state Department of Education about its legal positions in the desegregation case. Guess said Kimbrell was not consulted or even told about the district's posttion in the court filing.  \"We have carefully avoided discussing these issues,\" Guess said. Chris Heller and Clay Fendley, attorneys for the Little Rock School District, which is the plaintiff in the case, said the state is asking to be released from its commitments under the '1989 settlement and related agreements on the magnet schools and majority-to-minority transfer program with~ut showing that it complied Wlth those agreements in good faith or that it has eliminated the vestiges of its constitutional violations to the extent practicable. \"The state's request must be denied as a matter of law,\" Heller and Fendley told M\n:u:shall. \"There is no point in pro- ceeding to develop the factual record under the wrong legal standard_.\" they said. \"The State's Motion for Release should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.\" Stephen Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock School District, also said that the state !'has a burden of proving it has complied with the 1989 settlement agreement and the existence of any changed circumstances that justify the relief it seeks.\" He also urged that if the judge determines the state desegregation money-should be terminated\nthat it be phased out and not ended immediately.  \"The districts need a transition period to maintain fiscally  sound schools,\" Stephen Jones wrote, adding that the districts need to uphold promises made to students who participated in the magnet and interdistrict transfer programs. Those students should be able to complete the grades in their current schools, he said. The Joshua intervenors, who represent black students in all three districts, asked for a deadline extension to turn in its response. $70,000in f oodatPulaskCi ountys chooles ~ires ' . . . . . CYNTHIA HOWELL en patties, fajita meat, pasta, Scott in that position. District ify for another job within the. walk. away. Without pointing :{\\~SAS DE~OCRAT:GAZETIE tomatq.pa~te\ncorri, beans and officials refused to comm~nt  district. He was director of .f mgers,'that's about all I can Some l,600 1cases of food blueberritf\n-to a pe_rs6rm.el T.sday on Scott's employ'-'\nthe student nutrition depart- say.\" valued at more than $70,000  problem. . .   . m_~~t ,statfis. in ,the district,'. ment f\u0026lt;?r the _past four years . _. . Goif sai~ the _district has and provided by the U.S. De, \"This is a lot of free stuff,\" saymg that. it was an unre- . \"I didn't have control of . been workmg smce he bepartment of Agriculture at nq Goff said,. calling the waste . solved personnel matter. the warehouse\" where ,the gari. his job there last August cost to the Pulaski County \"inexcusable.\" ''.And instead -Scott, contacted at his food was stored, Scott .said. on improving practices and Special Schoor District. be-' of using the free s'tuff, -0-e hqme, said Tuesday that he' \"B\\lt it ultimately fell OI). me,\" adding controls in t:p.es tudent came outdated arid now must- werebuying\"fro~vendors to. was asked by district offi~ . he said about the resporisibil- nutrition department. be destroyed, district officials feed kids.\" c.ials to leave that job and he . ity But he alsosaid that \"if the said Tuesday. Regena English became . intends to do so. He will not . \"It was a very stressful controls that wer\\! in place Bill Goff, the district's chief the istrict's interim director: challenge the dismissal by re-. yeai: going through the.fiscal - ~specially if the existing financial officer, :attributed of student nutrition\u0026gt;'effective questing a hearing. distress of the district. They policies and regulations had  the expired food.:_ some' 6f Tuesday, Goff said.  However, th.e 27-year dis- said they couldn't affo_rdt o. bee_nf ollowed ...!..iwt ould not, which included cheese, chick- Englis~ repl_aees I?ale tJ\ni!::et mployee hopes to qual- 'lose .that money. I chose to See FOODP, age 4B. Food  Continued from Page 1 B have happened. There is no excuse for it.\" The expired commodities were discovered last month in an Arkansas Department of Human Services monitoring visit to the School District's warehouse, Goff said. The state agency is responsible for overseeing the distribution of U.S. Department of Agriculture commodities. The warehouse review also uncovered a similar amount of food that was nearing expiration. However, the district has been able to incorporate that food into its menus for school meals or transfer it to other school districts that can use it promptly, Goff said. \"We're not proud that it happened,\" Goff said about the aging inventory. \"But we are glad it got discovered when it did.\" The district also had to destroy old food in 2010, Goff said. The Pulaski County Special district, the third largest in the state with about 17,000 students, typically receives up to $~00,000 a year in USDA commodities for its schoolmeal service, Goff said. Deal feached . . . in LR district sets 1 % raise Tentativep act now awaits board,u nion-memberO K CYNTHIA HOWELL a copy of the tentative agree- ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE ment in response to an Ai- Little Rock School Dis- kansas Freedom oflnformatrlct teachers and support tionAct request. staff will receive a 1 percent School district and emraise retroactive to the be- ployee association leadginning of the current school ers were finalizing plans year if a tentative agreement Wednesday evening for ratireached Wednesday is rati- fying the proposal at special fied by the School Board and meetings later in the week. union members.  Late Wednesday evening, the Negotiating teams for Little Rock School Board anthe district and the Little nounced it would hold a speRock Education Associa- cial'meeting at 5 p.m. Friday. tion, which is the contract cathy Koehler, presibargaining agent for the dent of the association, said teachers and support staff in Wednesday. that she was the district, also tentatively pleased with the tentative agreed to a $16.92 increase in agreement and the tone it the district's contribution to sets for continued collabo, the monthly health insurance ration between the district ~remiums for participating  and its employees. employees. \"I can't help but smile a That would increase the whole lot about this one right district contribution from now,\" Koehler said, adding $301.44 a month to $318.36, that the tentative agreement retroactive to Jan. 1 of this was reached without any disyear. ruption to students or to the District officials released  See RAISEP, age 2A Raise  Continued from Page 1A community. Jody Carrejro, president of the Little Rock School Board, said he was happy to see the completion of the .talks. . \"It was not my, first choice, but in negotiations things seldom are your first choice,\" Carreiro said about the agreement terms. \"But I'm pleased, very happy, No. l, that it is done and, No. 2, I think it is a reasonable deal, for the district and for the teachers.\" A 1 percent increase to all eligible employees\nwould produce a beginning.salary-of $33,617.85fo r a teacher.with a bachelor's degree and no experience. The beginning salary is currently $33,285. Tlie district's top teacher salary'is. $64,841. A 1 percent increase would add $648.41 to that. ' Dani.el Whitehorn, -associate superintendent for secondary education and the district's chief negotiator, thanked Peggy Nabors, the chief negotiator for the Little Rock Education Association, and her team of teachers and support staff for working with the district team. ''We are all really about the same thing, w)J.ich is student achievement,\" Whitehorn said immediately after the two-hour negotiating session Wednesday. \"We nee'd to work together and we need each other's support to make student achieveient happen. We didn't w\npit to be apart on salaries\n'' \" . Whitehorn:acknowledgeii that the tentative agreement took'some time .. i ~ The twotteams began talks in March ap.d ,the .teachers' team declared_ an impasse April 13. That prompted the call by the teamtos M arkMartin, a mediator with the Federal Mediatidn and Conciliation Ser-vice, -and 'Barry Strange, a mediatonwith the Arkansas Department of Labor. Bothmediato\"rs worked with the teams last Friday and again Wednesday. ,  \"We clearly ,had tp understand each other's.position,\" Whitehorn said. \"I think it to.ok a while.:for that .to play out - for us to get all the facts ancf for them to get all the facts,- on what is really going on. The, mediators had \"Wtfare ~~ really about the same thing, whichi s student achievementW. e need to work t~gether and we neyd each other's support to niake student achievement happen. We didn't want to.be apart on - salaries.\" , - DanielW hitehornt,h e district'cs hiefn egotiator  ' to no across-the-board pay raises for the current 2011'12 school year after the district was taken over. by the_ state last summer. . St~te officials, in consultation with Pulaski County Special district lead.ers, are imposing salary cuts for the 2012-1_3sc hool year, in part through a two-day reduction in the teacher work year plus the phaseout of salary cred-its that employees receive for a key role in clarifying that ever, the district's longest-ten- district-taught short courses. for both $ides.\"  ured eynployees -those at the Little Rock School Dis- Teachers in the 25,000- top or their salary schedules trict teachers have typically student !district with 3,800 - are ineligible for the step in- received annual across-theemploye~ s\nhave a~ee-year creases, which range between board raises. contract that calls for annual 2 percent and 3 percent. In the -2010-11_,schoyoel ar, negotiatio.ns on' salaries and The Little Rock district-is teachers and support staff other financial benefits. likely to be the only one of received a 1.5 percent across- In recent years, inolud- the three districts in Pulaski the-board pay increase, an ing this year, district leaders County to provide ac-ross- increase to the district's conand teachers have waited un- the-board raises to its teach- tribution to health-insurance til the middle of the school ers and other employees this premiums and a$750 bonus. year to begin salary talks so school year. In the 2009-10 school year, district officials, have more The North Little Rock. the Little Rock School Board accurate informalioh on any School Board last week re- -and the teachers union aprevenue that is,avai!able for jected a request from that proved a 1.25 percent pay across-the-board.employee district's Personnel Policies raise for teachers. pay raises. Comeflittee to provide a 3 In 2008-09, the pay raise While there has been no percent raise to the districts was 0.5 percent\n_in 2007-08, across-the:board raise so far teachers, saying that financial it was 2 percent. In 2006-07, this year, eligible. Little Rock uncertainty made it a difficult employees received a 3 perdistrict employees did,receive time to increase salary costs.  cent raise. Step increases for a step increase.for an cldition- Teachers and other. em- experience also were paid in al, year of teaching experience, ployees in the Pulaski County each of those years to eligible as th~y.~q,o\\every ye~i.How- Special-School District agree.d  employees. ., Gunfireleaves LR students uninjured Alabama space camp hit by shots DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE STAFF AND WlRE REPORTS A group of Little Rock fifth-graders attending space camp in Huntsville, Ala., were never in any danger when shots were fired at the U.S. Space \u0026amp; Rocket Center's Davidson facility Thursday morning, a school district spokesman said. Shortly before 10 a.m., three shots were fired into the building that houses the Saturn V rocket, with at least one bullet striking the rocket, a Huntsville television station reported. Investigators said the shots likely were fired from Interstate 565, which runs adjacent to the facility. Pam Smith, a spokesman for the Little Rock School District, said the 43 students from Carver Magnet Elementary School were in an exhibit in the interior of the facility when the shots were fired and were \"never in harm's way.\" Smith said it was the students' last day at the center before returning to Little Rock today. The students left Little Rock on Wednesday with three teachers and eight chaperones for the space center, a trip students from the school have made regularly for 20 years, she said. Parents were notified in a letter and phone call Thursday afternoon, Smith said. No injuries were reported in the shooting. 2 unions in district plan rally at Capitol ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and the Pulaski Associatioh of Suppo~ t Staff, .employee organizations that lost the right last month to represent Pulaski County Special School District employees in contract negotiations, are hosting a rally on the state Capitol steps Saturday. The rally, which is to start at 10 a.m., will feature speakers Marty Nix, president of the teacher organization, and Emry Chesterfield, president of the support staff. pne of the purposes of the rally is to enable members of the public to show support (or teachers and support staff 1~ the Pulaski County Special district and in all public schools, according to a news rel~ase issued by the organizations. Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell last month directed Superintendent Jerry Guess to sever the ties between the district and the two unions, and terminate the employees' contracts that were otherwise due to expire in June 2015. The district, which is in fiscal distress and under state control without an elected school board, also was directed to carry out nearly $11 million in budget cuts for the coming 2012-13 school year. Those cuts, including a twoday reduction in the teacher work year, will result in reductions in employee pay. Guess complied with the directives from the state. Union leaders have said they will fight the loss of the con~ ract and negotiating rights m court. Studentsu rgej udge to keepd istrictsa' id ARKANSAS DEMOC!t'.T-GAZEITE Attorneys-for black students in the three Pulaski County school districts on Friday urged a fede/al judge to deny the state's request to be released from financial and other commitments it made in a 1989 school agreement in the county's long-running desegregation case. The Arkansas attorney general's office, on behalf of the state Department of Education, filed a motion in March asking U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. to relieve the state of 23-yearold obligations, which have resulted in the payment of more than $1 billion in desegregation aid to the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special schc:ioi districts. ' In that time, the Little Rock and North Little Rock districts have been declared unitary and the Pulaski County Special district partially unitary by the federal courts. The.state has argued that the changed circumstances in the districts warrant the release h --\\ ~ L More information  on the Web Dislriclsta keovearn dd esegregation arkansa~online.com/documents/ of the state.  J John Walker and Robert Pressman, attorneys for the black students who are known as the Joshua intervenors, argued Friday that that the Pulaski County Special district has fallen short of fully implementing its desegregation plan \"due in large part to the historic, laissez faire approach of the State to simply pay money and do nothing else to help the district meet its obligations.\" The Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special distric\nts filed motions ii}. opposition to the state's motion earlier this week. Marshall has set a,.May 21 deadline for the attorney general's office to file its response. No hearing date.has been set for the issue. 2B  SATURDAYM, AY 5, 2012  1 % school raise approvedin LR Board also OKs $16.92 more for contributionto insurance CYNTHIAH OWELL ARKANSADS EMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board at a b~ief special meeting Friday approved a 1 percent across-the-board raise for nearly all employees and a $16.92 monthly increase in the district's contribution to employee health insurance costs for the current 2011-12 school year. The board voted 6-0 to finalize the compensation agreement that was negotiated between representatives of the district and the Little Rock Education Association, the contract-bargaining agent for teachers and for support staff such as custodians, bus drivers, security officers and secretaries. Union members approved the agreement at a meeting Thursday, Peggy Nabors, a spokesman for the association's team, told the School Board. While the association negotiated on behalf of teachers and the support staff, the raise ~d health-insurance increase will appLy to all employees, including principals and associate superintendents.' Only Superintendent Morris Holmes will not automatically receive the 1 percent increase. He negotiates his contract separately with the School Board. The raise, retroactive to the beginning of this school year, and the insurance increase ret- : reactive to Jan. 1, will be paid to employees in their June 15 paycheck, said Kelsey Bailey, the district's chief financial ')fficer. Individual teachers will see their salaries increase by 1 percent to as much\u0026lt;as 3.5 percent this year as a result of the raise coupled with an automatic step increase for experience that eligible teachers began receiving earlier this school year. . The district's most exp\u0026lt;\n. nenced teachers - those at  the top of the salary schedule - are ineligible for the experience step and will receive just the l percent increase. .The d'istrict's new starting salary for a teacher with a bachelor's degree and no experience will be $33,617.8-5 up from the current $33,285T. he district's top teacher salary is $64,841. A 1 percent increase will add $648.41 to that. The $16.92 increase in the district's contribution to the  monthly health insurance premiums for participating employees will indease the ~ontribution for participatmg employees from $301.44 a month to $31836. That is equal to the total cost for single cv ,'erage of an employee. The cost of the raise will be_ about $2.l million, Bailey said. The cost of the insurance benefit will be $350,000 for the second half of the 20ll- 12 school year, or $700,000 for ~e entire 2012 calendar year. Board member Dianne Curry thanl\u0026lt;ed the board and union teams for their work saying she knew it was a dif~ ficult decision., The two teams called in a fedei:al and state mediator to assi~t in reac~g a tentative agre~ment. ' . .' 'ffhes'e are to~gh times/' Cl\\F~ _ad9ed.\" Yer y'few ~om~ parues\nare giving any increases.  We're happy because we know our employees work hard - our teachers and support stilff,\" she said. Teachers in the 25,000-student district with 3,800 employees, have a three-year contract t~at calls for annual negotiat10ns on salaries and other financial benefits. District leaders and teachers waited until the rn!ddle of the school year to begm salary talks so district officials would have more accurate information on available revenue for pay raises. The contract expires this summer, so representatives of the employees and the district a_ree xp~cted td begin negotiations Wlthin weeks on terms for a successor contract. Board member Greg Adams made the motion Friday to approve .the compensation package after Holmes recommended it.  But Holmes also,told the board that work is under way on the 2012-13 district budget, and he expects to ask the board to hold a work session s~on on what he anticipates will be some complex issues . He sai? the budget plarming ~ takemto account the poss_ 1ble(o ss of state desegregatJon aid that now totals about $40 million a year, as well as so1\n!e school building needs. We don't plan to leave a stone unturned to educate you and your education of us_,\"H olmes _said.\"W e hope this.commuruty will look into the Jaws of this budget and into the guts. We want to show ev_erybody what we have. Lay this budget open. This is serious business for us. We are very concerned about some issues.\" Two school um onssue overax mg State can't end pactsf, ilingss ay CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASDEMOCRAT-GAZE1TI Teacher and supportstaff unions in the Pulaski County Special School District on Friday legally chal- 1 enged state and district actions to end collective bargaining and terminate the employees' union-negotiated contracts. The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff filed similar but separate amended complaints in Pulaski County Cir_c4it Court against the Arkansas Department of Edui:ation, the school district a'nd members of two newly formed personnel policies committees in the district. i. The lawsuits accuse the Education Department of exceeding its authority in directing the district to withdraw union recognition and terminate the contracts.  Friday's lawsuits amend the March 5 lawsuits filed by the unions over the es- 0See UNIONSP,a ge 3A, More recognition and that the per-information sonnel policies committees Unions -\\.. dering withdrawal of union  Contihued from Page 1 A on the Web be declared invalid and the tablishment of the personnel L policies they propose not be policies committees. Latest motion filings implemented. The expanded lawsuit~ fol- arkansasonline.com/documents/ Pulaski County Special low in the wake of the Edu- __ ..,_________ School District Superinten-cation Depart~ent's April. district but ensure fair and eq: dent Jerry Guess said Friday 20 directive to the Pulaski uitable treatment of employees that he and the district's atCounty Special district to and give them \"a meaningful torneys had not seen the latend recognition of the two voi:ce\" in contract negotlations est -lawsuits, but said district employee unions and to ter- and grievance hearings.. leaders had tried to worlc with minate the contracts - called Blackstock argued that the two associations.  professional negotiations when state law authorizes the \"We have said frol:n the agreeierits ~ as part of an EducationDepartmenttomake beginning that our)ntenoverall plan by.the state and binding recommendations to tion was to find a common districf\\:o cut $11 million in. a superin,tendent regarding ground where we could.get the district's 2012-13 budget. staffing, it is not directing the the district ori-a solid fililin- 1]:i:ed istrict, 'c1assified by scrapping of the contract but cial course ari.d do iliat with the s~::i.tela st year as fis,cally deciding the number of work- the cooperation and particidistre'ssetl, is under statfcon-  ei.-sa district needs. . pation of PACT and PASS,\" trol,. operatipg with :a -'state:- ' The lawsu1ts fuithe'r con- Guess said. -' ,, ', ' appointed sup,erintendent tend that the Pulaski County . He said district employees and no locally elected school Special district bi\neached the .ciio~e to form. thl/per~oruiel board. '  '  employee contracts-:- which policies com'inittees'eailler The Friday s\n_\n_itsa ccuse expire at the.end o(the2014-15 this spring ',',b'ec.ausei t bethe siate,'agencyidf applying school y.ear.:....b: Y,w ithdraw- came obvious to them that rules'i-egardiii.g ,fisc\nald istress ing union recognition, termi- PACT and P}\\SSd id not seem in a way that will \"injure\" the riating the contracts and by to be interested in working to plaintiffs. '  . . failing to exercise all the steps a reasonable compromise.\" The suits,-filed by attorney in the contract to resolve dis- S_eth ~lomeley, a spokes- Clayton Bl~ckstock also 3.F-putes. Those steps include man for the state Education gue that the state exceeded its negotiations, mediation, fact- Department, on Friday relegal authority in dealing with finding and a hearing before ferred to April 20 documents a fiscally distressed district. a school board. issued by the agency stating \"The [Arkansas Depart- The. suits also say the dis- the reasons and_legal basis for ment of Education] does not trict violated state law by al- the state's decisions. have the statutory authority lowing the formation of the In an April 20 statement, to order the wholesale scrap- personnel policies commit- Arkansas Education Comping of the [professional ne- tees to advise district lead- missioner Tom Kimbrell said gotiations agreements] under ers about employee benefits his goal \"is to return control the guise of this statute and and working conditions at a of the PCSSD to whom it becorresponding Rules,\" Black- time when the unions were longs - the district's patrons stock wrote. recognized as the employee and a locally elected school He also said the contract bargaining agents. board. This will require \"coBtains a plethora of em- Blackstock _asked that steady financial belt tightenployee policies, many of which the professional negotia- ing wherever possible and ophave been in effect for over tions agreements remain in erational efficiency. The focus two decades,\" that do not af- full force and effect, that the. must be on providing the best feet the fiscal practices of the state be stopped from or- educational opportunities for Besidest he two cases in Pulaski County Circuit Court, the union recognitiona nd terminated contract issues also are , pending in federal court before U.S. . District Judge D. -Price Marshall Jr. the students of PCSSD.\" The plaint\niffs in the lawsuit regarding the teachers union isimes are the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, Pamela Fitzgiven and Loveida Ingram. Judy Stockrahm also is listed as a plaintiff but has asked to withdraw. The defendants named in the teacher un.iori lawsuit are Robin Dorey, Callie Matthews, Kristina Laughy, Diane Wagner, Ella Sergeant, Nick Witherspoon, Paul Brewer, Veronica Perkins, Jackie Smith, the school district and the Education Department. Brewer, the district's executive director of human resources, and Principals Perkins and Smith are all admin. istrat~rs appointed to the p~rsonnel policies committee. The other individual de-  fendants are teachers elected by their colleagues earlier this year to serve on the personnel policies committee except for Sergeant, who was elected but chose not to serve. She has been replaced by Witherspoon. The teachers union lawsuit is assigned to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mary McGowan. Lonriie Coney, Belinda Pearl and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff are the plaintiffs in the suit challenging the end of recognition for the support staff. The defendants in that suit are Keith Cooper, Cheryl Howey, Regena English, Becky Del Rio, James Watson, John Sparks, Charles Blake, Derrick Brown, Bill Goff, the district and the Education Department. Goff is the district's chief financial officer, and Brown is the chief technology officer. The other individuals are support-staff employees elected to the personnel policies committee. The support-staff union lawsuit is assigned to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wen-dell Griffen. Besides the two cases in Pulaski County Circuit Court, the union recognition and terminated contract issues also _are pending in federal court before U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr,  The Pulaski County Special district last month asked the judge, who is presiding in the district's desegregation case, to declare the state ana distdct actions legal. On Friday, the attorney general's office filed a response opposing the Pulaski County Special district's request, saying that the matter falls outside the parameters of the desegregation case and outside the federal judge's authority.  TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012  3B Shinnh onoreda s Educatoro f Year OtherL R schoolteachersr ecognizeda t annualC rystalA wardsb anquet ARKANSADSE MOCRAT-GAZETTE Bridget Sweetser Shinn, an English teacher at Horace Mann Magnet Middle School, received the 2012 Marian G. Lacey Educator of the Year Award at the Little Rock School District's annual Crystal Awards banquet Monday night at the Embassy Suites Hotel. Also honored at the banquet were:  Sarah Jane Relano of Williams Magnet Elementary, who was named the Little Rock School District ElementarSy chooTl eachero f the Year.  Natalie L. Holliman of Dunbar Magnet Middle School, who was named Middle School Teacher of the Year.  Keith Richardson of Central High,w how asn amedH ighS chool Teacheor f theY ear. Teachers from every school in the district were recognized during the banquet and received commemorative trophies. The honored teachers at the high school level were:  Central:F rankB aker,R ichardsona nd BettyeW illiams.  J.A.F airA: llisonB elcherC, ynthia Dokoutchaaenf d MaryJ acobs.  Hall: Chandle Carpenter, Connie Mccann and Sonja Williams.  McClellanL: esa Booker,L inda Peoplesa nd MargaretR eed.  Parkview: Brenda Bankston, Linda Neal and Debra Rogers. The honored teachers at the middle-school level were:  CloverdaleL: akeithaA ustina nd BrendaT homas.  Dunbar: Holliman and Kristi Ward.  ForestH eightsT: royG reena nd HarriettaL indsey.  Henderson:A ntoinetteJ arrett and MalindaM artin-Johnson.  Mabelvale: Karen Kelley and Tamara Rowe.  Horace Mann: Shinn and Wendy Welch.  Pulaski Heights: Janet Buford and Lee Thompson.  Accelerated Learning Center: Marty Burton.  Felder Academy: Mindy Williams.  HamiltonL earningC enter:P hyllis Tartt.  MetropolitanC areerT echnical Center: Barbara Swihart. The honored teachers at the elementary-school level were:  Bale:K athleenG regory.  BaselineJ: amieT homas.  BookerT: ammyH igdon.  Brady:T ammieR hea.  Carver: Jason Crader.  Chicot: Nadine James.  Dodd: Amanda Swift.  Fair Park: Lori Kriz.  ForestP ark:M ichelleG raves.  FranklinM: itziN icks.  FulbrightH: aleyA rmstrong.  Geyer Springs: Neresa Williams.  Gibbs:T racyB arbarotto.  JeffersonA: mberM atthews.  King: Candi Van Patter.  MabelvaleK: elliH edrick.  McDermottP: aigeP uckett.  Meadowcliff: Angela Rodriguez.  Otter Creek: Sharonda Hughes.  Pulaski Heights: Juliet Ste-phens.  Don Roberts: Holly Jenkins.  RockefellerK: elli Fuller.  RomineL: indseyW elch.  StephensP: akitaS hutes.  Terry: Dorothy Malone.  WakefieldA: lison Evans.  WashingtonM: eganH airston.  Watson: Mildred Butler.  Western Hills: Sharon Warren.  Williams:R elano.  Wilson: Christy Cecil.  WoodruffJ: essicaW eaver. ArkansaDs emocrat.-.( !,a.zette LETTERS Ours ystemi s top-he1~vy Cynthia Howell's recent story on the Pulaski County Special School Dis-trict's financial woes really caught my attention as a very good story representative of many schools' woes. What caught my attention most was that we have a school district with 17,000 students supported by 3,000 employees. Small teacher-to-student ratios are a wonderful teaching and learning tool. We all know the first thing that happens when a school gets into fman- . cial distress is that the classrooms get more students per teacher. Let's factor in a very liberal amount of \"nonteacher\" support to keep the school going, say 20 percent of the 3,000 employees are staff (secretar-ies, janitorial, physical maintenance, bus drivers, etc.), giving 600 staff, and leaving 2,400 \"teachers.\" I think this is a very high number, based on my education experience\n17,000 students to 2,400 teachers is a wonderful 7 to 1 ratio. We know this is not the case, so we must ask the question: \"How many administrators does it take to bankrupt a-school?\" Quoting Marty Nix, \"the teachers in this district cannot shoulder all of the cuts\" is quite an understatement. The problem with Pulaski County is a good sampling of what is wrong with the education system in Arkansas. We have too many administrators in the entire system, from the Arkansas Department of Education all the way down to each school with individual superintendents. And we wonder why the system is broke. STEVEGANN Russellville DODTDeac hing Where Are They Now? Cole Hadden: Reader, Writer, Inventor Louise Carpenter, Reading Recovety Teacher, Little Rock, Arkansas In the fall of 2007, Cole entered m)' kindergarten classroom at Carver Magnet Elementary in the Lierle Rock School District as a happy boy who loved to swordplay. He was most interested in science and hisrory, and it was clear to his classmates char Cole knew a lot. I remember how excited he was when asked to share ahom komodo dragons as we read books about reptiles, because he knew more about chem rhan I did. Nor only was Cole a bright kindergarten student, he was also very kind and considerate of all students in the classroom. He was every child's friend. Cole was the kind of kindergarten student char all teachers would wane in rheir classroom. Cole enjoyed reading more than writing. As you can imagine, he had rremendous oral language. Nor only could he talk about komodo dragons, bm many ocher animals and species 34 Journal cf Reoding Recovery Spring 2012 as well as historical faces. Reading and writing slowed him down, but he cried very hard. Cole became frustrated when composing and writing stories because he had so much to say bur couldn't ger it down on paper. He made adequate progress in kindergarten, bur he struggled. When Cole went co first grade, he transferred co another school and it just so happens rhar I did, roo. I received the opportunity to train for Reading Recovery chat year and ended up in the same school as Cole, although neither one of us knew the other was making a change. We both transferred to Gibbs Magnet School in the Lierle Rock School District. Cole was my very first Reading Recovery scudenc during my training year and with great success discontinued in 20 weeks. The following year, Cole's second-grade reacher recommended char he anend COLE'S K'NEX CATAPULT I oui.cr wm n kindagnrtm t,acher whm .r/,cfirst met \u0026lt;.nle in her d.1wroom. my literacy group for extra support in writing, and Cole continued ro make progress. Cole is in the fourth grade now and just completed writing a biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt. His reacher, Staci Hula, said char Cole is a wonderful scudenc. Cole's science project, citied \"Cole's K'Nex Catapult,\" won first place in the Fourth-Grade Science Fair, and he was awarded a Kindle. This was a huge honor! Cole is reading War Hom and Red Tads on his Kindle. Oh, and he still enjoys swordplay! f.011ire comin11etso track Cvle's progrm 1111IdI proud of hi, achievenwm, i11rludi11hgi. \u0026lt;ru m1 fir\nt place win in r/,e G,bh, 11-frigneSrc /,nnl Fourth-Grade Scitn.-e! :1ir. Sandy Luehrs From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Donna, Joy Springer [jspringer@gabrielmail.com] Friday, May 11, 2012 3:51 PM donnacreer@magnetschool.com 'Sandy Luehrs' RE: MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING - AGENDA High I apologize for the delay in my responding to Dr. Drefus' report, but I have been swamped with other matters. I am trying to locate in her report where the Research Questions are specifically answered. Can you tell me? It seems to me if the enrollment of magnets is declining and they are becoming more black and/or African American, we need to respond to that question Why? As I understand the purpose of the magnets was to have racial balance and help to eliminate one race schools. I hope that the principals will be able to tell me that the achievement gap is narrowing and not just be able to say: \"we met AYP\" or \"we almost met AYP.\" The data appears to me to show that the gap in achievement remains. I also have the following questions: 1) how does the magnet theme strengthen student learning to address AA student achievement? 2) can you direct my attention to the portion of the report that deals with what children are learning and its effect on their achievement? 3) are principals doing informal or formal evaluations of their programs to determine what programs work to address specific needs of students? I read the report that this is lacking?? Am I correct? Thank you. From: Sandy Luehrs [mailto:maqnet@maqnetschool.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 1:36 PM To: 'Mitchell, Sadie'\n'Bobby Acklin'\n'CLOWERS ROBERT L.'\noliver.dillinqham@arkansas.gov\n'Danny Reed (ADE)'\njsprinqer@qabrielmail.com Cc: 'Margie Powell'\n'BOWLES BRENDA'\nmarvin.burton@lrsd.org\ndaniel.Whitehorn@lrsd.org\n'(arson, Cheryl'\n'Barksdale, Mary'\n'Hobbs, Felicia'\n'Register, Sandra'\nPatricia.Boykin@lrsd.org\n'Booth, Dexter'\n'Donna Creer' Subject: MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING - AGENDA Importance: High Oops!!! I forgot to attach the agenda forthe meeting. Here it is. Sandy No virus found in this message. Checked by A VG - W\\,\\ w.an!.com Version: 2012.0.2169 / Virus Database: 2425/4991 - Release Date: 05/11/12 Sandy Luehrs From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sandy Luehrs [magnet@magnetschool.com] Thursday, April 19, 201211:42 AM 'cheryl.carson@lrsd.org'\n'Barksdale, Mary'\n'Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org'\n'Sandra.Register@lrsd.org'\n'Patricia.Boykin@lrsd.org'\n'Booth, Dexter' 'Mitchell, Sadie'\n'Donna Creer' Attachments: STIPULATION MAGNET SCHOOLS ANNUAL REPORT TO THE MRC - May 15, 2012 STIPULATION MAGNET PRINCIPALS REPORT- 2012 - MEMO.doc\nSTIPULATION MAGNET SCHOOLS - ANNUAL REPORT FORM.doc\nStipulation Magnet Principals PowerPoint - 2012.ppt Importance: High Good morning, Please see the following memorandum and attachments from Donna Creer regarding the annual report to the MRC. We have your reporting scheduled for Tuesday, May 15, 2012, with time slots as follows: 8:00 a.m. -8:30 a.m. 8:35 a.m. - 9:05 a.m. 9:10 a.m. - 9:40 a.m. 9:45 a.m. -10:15 a.m. 10:30 a.m. -11:00 a.m. 11:05 a.m. -11:35 a.m. 11:40 a.m. -12:10 p.m. 12:15 p.m. -1:00 p.m. attending. MRC Monthly Meeting (Anyone wishing to attend is more than welcome) Presenter #1 Presenter #2 Presenter #3 Presenter #4 Presenter #5 Presenter #6 LUNCH will be served -You are invited, so please let us know if you will be Please confirm that you have received this information, and provide your requested time slot for presenting ASAP. Remember, it is on a first-come/first-served basis. We will be looking forward to seeing all of you then. Sandy TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJ: DATE: Dr. Cheryl Carson, Principal - Booker Magnet Diane Barksdale, Principal - Carver Magnet Dr. Felicia Hobbs, Principal - Gibbs Magnet Sandra Register, Principal - Williams Magnet Patricia Boykin, Principal - Mann Magnet Dr. Dexter Booth, Principal - Parkview Magnet Donna Grady Creer, Executive Director Magnet Review Committee Dr. Sadie Mitchell, MRC Chairperson Associate Superintendent, LRSD Stipulation Magnet Schools Report to the MRC April 18, 2012 Thank you for clearing your calendar and preparing to attend the May 15th MRC meeting. As is customary, this is the meeting during which Stipulation magnet school principals report to the MRC. We look forward to your 20-minute (or less) report, with ten minutes allocated for Questions and Answers. Adhering to this timeline will allow all magnet schools to report during one meeting. For your information, we have attached a REPORT FORM delineating questions to be addressed. In the interest of clarity and brevity, the MRC members have requested that some report items be presented via PowerPoint and some be included as a part of your written report (see attached template for your PowerPoint format). Thanks again for compiling the information that gives us a glimpse of the current \"STATE OF THE MAGNETS.\" The data in your report is used by our office, MRC members, and their parties, as a quick reference for magnet school information. We appreciate you and your hard work. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. DGC:sl Enclosures: 1) Stipulation Magnet Schools Annual Report Form 2) Template for PowerPoint SCHOOL: STIPULATION MAGNET SCHOOLS ANNUAL REPORT FORM 2012 PRINCIPAL'S NAME: e-mail: OTHER ADMINISTRATORS (Asterisk if new): NAME: e-mail: NAME: e-mail: SCHOOL SECRETARY: direct phone: phone: phone: phone: ........................................................................ , CURRENT ENROLLMENT: RACIAL COMPOSITION: LAST YEAR'S ENROLLMENT: __ % B % NB 1. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC AND LIST ANY REQUESTS FOR BUDGET INCREASES. Justify additional staff, reinstatement of staff, programmatic thrusts, etc. 2. SHARE WITH US WHAT YOU HA VE FOCUSED ON IN YOUR ACSIP. A. Please recap how the five-year and two-year improvement plans your school received from the MRC were used to improve your school. Include past, current or planned improvements. 3. PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CHANGES/IMPROVEMENTS (planned, inprogress or completed). 4. REPORT ON CURRICULUM/COURSE OFFERINGS (planned, proposed, or added). 5. DID YOUR SCHOOL MEET AYP? If not, please discuss subpopulations and interventions put in place to address student deficiencies. 6. LIST OUTSTANDING OR NEW RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES. 7. SHARE A RECAP OF HONORS AND/OR A WARDS WON (staff, school, student). 8. RECAP PARTICIPATION ATNATIO AL, REGIONAL, OR LOCAL CONFERENCES OR INSERVICES. 9. PROVIDE INFORMATION AS TO NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO HA VE WITHDRAWN OR EXITED YOUR SCHOOL'S PROGRAM AND THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. 10. SUPPLY ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU WISH TO INCLUDE.\nStipulation Magnet Principals ANNUAL REPORT to the MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE 2011-2012 (LIST YOUR NAME HERE) (name of school) School website: Face book/twitter: Principal's Name: E-Mail: Direct Phone Line: Asst. Principal's Name: E-Mail: Direct Phone Line: (Area of responsibility, if applicable): School Secretary: Direct Phone: Counselor: Direct Phone: PTA President: E-Mail: Phone: SCHOOL COMPOSITION Race/ Native African Hispanic/ Multi-ethnicity American Asian American Latino White Ethnic Number and \\.,omplete (complete (completP tsomplete (complete (complete Gender your your your our your your of numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers children here) here) here) here) here) here) .,omplet .,omplete (complete (complete (complet .,omplete /OUr your your your 10Ur your Number numbers numbers numbers numbers umbers numbers of staff here) here) here) here) here) here) SCHOOL COMPOSITION cont. Grade Configuration: (List total number of students per grade level, by Glv ,eth V y d gender) REQUESTS FOR BUDGET INCREASES Faculty/Staff: Curriculum Related Materials: Equipment/Facility: Other (please list): (NOTE: List \"none\" in each category where you are not requesting an increase.) RECAP ONLY ON POWER INT Detailed information should be provided in written report. CURRENT ACSIP FOCUS (Please provide a copy of your current ACSIP report to each MRC member in your written report.) RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT SCHOOL STRUCTURAL CHANGES/IMPROVEMENTS (If any occurred during 2011-12 or are proposed for 2012-13. Do not include any prior to 2011-12.) RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report. CURRICULUM/COURSE OFFERINGS Changes in 2011-12 or Proposed Changes for 2012-13: (NOTE: ONLY changes this year or needed changes next year, not the entire curriculum offered.) RECAP ONLY ON WERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) Achieved/Not Achieved: Overall: Math/Literacy Areas Individually: Subpopulation info: Provide data for the past three years showing achievement gap in math and literacy, in particular, on African-American student achievement. (Provide by grade, race and gender.) LRSD's STRATEGIC PLANNING GOALS Achieved/Not Achieved: (Show evidence for Benchmark performance by grade, race and gender) INTERVENTION OR SUPPORT SERVICES Provided by your school (to students or teachers) to enhance academics, test taking skills or to raise test scores. RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report. RECRUITMENT Outstanding/New Recruitment Activities. RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report. SCHOOL HONORS/AWARDS School/Staff /Student Recognitions. Participation at National/Regional/Local Conferences. RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report. WITHDRAWALS Provide number of students who have withdrawn or exited your school's program and the reasons for doing so ( y grade, race and gender). DISCIPLINE REPORT Provide report which includes suspensions, expulsions and in-school discipline efforts (by grade, race and gender). MISCELLANEOUS Information you may wish to include but not covered in previous slides) Detailed information should be provided in written report.\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":201,"next_page":202,"prev_page":200,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":2400,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"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":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"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":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}