{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_38","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":["2012-05"],"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","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/38"],"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\nf - Dr. Tom W. Kimbrell Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Joe Black Newport Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Toyce Newton Crossett Mireya Reith Fayetteville Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019  (501) 682-4475 W' ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION May 31, 2012 I Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 RECEIVED JUN 1 2012 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 DPMIHDY Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of May, 2012 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~C-~ Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 DPM/HDY PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO. l,etal DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for May, 2012. BY: ~C-~~ J ~ - Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar No. 2001-205 Ark. Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I\nJeremy Lasiter, certify that on May 31, 2012, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation- Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 ~~c:l ori\"tttj : i~forrn~tt\u0026lt;?n :av9ijabie jfAprif-30\n,_2012, ] h 0A1fE c ?T2ufaticf t he Stite Foupd~t_i,on )=unding Jor FY J1 t12: siJbjecf lb 'periqdi~ adjustments'. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. ActualasofMay31,2012 Based on the information availabie at April 30, 2012, the ADE calculated for FY 11 /12, subject to periodic adjl,!Stments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 On April 30, 2012, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 11 /12 were as follows: LRSD - $50,469,962 NLRSD - $28,619,857 PCSSD - $35, 139,086 Th~ allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 11 /12 at April 30, 2012, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $61 ,907,286 NLRSD - $34,983,681 PCSSD -$43,018,176 D. Determine the number of Magnet students resid ing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 2012, for FY11/12, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 2012, for FY11/12, subject to periodic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the Staff Attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 On October 26, 2010, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,336. Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 2012, for FY11/12, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 Distributions for FY 11/12 at April 30, 2012, totaled $11,855,367. Allotment calculated for FY 11/12 was $14,373,720 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 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. Actual as of May 3f'.2012 Distributions for FY t1f12 at A~nl 30, 2012, were: LRSD - $4,478,595 NLRSD - $5,590,822 PCSSD- $10,101,019 The allotments calculated for FY 11/12 at A,pri( 30, 2012, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4,458,463 NLRSD - $5,564,846 PCSSD - $9,761,876 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of May 31, 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 May 31 , 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 May 31 , 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 09/10: 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 bu_g_get. 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 May 31, 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 May 31 , 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 May 31 , 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 05/06 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 09/1 O 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 May 31 , 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: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. 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 May 31 , 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 May 31, 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 May 31 , 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 fhe 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 May 31, 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. Q. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of May 31, 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 May 31, 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 May 31, 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. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each School Year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of May 31, 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 May 31 , 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 May 31, 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 $92,50Q. 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 May 31, 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 May 31 , 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 F 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 May 31, 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 air 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 ATIE Administrative Team, the Arkansas State Board of Education and the Districts. Then it was filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation Staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its Executive Summary were provided to the ADE Administrative Team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 Schools in the ECOE Process and their School Improvement Plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 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 May 31 , 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, -rg97 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation Data Collection Workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 Schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its Executive Summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its Executive Summary were filed with the Court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its Executive Summary were made available to the districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 Schools in FY 97/98. 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 May 31, 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 May 31, 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 May 31, 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 foiFebruary 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 May 31 , 2012 (Continued) On October 11 , 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Grnup 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 May 31 , 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 Gmup 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 disct::ss 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 May 31 , 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 beer:i 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. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004, at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE Staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the School Districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed desegregation funding by the ADE. 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 May 31 , 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 May 31 , 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 superv1s1on. 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 May 31 , 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 May 31 , 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 rmplementation 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 (ODM), 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 ODM 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. 2 7 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 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 in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 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 May 31 , 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 May 31 , 2012 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, 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. 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 May 31 , 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, up-dated 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 ir:iformation 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 May 31, 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 R\u0026lt;Jck 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 County 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 May 31, 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 May 31 , 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 relates 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 fin ished. 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. 3 5 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 impact~ of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 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 May 31 , 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 May 31 , 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 May 31 , 2012 The information for th is 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. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31 , 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 May 31, 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 May 31 , 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 81 st General Assembly were requested from the Office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior Legislative Session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 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 May 31 , 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- Distdcts. 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 May 31, 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 school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 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 May 31, 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 May 31, 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 will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the District did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, a letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the District did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate Committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the School Districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The Districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 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 May 31, 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. ActualasofMay31 , 2012 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continae to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31 , 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 May 31 , 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. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the Teacher Scholarship Program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE Administrative Team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its Executive Summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 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 May 31 , 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. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its Executive Summary 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 May 31 , 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 AD E's role and monitoring obligations were presented -to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its Executive Summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its Quarterly Meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its Executive Summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's Monitoring Plan and Monitoring Reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary. 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 May 31 , 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 g_Qal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring Plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the Districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, Septemb.er 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 May 31 , 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 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. 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 May 31 , 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 De.segregation 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 May 31, 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 Summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. 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 May 31, 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 May 31 , 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 May 31 , 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 1-4, 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 May 31 , 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 of 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 May 31, 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 Exe_cutive 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 May 31 , 2012 (Continue\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_329","title":"Chicago Cold War: Stuart Rice","collection_id":"kai_chm-oh","collection_title":"Oral History Collection (Chicago History Museum)","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Poland, 52.0, 20.0","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":["Rice, Stuart","Yaros, Craig"],"dc_date":["2012-04-25"],"dcterms_description":["Dr. Stuart Rice was born in New York in 1932 and attended Harvard University. He began teaching at the University of Chicago in 1957 and was a member of the board for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in the late 1970s."],"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":["Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Organization)","Oral history","Interviews","Cold War","Antinuclear movement","Doomsday Clock"],"dcterms_title":["Chicago Cold War: Stuart Rice"],"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/329"],"dcterms_temporal":["1950/1970"],"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: 32:41minutes"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_becu_275","title":"Dr. Reed's Farewell Video, April 19, 2012","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2012-04-19"],"dcterms_description":["This video recording features Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed's Farewell video, in honor of her retirement as the fifth president and other accomplishments for the occassion of her Retirement Gala. This video contains a slideshow of pictures, highlighting Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed's successes as Bethune-Cookman University's president."],"dc_format":["video/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American women","Special events"],"dcterms_title":["Dr. Reed's Farewell Video, April 19, 2012"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/275"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. http://www.cookman.edu/academics/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["digital moving image formats"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_161","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":["2012-04-17"],"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","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/161"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nMAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA April 17, 2012 I. Call to Order II. Reading of the Minutes of December 13, 2011 III. Executive Director's Report IV. A. Correspondence B. Financial Transactions C. Newspaper Articles D. Recruitment Update E. LRSD Original Magnet Schools Personnel - Vacancies and New Hires A. Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report - Review of Final Draft B. Discussion and Review of Format for Stipulation Magnet Schools Annual Principal Reports C. Set Next Meeting Date IV. Adjournment ' MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES December 13, 2011 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 December 13, 2011. Members Present: Guest: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson - LRSD Bobby Acklin, NLRSD Dr. Robert Clowers, PCSSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Danny Reed, ADE Joy Springer, Joshua Intervenors Margie Powell, Monitor - ODM The meeting was called to order at 8:35 a.m. by Chairperson Dr. Sadie Mitchell. She immediately called for a reading of the minutes of October 25, 2011. Joy Springer made a motion to accept the minutes as presented, after a correction of a date was made, and Danny Reed seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the minutes were approved as presented. Donna Grady Creer provided the Executive Director's report. She called the Committee's attention to items in correspondence, with the first item being an e-mail to a parent requesting information about the application process for a magnet school. Copies of the e-mail were given to MRC members for their information, but no action was required by the MRC. An e-mail was sent to Diane Barksdale, Principal of Carver Magnet, acknowledging Carver's participation in the LEGO Education Showcase Grant to be held at Barnes and oble in North Little Rock on ovember 12, 2011. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. A copy of the Court Order from Judge D. P. Marshall, Jr., which transmitted the Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget to all parties in the case to request their response if they have any objections to the budget, was given to MRC members. No action was required of the MRC. Ms. Creer sent an e-mail to Diane Barksdale, Principal of Carver Magnet, to tell her how wonderful the LEGO event was at Barnes and Noble in November. Copies of the e-mail were given to MRC members for their perusal. A memorandum was sent to all Magnet Marketing University members (Magnet Marketing Team) to remind them of the upcoming Magnet Fair at Park Plaza on January 21, 2012. Copies of the memorandum were given to MRC members for their information. An e-mail was sent to Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, Consultant for the Interdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Report, in response to her request for a list of MRC members. Copies were given to MRC members, but no action was required by the MRC. A series of e-mails between Donna Creer and Suellen Vann, Communications Director for the Arkansas School Boards Association, regarding Ms. Creer's attendance at the ASBA Conference during a session entitled \"Using Data to Drive Student Success.\" Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Bills in the amount of $3,372.04 were presented for payment. Ms. Creer provided a recap of the expenses, and Oliver Dillingham made a motion to pay the bills. Danny Reed seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. Newspaper articles since the previous MRC meeting were given to MRC members. Ms. Creer provided a recap of the articles. With regard to a recruitment update, Ms. Creer informed the MRC members that several activities are already in progress. She reported that Carver Magnet's LEGO program at Barnes and Noble was a tremendous success and had a great turnout. Magnet Fair will be held on January 21, 2012, at Park Plaza Mall. A component is being added for positive points. Some former magnet school students will speak about their time in a magnet school, and plans are to put their comments on video so it can be on the schools' websites. Plans are also being made to make an ongoing commercial that will appear on the district's website. The MRC Office is working with Little Rock School District to make sure that the LRSD newsletter will be covering magnet schools. Ms. Creer had sent an e-mail to the Stipulation magnet schools requesting updated, accurate information about the Math Science options available to students. Responses by some of the schools were provided to MRC members for their information. -2- An e-mail was received from the LRSD Student Registration Office providing information about available seats for the second semester. Joy Springer asked if PCS SD and NLRSD filled all their seats. Ms. Creer said that is the reason they are having a meeting for semester updates right now. Margie Powell, ODM Monitor, noted that her office has a new enrollment report for NLRSD. A new brochure from Parkview Magnet was received in the MRC Office via e-mail. Copies were provided to MRC members for their information. Ms. Creer reported that there are no changes in the Stipulation Magnet Schools personnel at this rime. Dr. Mitchell did inform the MRC members, though, that Dr. Felicia Hobbs, Principal at Gibbs Magnet, may be filling a few positions. Ms. Creer asked if any MRC members had a chance to read at any of the schools during Reading Day. She went to Williams Magnet and is going to try to put some information on Facebook, etc. A draft of the Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report was given to MRC members for their review. A conference call was then placed to Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus to discuss the report with her. Questions included:  Research  Magnet Schools Effect on Disparity  Ten-Year Review  Student Retention/Exit  Parents' Perception  Number of Free and Reduced Lunch. Several questions were brought forth to Dr. Dreyfus. The first one was if the district's policy was followed as the evaluation was being done. Ms. Springer also asked what the questions are that are being answered in this report. Dr. Dreyfus said that she looked for information if these schools are maintaining their role with regard to diversity in the schools. Are the schools able to meet state standards on core subjects? How are the schools maintaining their core goals of a magnet school? What are their strategies for doing that and do they have strategies for accomplishing this? How are they handling the challenges and how are they addressing them? Ms. Springer noted that she understood this and, as a member of the Joshua Intervnors, she wants to know the impact on African-American achievement. Ms. Springer then asked about the research questions. She asked Dr. Dreyfus if the questions to parents, students and teachers address the questions she asked? Dr. Dreyfus said that she used the climate survey PRE used for the district. -3- I !~ I I More questions were presented to Dr. Dreyfus with regard to disparity. Dr. Dreyfus said that she could go back over the last five years to find out that the data is accurate. Dr. Mitchell said that she would like for that to be done. Dr. Dreyfus said that she will use the same subgroups that LRSD uses with their accountability plan. It was agreed by consensus that the MRC's primary subgroup is Black and White. Oliver Dillingham also noted that numbers are important. Ms. Springer also asked about Pages 6-9 where Dr. Dreyfus talks about perception. Was there any reason why this information is lumped into one area and not broken down by schools? Dr. Dreyfus noted that it was determined by how many students answered the questions. She requested two years back to see if the year was represented. Dr. Mitchell said that next year, the sampling will be much better. LRSD is doing something different to make sure that they get better responses. Mr. Dillingham called attention to Page 7. He asked if the percentage was for magnet schools? Dr. Clowers said another column is needed. People looking at the report can then see that it would add up to 100%. Dr. Mitchell thanked Dr. Dreyfus for her participation in the conference call, and said that the MRC will be looking forward to the completed report. A discussion was held with regard to a raise in salary for the Donna Creer and Sandra Luehrs. Bobby Acklin made a motion that the MRC determine an average of the three school districts and approve a raise in salary. Joy Springer seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. When no further business was brought before the Committee, Joy Springer made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Dr. Robert Clowers seconded the motion, and the meeting was adjourned at 10: 15 a.m. -4- ! 17011)\n!- . . Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} TO: Dr. Jerry Guess, Superintendent - PCSSD Dr. Morris Holmes, Superintendent - LRSD FROM: Dr. Tom Kimbrell, Education Commissioner -ADE Mr. Ken Kirspel,~erintendent - NLRSD Donna Grady Cr ecutive Director SUBJ: DATE: Magnet Review C mmittee MAGNET SCHOOL FAIR 2012-January 21, 2012 January 11, 2012 Thank you for your support of the Interdistrict Magnet School Program. Your involvement in the program helps ensure its continued success. The 17th Annual Magnet School Fair will be held on Saturday, January 21, 2012, at Park Plaza Mall, from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. This memorandum comes to cordially invite you to attend. We welcome you to visit any, or all, of the magnet school booths staffed by school administrators, staff, parents, students and volunteers. They are prepared to answer questions about their school's program. Throughout the day, magnet school student performance groups will showcase at the stage area in front of the Men's Department entrance to Dillard's. We invite you to attend and to speak to the Magnet Fair attendees if you so desire. If you would like to briefly (3-5 minutes) address the Magnet Fair attendees, please have someone in your office contact Sandy at 758-0156. Once again, thank you. We look forward to seeing you at the 17th Annual Magnet School Fair on Saturday, January 21, 2012, from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. DGC:sl cc: Dr. Sadie Mitchell - LRSD MRC Rep Bobby Acklin - NLRSD MRC Rep Dr. Robert Clowers - PCSSD MRC Rep Oliver Dillingham - ADE MRC Rep Danny Reed - ADE MRC Rep \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Tonya Click- LRSD Student Registration Office Deana Eggleston - LRSD Student Registration Office Maria Garcia - LRSD Student Registration Office Alisha Long - LRSD Student Registration Office Michelle Oliver - PCSSD Equity and Pupil Services Office Dr. Debbie Price - LRSD Student Registration Office Yolanda Richards - PCSSD Equity and Pupil Services Office Tameka White - NLRSD Desegregation Office Donna Grady Cre~tive Director Magnet Review Committee Magnet Fair Volunteers January 11, 2012 It's that time of the year again! The Magnet Fair is just around the corner and, of course, the Magnet Review Committee needs help!! The 1 ih Annual Magnet School Fair is scheduled for SATURDAY, JANUARY 21, 2012, from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., in Park Plaza Mall. Any volunteer time you could provide for that day to help us man the \"Magnet School Information Booth\" would REALLY be appreciated. Please let Sandy know when you might be able to share a few hours of that Saturday. We really rely on your expertise. Thank you for your help. We appreciate each and every one of you. DGC:sl cc: Bobby Acklin, NLRSD Desegregation Office Dr. Brenda Bowles, PCSSD Equity and Pupil Services Office Dr. Frederick Fields, LRSDE Student Registration Office \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: Tonya Click- LRSD Deana Eggleston - LRSD Maria Garcia - LRSD Michelle Oliver - PCSSD Dr. Debbie Price - LRSD Yolanda Richards - PCS SD Tameka White - N~~ Donna Grady Cret/f,Necutive Director Magnet Review Committee A Magnet Fair Thank You January 25, 2012 THANK YOU VERY MUCH for spending a portion of ( or most of) your Saturday helping parents and students learn more about magnet school enrollment! Everything you did to help make our Annual Magnet School Fair a success is greatly appreciated. We know it is hard to give us precious Saturday time. Thanks for doing such a great job of talking to potential magnet school parents seeking school enrollment information. We commend you for your service and willingness to participate. Thanks, too, for making sure that the parents who visit, call and e-mail your office know of their opportunity to enroll their children in a magnet school. It is good to have coworkers who share your passion to fill all magnet school seats. Please know that we appreciate you. DGC:sl cc: Bobby Acklin, NLRSD Dr. Brenda Bowles, PCSSD Dr. Frederick Fields, LRSD \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} January 27, 2012 Ms. Melissa Griffith Assistant General Manager Specialty Retail 6000 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Melissa, Thanks to you and your staff for assisting us in the planning, production and presentation of this year's annual Magnet School Fair. I appreciate the time spent helping us to make things happen. You guys went \"above and beyond the call of duty,\" making sure that we had everything for a successful Fair. Having thoughtful, community-minded staff and management at Park Plaza helped us achieve success. The Park Plaza management and staff has a commitment to service, a passion for people and productivity, and we appreciate you! We particularly enjoyed seeing your daughter participate in Booker's performance. She is a very talented child, and you should be very proud. Please feel free to call our office or any of our schools if you need us. Again, thanks! s 1 ~ onna G ady Creer, Executive Director Magnet Review Committee DGC:sl \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: Magnet Marketing University Class (aka Magnet Fair Steering Committee Memb~ Donna Grady Cre~~ecutive Director - Magnet Review Committee A MAGNET FAIR THANK YOU! January 27, 2012 Thanks for playing your part to help make the Annual Magnet School Fair a success. We appreciate the work, service and passion of our dedicated Magnet Fair team! We got great media coverage which assures the calls, visits, and applications \"keep on coming!\" Thanks for ALL that you do. The magnet school booths, performance groups, and \"give-aways\" were all top notch. The attitude and information the booth staff/volunteers provided was AWESOME! Some ofus who have done this before might think it's old hat, but every chance we have to share magnet school information with a new/potential magnet parent is an opportunity to let magnets stand out. You make it happen at your magnet campus, at the Magnet Fair, and everywhere you are! Thanks to your work, we are ready to offer excellent magnet school education to the hundreds of students who will complete applications during the early registration period, and the many others who will apply before August, 2012. Once again, thank you for everything. We appreciate you and, if you need anything from our office, please do not hesitate to contact us. DGC:sl cc: Magnet Principal \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" 1. Capital Business Machines MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE BILLS TO BE PAID April 17, 2012 {Monthly Billing for MRC's Maintenance Agreement for the MRC Copier) 2. Wardell Laster, Jr. {Services Rendered to Print Application and Enrollment Forms) 3. Staples Advantage (Supplies for the MRC Office) 4. Sam's Club {Membership Renewal for the MRC Office) 5. American Home Life {MRC's Communications Expense for December, 2011) 6. Magnet Schools of America (MRC's Membership Renewal for 2011-12) 7. Kid's Directory (Advertising in January, 2012) 8. J. L. Designs {Services Rendered to Design Flyer for Magnet School Recruitment) 9. Clarence Thornton (Services Rendered to Provide Sound and Equipment for Magnet Fair) 10. Central Arkansas Newspapers (Advertising in the North Little Rock Times) 11. Capital Business Machines {Monthly Billing for MRC's Office Copier Maintenance Contract) 12. Park Plaza Mall (Facilities Charge for Magnet Fair at Park Plaza Mall) 63.72 1,725.00 174.54 70.00 182.50 225.00 515.00 35.00 1,100.00 46.50 70.20 500.00 13. Wardell Laster, Jr. (Services Rendered to Print Labels and Brochures for Magnet School Recruitment) 14. TB Productions (Services Rendered to Complete Video Recording at Magnet Fair) 15. Fastsigns (Services Rendered to Create Banner for Early Enrollment) 16. Compsys (Services Rendered to Remotely Repair MRC Office Computer) 17. El Latino (Advertising in the 1/19/12 Issue) 18. Sunbelt Convention Services (Services Rendered to Provide Set-Up for Magnet Fair 2012) 19. Allegra Print \u0026amp; Imaging (Supplies for the MRC Office) 20. American Home Life (MRC's Communications Expense for January, 2012) 21. Leader Publishing, Inc. (Advertising in January, 2012 for Magnet Fair and Enrollment) 22. Kid's Directory (Advertising in the February, 2012 Issue) 23. El Latino (Advertising in the 1/26/12 Issue) 24. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Advertising for Magnet Fair and Early Enrollment) 25. Mass Enthusiasm (Down payment for Services to Create New Website for MRC) 26. Capital Business Machines (Monthly Billing for M RC's Copier Maintenance Contract) 27. Central Arkansas Newspapers (Advertising in the North Little Rock Times for Enrollment and Magnet Fair) 230.00 350.00 79.21 48.28 350.00 1,619.51 219.70 182.50 340.80 275.00 350.00 1,110.62 866.66 70.20 501.00 28. Compsys 144.85 (Services Rendered to Correct Web Hosting Problem) 29. ARKNSPRA 25.00 (Membership for Donna Creer for 2011-12) 30. Staples Advantage 105.87 (Supplies for the MRC Office) 31. Leader Publishing, Inc. 113.60 (Advertising During Enrollment Period) 32. American Home Life 182.50 (MRC's Communications Expense for February, 2012) 33. Central Arkansas Newspapers 309.00 (Advertising in the North Little Rock Times and Jacksonville Patriot) 34. Capital Business Machines 70.20 {Monthly Billing for MRC's Copier Maintenance Agreement) 35. American Home Life 182.50 {MRC's Communications Expense for March, 2012) 36. AireArk, Inc. 65.90 (Services Renders for Two Months to Host MRC's Website and E-Mail) TOTAL BILLS TO BE PAID $ 12,500.36 Keep funding desegregation, state ordered To h~t school aid, hearing riecessaryU,. S.j udgess ay CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSADS EMOC~T-GAZETIE The state must continue to pay millions of dollars in desegregation aid to the three Pulaski County school systems - which use the funds for magnet schools, employee benefits and other operating expenses - as a result of a federal appeals court decision Wednesday. '1f the State wishes to obtain relief from its funding obligations, there must be a formal evidentiary hearing on the issue,\" a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St Louis said 'We express no opinion on what the outcome of such a hearing should be,\" the court added in the 29-page order. The panel also concluded that the North Little Rock School District is entitled to unitary status and release from decades of federal court mohitoring of its operations. The Pulaski County Special School District, on the other hand, will remain under court supervision. As a result, the Pulaski County Special district will be the only one of the three Pulaski County districts to remain under court supervision, although all three districts remain parties in the 29-year-old school desegregation lawsuit The Llttle Rock district was declared unitary by a federal district court in 2007, a decision affirmed by the 8th Circuit in 2009. Wednesday's ruling, written by U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender of St. Louis, assures, at least for now, that Little Rock's magnet schools and a student-transfer program among the three school districts continues without the threat of lost funding. The decision of the threejudge panel - which included Michael Melloy of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Roger Wollman of Sioux Falls, S.D. - follows on the heels-of a Sept 19 hear- See SCHOOLPSa,g e3 A Schools  Continued from Page 1 A ing on various challenges to U.S. District Judge Brian Miller's May 19 order. The May order called for immediately terminating all of the state desegregation aid except for funds for the majority-tominority interdistrict student transfer program. Miller had directed the districts to show why the funding for the student-transfer program, shouldn't be end~d as well. He stepped down from the desegregation case last summer, and U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. is now the presiding judge in the case. The three Pulaski County districts receive as much as $70 million a year, with about $38 million going to the Little Rock district, the state's largest with about 25,000 students. The state pays the money as the result of a 1989 financial agreement with the state, the districts and other parties in the case. The order to immediately end the state funding had been put on hold, or \"stayed,\" by the 8th Circuit at the request of the districts until the appeals court could hold the September hearing and issue a decision. FILINGM OTIONIM PROPER The 8th Circuit concluded Wednesday that the state \"'7' represented by the Arkansas attorney general's office in support of Miller's ruling - did not make a proper motion to the court to end the state aid. The appeals court said Miller did not hold a court hearing on the issue or prepare the typical findings of fact and conclusions of law used to support a ruling. \"The state has long made known its view that such funding will become unnecessary after all three districts are declared fully unitary,\" the order said.  \"However, the state has not yet moved f9r relief from its funding obligations, and the scheduling order for the 2010 hearings on NLRSD's and PCSSD's petitions for declaration of unitary status did not provide for the presentation of any evidence regarding such relief.\" Additionally, the 8th Circuit panel noted that the state participated in the 2010 court hearings on unitary status but objected when questions were raised about its role, saying that its responsibilities in the case were not the subject of the hearings. Miller, however, released t~e s~ate from _the funding obligations, saymg that it was necessary to avoid \"an absurd outcome\" in which the districts would continue to 'receive state funding as long as they fail to meet the desegregation requirements. In his May ord1,r, Miller called the districts \"wise mules that have learned how to eat the carrot and sit down on the job.\" The 8th Circuit opinion said the judge's frustration was understandable and his \"conclusions regarding the perverse incentives created by the State's funding may well have some merit. Nevertheless, notice and a formal hearing are req,uired before the court terminates a constitutional violator's desegregation obligations.\" The 8th Circuit acknowledged that the issue of curtailing state funding was raised in documents submitted to the District Court and during a short status conference of the parties and the district judge in September 2009, but that was not sufficient \"We have rejected the notion that such other avenues may substitute for a formal evidentiary hearing,\" Grue.nder wrote.  \"[T]he briefings and status hearing referred to by the State in this case cannot be cobbled together to form an 'adequate record,' particularly in the absence of detailed findings by the district court.\" Representatives of the Llttle Rock and North Llttle Rock dis- tricts were pleased with the 8th Circuit order. Steve Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock ciistrict said the parties are back to where they started on the matter of state funding. \"Nobody has yet made an actual motion,\" Jones said. \"We all understand it's the 800-pound gorilla on the horizon. Everyo~e knows it's coming but at this point there is nothing before the court on which the court can act to terminate funding.\" Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, called the ordei\"important\" and good for magnet schools. Like Jones, Heller noted that because the funding order was ''vacated\" by the appeals court rather_ th~ \"remanded\" back to the DJStnct Court, there is no existing funding issue on which a court can act to end the funding. Heller also said that the 8th Circuit decision provides guidance on any future effort to end the state funding. The order specifically labels the state as a \"constitutional violator,\" he said. The order then directs that in order for a constitutional violator to be released from it's obligations it must show both good faith compliance with its desegregation obligations and eliminate the vestiges of segregation caused by its unconstitutional conduct.  State leaders said they looked forward to continuing efforts to end the long-running case. PAYMENTNSO TP ERPETUAL Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said in a prepared statement that the state \"continues to move positively toward ending this litigation and taking the courts out of the classrooms of Pulaski County.\" , He said the taxpayer-funded desegregation payments are not perpetual. ''Today, I renew a call to the parties in this case to come together for a meaningful discussion about what is best for the children of these school districts and the taxpayers of this state,\" he said. Asked whether he will file a motion for a hearing on stopping state payments, a spokesman for McDaniel said, \"We have not made that decision at this time. As the attorney general said, he sees this as another opportun.j.ty to btjng all parties together.''\nMatt DeCample, a spokesman for Gov. Mike Beebe, said the governor appreciated the 8th Circuit's quick decision, which will aid state officials in addressing issues at the school district level The state Department of Education took over the Pulaski County Special district last June, replacing the superintendent and dissolving the School Board because of financial mismanagement. \"We'll. continue to work with the attorney general's office as that office crafts what comes next,\" DeCample said. \"We recognize that there are more steps to go through but I think our argument is going to remain the same.'' Damon Hewitt, a New Yorkbased attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc. which helps represent black students in the case, said: ''Today's opinion should send a clear message to school districts throughout the country that compliance with desegregation orders is not optional. Both the courts and communities will hold these districts to both the letter and spirit of the law.\" State Rep. John Walker, DLittle Rock, an attorney who also represents the black students known as the Joshua intervenors in the case, said he was pleased with the ruling on the state funding but disappointed that the appeals court ruled in favor of releasing the North Little Rock school system from court monitoring. He has asked Marshall, the disq:ict judge, to review the testimony given Miller earlier and arrive at a di,fferent conclusion regarding the North Little Roe~ district's eligibility for full uru-tary status. . ''We will be back before the court of appeals on those,\" Walker said.' . NORTHLI TTLER OCK Miller had found that the North Little Rock district met the requirements of its desegregation plan in most areas - including student discipline and achievement - but failed to adequately document its efforts to recruit black teachers. Miller directed that the district do that documentation for two more years. The 8th Circuit panel reversed Miller's ruling. \"While the goal of documenting compliance over t:in:ie is a laudable one, the district court abused its discretion by imposing new data collection and reporting requirements with respect to staff recruitment that were not agreed to by the parties in the 1992 Plan,\" the appeals court opinion states. The 8th Circuit found that the North Little Rock district's efforts constituted a good faith effort. It also found the remnants c\n\u0026gt;vr estiges of a segregated school system had been eliminated to the extent practicable. That was shown by the fact that the percentage .of black teachers in the district - now 16.7 percent - exceeded that in the labor market. About 9 percent of the certified educators in the state are black. The appeals court directed the district judge to declare the district unitary and released from court monitoring. , \"Itis a matter of real significance and pride to-North Little Rock that they will be unitary and o~t of court supervision,\" said Jones, t\nlie ,district's attorney. North Little Rock Superintendent Ken Kirspel said there is likely to be less documentation and panPrwork required of district officials, who will no longer have to prove their efforts to the courts. But he said little else will change in the way the district does business. \"Our attitude is not going to change. We are going to ke,ep doing things as we have been doing, which is acting in the best interest of kids,\" Kirspel said. PULASKCIO UNTSYP ECIAL The 8th Circuit affirmed Miller's finding that the Pulaski County Speci\n district failed to meet its, obligations in regard to student assignment, .e,.dvanced Placement and gifted educati\u0026lt;\n\u0026gt;n, discipline, school facilities, scholarships, special education, ~taffing, student achievement and monitoring. The appeals court-rejected arguments that the. district had better.desegregation outcomeS: in sorheofsthose areas than othe, custr}cts :that have been declared unitacy - ~ven though it had .failed to carry out the relevant'prov.isions of its Desegregation Plan 2000. Repeatedly the court wrote: \"PCSSD has done nothing to demonstrate to the public and the parents and students of the once disfavored race that it intends to honor its commitment in good faith.\" Charters get 'slice' of school lawsuit Judgeli mitsr olei n desegregatiocna se ' CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASDEMOCRAT-GAZETIE Charter schools in Pulaski County received permission Thursday to intervene in the long-running school desegregation lawsuit to fight Little Rock School District efforts to put limits on them. U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. said in a -15-page order that he \"welcomes the chartc:r schools' participation in one important slice of the case.\" But the judge denied the open-enrollment charter school group's request to challenge the constitutionality of the 1989 fmancial settlement between the state and school districts, along with the operation of magnet schools in Little Rock and the long-standing majority-to-minority interdistrict student transfer. program. \"They [the charter schools] may intervene to oppose that part of the LRSD/Joshua motion dealing with them,\" Marshall wrot~. The Joshua intervenors, who joined the Little Rock district in the dispute, are black students in the three Pulaski County districts. \"The case will benefit from the charter schools' participation on the motion to enforce. \"Their participation, however, is limited to opposing that motion. The charter schools' proposed constitutional offensive against the 1989 Settlement Agreement and related Stipulations comes too late in the case. It would unfairly prejudice the other parties, and lielatedly refocus the litigation at a newcomer's insistence, to bring these new constitutional issues front and center now. \"[T)he Court rejects their effort to lead an eleventh- hour reorientation of this long-running dispute.\" In May 2010, the Little Rock district filed a motion contending that the state Board of Education gave unconditional approval to the establishment of taxpayersupported, independently operated charter schools in Pulaski County without regard to the effect the charter schools would have on desegregation efforts in the three Pulaski County school districts. The district said that See CHARTEPRa,g e 3A Arkansas Democrat azette Charter  Continued from Page 1 A the charter schools - of which there are a dozen in the county - draw students who would otherwise choose to attend magnet schools or participate in the majorityto- minority transfer program, both of which are intended to promote racial desegrega-tion. ' The district further argued that more affluent, higherachieving students move to charter schools, leaving the districts with greater concentrations of high-need stucJ,ents and fewer resources to serve them. No action was taken on the Lit\"Je Rock district's 2010 complaint fqr more. than a year while the court and parties dealt with other issues in the 29-year-old' federal lawsuit, but Marshall in August set up a schedule for the parties to collect evidence and present arguments: In September, a team uf attorneys headed by former Rep. Mike Wilson, D-Jacksonville, and Jess Askew III of Little Rock filed the motion to intervene on behalf of the charter schools. The charter schools' at-torneys argued thtt the 1989 financial settlement, the magnet schools and the majority- to-minor-. ity interdis- Askew trict student transfer pro-, gram - all elements of the desegregation lawsuit - are , unconstitutional and unenforceable because of their reliance on racial quotas for assigning students to schools and because there were no time limits on the use of those quotas. ' The charter schools' 'attorneys urged that the 1989 multimillion-dollar settlement between the state and the districts \"be terminated and extinguished in its en-tirety.\" . The Little Rock district opposed the participation and arguments of the charter school group. The state - represented by the Arkansas attorney general's office - did not file a response in support or in opposition to the proposed intervention. \"Today's decision is very good news for the charter schools,\" Askew said in an e-mail message Thursday. \"They will be permitted to defend themselves and their contracts. That is what the charter schools sought. \"The charter schools seek to drive fundamental change that will enhance public education optios and outcomes for children and to break away from failed and outmoded thinking. LRSD and the Joshua intervenors wanted to.complain about the charter schqols but did' not want them in the case to have their own voice.','. As for Marshall's decision to not allow the charter group to delve into the constitutionality of the 1989 settlement and other agreements in the case, Askew said the constitutionality issues \"will not go away.\" Askew pointed to a part of Marshall's order in which the judge said he believes tlie constitutional- / ity of the agreements will be \"adequately 'ventilated soon by the current parties.\" Askew said: \"This is a significant development in the case. The fact that, in 2011,' LRSD is assigning children to magnet school seats based on race is troubling, to say the least, and demands close scrutiny, regardless of the tortured path that led to this point. This is the basic issue raised   FRIDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2011  3A by the 2007 [U.S. Supreme mit their written legal brief Court decision restricting in the case by Feb. 10. The race-based assignments], and state's brief is due March 12 the charter schools were the and Marshall suggested that first to highlight this issue.\" the charter intervenors join C h r i s with the state in preparing Heller, an at- . that written argument. torney for the A court hearing is set Little Rock for March 29 to determine district, said whether an evidentiary hearThursday that ing will be necessary. Marshall's de- Marsh a 11 cision \"seems con c I u de d fair.\" in his order Heller That's be- Thu r s d a y cause \"the charter schools will not be allowed to raise new issues but only argue against a'remedy that could change the way they operate,\" he added. Aaron Sadler, a spokesman for the attorney general's of- . flee, said Thursday that the state attorneys in the case were reviewing Marshall's order and didn't have a comment on it. 1n the order, Marshall gave the charter school intervenors until Jan. 15 to revise their complaint to omit the constitutional challenges and to respond to the Little Rock district's motion to enforce the 1989 settlement in regard to the establishment of charter schools. The Little Rock district and Joshua intervenors must sub-that the charter school intervenors have standing to par- Marshall ticipate in the 1 case because the Little Rock district and Joshua intervenors seek to limit enrollment at the charter schools and the charter group's re'l}lest was timely. But.it was \"untimely\". on the constitutional issues because. the other parties.in the case had made the agreements \"decades ago\" and the agreements are guiding the case. The judge added that the charter schools are not the party to raise the constitutional issues because ultimately the charter schools may not have standing to remain in the case. The judge also concluded that the charterschools are not entitled to intervene \"as a right\" because their interests are adequately represented by the state of Arkansas. The schools do, however, have \"permission\" to intervene, the \"judge said, partly in case he is wrong about the adequacy of the state's representation and because the -charter schooi group's participation \"will give the court the benefit of these intervenors' important views.\" \"The Court therefore exercises its discretion to give the charter schools a limited, though important, role so this case will keep moving forward fairly and efficiently,\" M arsh!\u0026gt;.!w! rote. Appeals Court: Arkansas Can't Stop Desegregation Payments - ArkansasBusiness.com Registerf or arkansasbusiness.corIn Site Help I ContactA BPG arkansas Arkansas, Business Page 1 business.com SearchA rkansasBusiness.coj men terk e.ywordh.se re i .,?~ Sign up for daily updates from the ArkansasB usiness newsroom! i enter your email I m q:Jfijj\\j ?i)ttt '\"\"i,nr\n.,~ Tthls:1)' l\"il'M'' Agriculture 8\nPoultry Architecture Banking 8\nFinance Business Services Construction Education Energy Government fr Politic!\u0026gt; Health Care Insurance Investments Legal Manufacturing Media 8\nMarketing Nonprofits Public Companies Real Estate Restaurants \u0026amp; Food Retail Small Business Technology 8\nTelecom Tourism Transportation lt4iFIAC rmm\nm, mmB rmm lliiJE Tuesday. January 03, 2012 1:13:1'1 PM education Recommend Twe,et O , 0 Appeals Court: Arkansas Can't Stop Desegregation Payments By The AssociatedP ress 12/28/201112:16:35 PM LITTLE ROCK -- A federal appeals court has ruled that the state can't stop providing desegregation money to Little Rock-area school districts Change font size\n~1 ptU'lt r.,rtll1~ir ~ ~ [~ .~:~M\nrticle without a separate hearing and a judge's order. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes months after U.S. District Judge Brian Miller ordered an end to most of the payments, calling them counterproductive. The districts appealed to the appeals court, which heard the case in September. The state has been spending about $38 million per year to help finance magnet schools that help keep a racial balance in the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County school districts. Wednesday's ruling vacates Millers order and keeps the money flowing until the matter is resolved in a separate court proceeding. (Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, rewritten, broadcast or distributed.) Subscribe To Arkansas Business Nominate Arkansas llusiness 40 Under 40 Submit A Whi~:.per Submit Calendar Event Vote For Best Of Business Follow @ArkBusiness On Twitter Subscribe To N\\VA BusinesJso urnal 1/1/7()1? Education otebook CYNTHIA HOWELL AND EVIE BLAD ARKANSADSE MOCRAT-GAZETTE Ex-chiesfe eking post in Louisiana Charles Hopson, the former superintendent of the Pulaski County Special School District, is now one of 43 candii dates for the superintendent's position in the 43,300-student East Baton Rouge Parish, La., school system. Hopson had headed the Pulaski County Special district for almost one year when Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell and the Arkansas Department of Education took control of the fiscally distressed district. The school board was dissolved and Hopson was immediately dismissed. Two years remained on his contract. . A state-appointed school district chief was named to manage the district. Hopson filed a federal lawsuit last August against Kimbrell, Gov. Mike Beebe and Pulaski County Special's current superintendent, Jerry Guess, challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas statutes that grant, or have been interpreted to grant, the Education Department the authority to \"disavow\" contracts with superintendents and teachets. The lawsuit, which is still pending, also accused the defendants of ending Hopson's contract without a fair hearing or due process and without just compensation. Officiahl ealing from heart attack Gene Whilhoit, a former director of the Arkansas Department of Education in the mid-1990s and now the executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, is recovering from a heart attack that he suffered on Christmas Eve, according to State EdWatch, a blog sponsored by the national Education Week newspaper. Wilhoit, 68, has told state education chiefs that he expects to make a full recovery and return to work within a couple of months. The Council of Chief State School Officers, to which Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell belongs, has been a leader in promoting the development and implementation of the national Common Core State Standards in math and English/language arts. The organization has also been at the forefront in working with Congress to re-craft the terms of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as the No Child Left Behind Act. of Marketing and Advertising, will serve as acting dean, replacing former Dean Tony Chelte, Chancellor Joel Anderson wrote in a note to faculty. ''After much consideration I have concluded that a change in leadership of the College of Business would serve the interests of the college,\" Anderson wrote. UALR spokesman Judy Williams would not say why Anderson had removed Chelte, calling it a \"personnel issue.\" Wayland previously served as interim dean of the business college from 2007 to 2009. Chelte's salary as dean was $188,850. UAr anked5 3rd in best-valuleis t Kiplinger'sP ersonalF inance named the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville 53rd on its 100 Best Values in Public Colleges list. The organization compiles the list by ranking more than 500 public institutions in quality measures sudi as graduation rates and cost measures such as financial aid availability and total student expenses. The UA is the only Arkansas college or university on the list, released Jan. 3. Students at the Fayetteville The chancellor of the Uni- university graduate with an versity of Arkansas at Little average debt of $21,562\nacRock has replaced the school's  cording to Kiplinge(s.  business dean, he said Friday. Businesdse an at UALRre placed Jane Wayland, currently chairman of the Department New countys Chootli mesu rged Districtp roposese arliers tartf or elementaryp upilsi n 2012-13 CYNTHIA HQWELL switch from the current bell for middle and high schools said. The late start time also ARKANSAS DE!v!OCRAT-GAZETIE schedule in the state's third- would range from 3:30 p.m. makes it difficult for parents Pulaski County Special largest district of about 17,600 to 3:55 p.m. to see their children off to bus School District leaders are students.   .   Elementary school start stops in the morning before proposing a change in the In genera( elenientary times are now 8:2S a.m. to they leave for work. ' start and dismissal times for schools would start between 8:30 a.m., and secondary \"It was a fine-idea to have schools in 2012-13 to aJl:ay the 7:45 a.m. and 8:15 .a.m. next schools start about 7:30 a.m., tried this, but we really.think conce'rns of som'e i,arents school-year, with'seconc!ary .\nan arrarigement,that has been this new,schedule would be and save money in the c:1),sh- schools beginning between  a corn\n:ern t6 pru-ents, Super- to the advantage of parents, strappeq dil\\tzict. / ~ {'?~ 8\": 10 a.m. and 8:35 a.m., ac- intendent JerrGyu ess said. particularly to the elementary : If th'fj:,r'oposai-i~ i~pl~\n' :cording to th(, p~6posal put Many parents who start parents,\" _he said. meJ.?-t,e.de,l ementary\n~c,R'.\u0026lt;i\u0026amp;($oVut. lf or publi\u0026lt;.:c 9nsideration. work at 8 a.m. have to drop :pelaymg _the s_econdary would'.,have',ead{er'.'.~'irii/' , Elementary, dismissal off their eleme.ntary children school startm~ times _also ing times' th~,.~p'i\nIR. c_(a,}~_fitrn esw ould.',' IJI).gef rom 2:30 at school at 7:45 a:m, but cla.ss ! ~~:~~_. e_~~fic1~:,1h rr Sat1\nand high schools,_wh:,i1j.).~a:g... m. t~3 P!Jl.\nt~d dismissal doesn't start uritil 8:25, Gue~s , ...._ ..~~e~. T~~T~ Tl~-~~ age 7B Start time  Continued from Page i B \"They are starting as early at 7:30 a.m. Is it better to start . early, or is it better to start late? I havea 10th-grader that I'm raising, and it is hard as the dickens to get him up,\" he said. Guess acknowledged that some people like the system as it is, and he doesn't discount those opinions, \"but this does gives l\\S a chance to satisfy a lot of concerns and be more efficient in our bus system operation at the same time.\" The district was classified by the state as fiscally distressed last spring. In June, state Department of Education officials took over the district, dismissing the superintendent and disbanding the School Board because of continued financial concerns. State Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell appointed Guess to head the district until local control is reinstated or the state Education Board takes other action against the district. Kimbrell serves as the district's School Board. Derek Scott, the district's chief operations officer, said the district could save a minimum of $500,000 if the new schedule is instituted. The savings would result from combining routes, reducing staff through attrition and retiring at least 20 buses, depending on transportation needs in the new school year. Currently the district has a fleet of about 375 buses, Scott said. Deborah Roush, a spokesman for the district, said district leaders wanted to give the public ample time to react to the possible schedule change. \"We know some would celebrate this news, and for others it will mean the need to make scheduling changes. That's why it was critical to begin discussions about this as soon as possible,\" Roush said. Roush said parents with questions or comments may contact the district at (501) 234-2038 or send the district a message about the plan via a contact form on the district's ,web site: pcssd.org. The district's current bell schedule has been in place since September 2010. The schedule was the end result of months of disae:reement between the district and the Pulaski Association of Classroom T~achers on school-day schedulmg and other issues. The schedule resulted in the purchas\"e of39 additional buses - bought used from the Memphis area - and the hiring of as many as 50 drivers. Initially, district leaders instituted a restructured teacher workday in which elementary teachers' 45-minute planning time was incorporated into the students' school day, rather than before or after the student day. That resulted in a longer student class day. State law requires that teacher preparation time be built into the student day unless that is waived in contract negotiations between a district and its teachers, as it had been in the Pulaski County district. But in early 2010, the district's School Board voted to end its recognition of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers as a represent~ tive of the employees, making the change'in teacher preparation time and student class day necessary to conform to state law. Individual teachers and the teachers' association sued the Pulaski County Special district and some School Board members over the altered schedule, contending that the restructured day violated the terms of the teachers' contract. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox ultimately voided the School Board votes that ended recognition of the teacher union and directed that the district recognize the existing teacher contract that put the 45-minute planning periods before and after the elementary school day. Then-Superintendent Charles Hopsqn attempted to retain the n~w start and stop times for schools., arguing that the longer school day was beneficial to students.  Just before a court hearing in the teachers' legal challenge to the altered bell schedule, an agreement was reached that created the current start and dismissal times. As a result of the agreedupon schedule, the elementary and secondary schools were dismissing at close to the same times in the afternoon _,_ about 3 p.m. That prevented the district from staggering the use of its buses !n the afternoon and making 1t necessary to acquire addition\ni l h11sPs. Educationno tebook CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSADS EMOCRAT-GAZETTE Firmt o helps tate seek law leeway The Arkansas Department of Education has contracted with EducationCounsel of Washington, D.C., for help in crafting a proposal to the U.S. Department of Education for flexibility in complying with the federal No Child Left Behind Act. In September, as efforts in Cong~ess to alter the law stalled, the federal Education Department invited states to propose waivers to the law - including the provision that calls for 100 percent of students to score at prbficient or advanced levels on. state mathematics and literacy tests by 2013-14. To that end, the state has set minimum annual student achievement requirements for schools. Schools in which the student body as a whole or subgroups of students fail to meet the annual requirements are labeled as needing improvement and penalized. The Arkansas Education Department in November and December held forums around the state to solicit ideas for revisions to the state's system for holding schools accountable. Education Counsel is a law, policy, strategy and advocacy organization that works to improve education systems, close achievement gaps and expand student access to educational opportunities. State officials hope to take a draft proposal to Dallas at the end of this month for rev. iew by the_ Council of Chief State School Officers and submit the state proposal to the federal Education Department by a Feb. 21 deadline. Districat ddss ite for registrations A change has been made this year in one of the locations for the Little Rock School District's annual reg- I istration for students who will be new to the district in 2012-13o r who want to attend schools other than their attendance- zone schools. The registration period is Jan. 23 through Feb. 3. As in the past, parents may register theii: children in kindergarten.through 12th grades at their attendancezone schools or at the schools they would like to attend. Additionally, in the first week of registration, which is Jan. 23-27, parents may register their children who will be in prekindergarten through high school at a site being used by the district for the first time this year - St. Mark Baptist Church, 5722 W. 12th St. The hours for registration will be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. During the second week of registration, Jan. 30 through Feb. 3, parents may register at the district's Student Registration Office, ,501 Sherman St., near East Capitol Avenue and Interstate 30. The St. Mark site is being used this year because it is larger and more centrally located than the district's Student Registration Office. Communications chief to resign Tiffany Hoffman, the Little Rock School District's director of communications for the past five years, is resigning from the job effective March 1. Hoffman, who is a former district teacher, said she is taking a position with a local real estate company. Little Rock Superintendent Morris Holmes announced the resignation at a School Board meeting Thursday night in which he asked the School Board members to provide him with ideas about commu11ications and public relations for the_s tate's largest school system.  FRIDAY, JANUARY 13, 2012  3B Judge sides with state on school data : EVIE BLAD ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE A federal judge refused Thursday to require the Arkansas Department of Education to provide some information requested by attorneys for the Little Rock School District to prepare for a hearing in the decades-long Pulaski County school-desegregation lawsuit. The Arkansas attorney general's office, the district and an intervening party representing black students in the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts are preparing for a March hearing regarding the impact of charter schools on enforcement of a 1989 settlement agreement in the case. U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. said information that the state provided was adequate for the hearing, which was scheduled to determine if the issue merits consideration by the court. He said he may require the state to provide the requested information later if the issue goes to trial. \"While the data that has been provided is not perfect, it is substantial,\" Marshall said. \"I believe it is adequate for the parties to argue to the court on whether or not the matter should proceed.\" The state provided data showing numbers of students who transferred from Little Rock schools to charter schools in Pulaski County and what percentages of them were of certain races, and academic and income levels.  Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock School District, said that information was sorted in a way that makes it difficult to track patterns involving race, academic achievement and poverty. The data lacked \"linking information\" that would allow researchers to identify one student by multiple characteristics. -\\. I More information Desegregatiofnil es arkansasonline.com/desegdocs/ Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson said providing that level of detail could put the state at risk of violating the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Such a violation could put millions of dollars of federal funding that the state receives annually in jeopardy, he said. \"As you increase the level of detail about students, you increase the likelihood of identifying those students,\" Richardson said. Heller said court precedent showed that such information could be provided under a court order without violating the privacy act. The district would be willing to sign a protection order, agreeing not to use the data to determine the names of individual students, he said. Marshall said the state was likely being \"overly cautious and hypersensitive\" about.providing the information, which does not include students' names or addresses. \"If we have this fight on the merits eventually, th.is may well come out another way,\" he said. The Little Rock district and the Joshua intervenors, repre-senting the black students in the desegregation case, contend that the state gave unconditional approval to the establishment of taxpayersupported, independently operated charter schools in Pulaski County without regard to the effect the charter schools wo'L)ld have on desegregation efforts in the three districts. They have argued that the charter schools - of which there are about a dozen in the county - draw students who would otherwise choose to attend magnet schools or participate in the majority- to-minority transfer program,. both of which are intended to promote racial desegregation. The district further argued that more affluent, higherachieving students move to charter schools, leaving the districts with greater concentrations of high-need students and fewer resources to serve them. Auditors again cite districtf or bank.lags CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKAN~ASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE Auditors cited the North Little Rock School District for failing for the fourth consecutive year to reconcile school district accounts and bank statements in a timely manner. However, the audit also noted that since the June 30 end of the audited fiscal year, school district officials are reconciling accounts as required. \"We recommend that the district take steps to resolve any reconciling differences and continue preparing future reconciliations in a timely manner,\" the.Hudson, Cisne \u0026amp; Co. audit said. ' The North Little Rock School Board on Thursday approved the district's 2010-11 audit. The district's failure in 2007- 08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 to do regular bank reconciliations through01.1tth e year resulted in the 9,000-student district being classified by the state Board of E?ucation last May as \"fiscally distressed.\" School districts in the state's fiscal-distress. program must develop and carry out a stateapproved financial improvement plan, and they are subject to state supervision of all fman- ' cial practices, including district spending. Denise Drennan began woJk July 1 as the North Little Rock distric\nt's chief financial officer. At that point Drennan and her staff could not correct the earlier reporting on the bank statements. \"The [fiscal] year was already complete,\" Drennan said in an interview after the board vote Thursday. \"Even though we went back and looked at those statements for accuracy we still couldn't change the time that they were turned in. So we kne~ we \"':ere going to have an audit fmding for timely reconciliation of bank statements.\" Drennan said that while the auditors were preparing the 2010-11 audit in October and November, they could see c_hanges in the district's operations. 'We had already implemented a lot of new procedures,\" Drennan said. \"Our bank statements are being tu~ned in by the 10th of the month like they are supposed to be. They are accurate. The auditors could see tl\niose changes.\" In each of the first six months of the 2012 fiscal year the variance between bank and district accounts has remained at a constant $98,128.75. \"In our detail for the month we can get to zero, but we still have the $98,000 that carries forward:' Drennan said. She said she anticipates that the state Department of Education will eventually authorize correcting the district's financial records to elii\nninate the longstanding variance. Countys chool ~ct puts7 8 projectso n fix-upl ist EVIE BLAD ARKANSADSE MOCRAT-GAZETTE Leaders of the Pulaski County Special School District presented Thursday a list of an estimated $7 million in facilities projects designed to keep the district's buildings \"dry, safe and warm.\" The district will prioritize the 78 projects \"through the desegregation lens\" to en,sure it applies greater emphasis on Projects  Continued from Page 18 facilities in majority-black and poor areas, Chief Operating Officer Derek Scott said. Work on the six-year plan will start in the next few months, with about $2 million to $3 million of projects completed in the first year, he said. The list, which includes repairing roofs, adding security lighting and replacing heating systems, is dwarfed in comparison to a $104 million construction plan supported by ,former Superintendent Charles Hopson last year. That plan, which called for new construction, aggressive rehabilitation and consolidation of several campuses, was shelved indefinitely when the state took control of the fiscally distressed district in June, dissolving its board and removing Hopson, said state-appointed Superintendent Jerry Guess. The previous plan was \"not supported by the current financial situation of the district,\" he said. Exercising authority under school-finance laws, the state took control of the district after several audits turned up problems and after public infighting among School Board members. and achievement. But tixin_gfa cilities to the court's satisfaction will likely require additional funding through a voter-approved tax increase, he said. Arkansas Department of Education employees quickly discovered the district had spent nearly $7 million more than it took in the previotis year. That.led to cost-cutting and careful.spending, Guess said. \"What we're trying to do right now is take care of the buildings that we have,\" he said.' See PROJECTPSa,g e 68 At therneeting, Scott showed slides of deteriorating roofs, poorly draining sidewalks and crumbling metal exterior doors with holes that let sunlight peek into buildings. Rizelle Aaron, an officer in the Jacksonville chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, asked Scott how the funds would be targeted to \"predominantly minority areas.\" Federal judges in the decades- long Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit, which also involves the Little Rock and North Little Rock districts, have cited greater facilities spending in majority-white and afiluent parts of the county district when they refused to declare it unitary, or desegregated, in the area of.facilities. \"Given the state of the economy right now, I don't think we can get voters to approve that,\" Guess said. Scott said the list of projects would be fulfilled with schools in areas targeted in the desegregation rulings receiving top priority.  \"Right now, we're fiscally constrained,\" he said. ''But we're going to do what we can with what we have.\" State law requires school districts to file annual facilities plans with the Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation Division. Those plans must first be reviewed in public hearings, like the one held Thursday, and approved by the district's school board. Under state controL Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell will review the documents in place of a school board, Scott said. Teachers and parents attending Thursday's hearing listed additional facilities needs, citing warped and missing ceiling tiles, faulty heating systems and lack of exterior lights on some buildings. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis last month upheld a lower court's ruling that denied unitary status to the county district in nine areas, including facilities. Guess said Thursday that he believes the district can quickly remedy problems in other areas, such as student assignme!lt Replacing a 40-year-old roof at the Fuller Middle School main building will be the first project, he said Other projects include resolving drainage issues at several buildings, adding awnings, replacing sewer pipes in some facilities and remodeling bathrooms. The projects will be funded through the district's facilities fund, which has about $3 million, Scott said. Guess said the district has worked to trim el(:penses by. changing its fringe benefits plan, reworking its bell sch~dule for students and negotiating new contracts with some suppliers. - Districrt egistration set for new students ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE will register at the Pulaski New student registration County Special School Disfor the 2012-13 school year trict administration buildin the Pulaski County Spe- ing, 925 E. Dixon Road\nLittle cial School District is set for Rock. Monday through Feb. 3. Students who want to The registration period attend magnet schools or is for pre-kindergarten, kin- participate in other types dergarten and any other stu- of school-choice progr\nims, dents who will be first-time inclu.ding the majority-tostudents in the Pulaski Coun- minority interdistrict stuty Special district, which en- dent transfer program or an compasses Maumelle, Sher- academic specialty program, wot\u0026gt;d, Jacksonville, parts of also must sign up at the diswest Little Rock and w'est trict's administration buildPulaski County, and south- ing. Permission to participate east Pulaski County. in school-choice programs is To aid parents in making granted on a first-come, firstdecisions about schools for served basis. their children, the district is To register a student, hosting an open house at all parents or guardians need schools in the district from to present identification for 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Thursday. the child, such as a birth cerParents may use that time to tificate or a registrar statetour schools and meet school ment, baptismal certificate, personnel. passport, affidavit or military Locations for registration identification. vary according to the stu- Also necessary are the  dentt's grade level and other child's previous school re-acp o rs.i ,\n\"d t' kinde cor d s, rm muruz atlo n recor d s, re-NM' erg~.r\ne n, _,\n-::a. transcript or last report garten and elementary pupils    are supposed to register at card, and Social Se':ur~ty the schools they will attend. ~a.rd. H~wever, the d1st~1ct Registration for mic!dle will assign an alternative and high school students will number to any student whose be held at regional registra- paren_ts choos~ not to reveal tion hubs as follows a Soc1al,Secunty number.  Students who will attend Address verification also Jacksonville and Sherwood is necessary in the form of area middle and high schools a curre~t utility bill, a Little will register at Sylvan Hills Rock Air Force Base housMiddle School,.10001 John- ing verific\nation form, homeson St., Sherwood. purchase closing papers or  Students who will attend home lease agreements. Robinson ar{d Maumelle area More information about middle and high schools will Pulaski County Special register at Maumelle High School District schools and School, lOQ Victory Lane, the registration procedures Maumelle. is available by calling the  S'tudents who will aftend district's Office of Equity Fuller Middle School and and Pupil Services at (501) Mills University High School 234-2020. Open~ nrollment 1begins Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/STEPHEBN. THORNTON Victoria Williams, 3, plays as her mother, Jessica Williams, signs her up for the Little Rock School District's 4-year-old program Monday at St. Mark Baptist Church, 5722 W. 12th St. Enrollment shifts next Monday to the Student Registration Office at 501 Sherman St. Registration under way for NLRschools ARKANSASD EMOCRATGAZETI\"E Registration is under way for students who will be new to the North Little Rock School District in the 2012-13 school year. To register children in the North Little Rock district, parents must present proof of residence at their neighborhood school. Additionally, parents of North Little Rock students who want to attend specialprogram magnet schools in Little Rock School District must apply by Feb. 3 at the North Little Rock School District's administration building, 2700 N. Poplar St. Students who live in the Pulaski County Special School District but want to enroll in the North Little Rock School District through the majority-to-minority interdistrict school-transfer program should complete an application at the administration building in the district in which they reside. The majority-to-minority transfer program allows students who live in a Pulaski County district in which their race is predominant to transfer to a district where their race is in the minority. Students who live outside the district but want to attend North Little Rock schbols through school-choice programs other than the majority- to-minority program must register at the North Little Rock district's administration building. Children who will be 5 on or before Aug. 1 this year are eligible to attend kindergarten for the 2012-13 school year.  2B  WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2012  Sclioorle gistratioin NLR.  ! ' , I  Arkansas Democr\nit-Ga,z~tte/RICK McFARLAND The North Little Rock School District's director of student affairs, Fran Jackson (right), display~ a map while helping Matf.a~d Jennifer Reed register their son, Jack, 4, for kindergarten as his sister Georgia, 2, sits patiently. Registration in the district runs through Feb.-3. Educationno tebook CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Reimbursements soughitn lawsuit The Little Rock School District and black students known as the Joshua intervenors are seeking reimbursement for legal fees and costs in their successful challenge last year of a court order that would have ended most state desegregation aid to the three Pulaski County school districts. The Little Rock district filed a petition in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St Louis seeking nearly $95,000 from the state, Chris Heller, an attorney for the district, notified the Little Rock School Board late last week. The state had defended U.S. District Judge Brian Miller's May 2011 order to immediately end most of the $70 million a year in state desegregation aid to the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County school districts. A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court on Dec. 28 negated Miller's order, saying that if the state wished to obtain relief from its funding obligations there had to be an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Heller and Clay Fendley, who represented the district on the appeal, routinely discount their hourly fees for their work for the district. But they petitioned the 8th Circuit for their standard rates of $300 and $160 an hour. 'The rates charged to LRSD for th~ appeal were $200 and $120, respectively,\" Heller told the board. \"Clay and I have agreed, however, that all fees awarded by the Eighth Circuit should go to LRSD and not to compensate us for the difference between our regular rates and our discmunted rates.\" Heller said attorneys for the Joshua intervenors, who successfully defended Miller's ruling that the Pulaski County Special School District had failed to comply with its desegregation plan, have petitioned the court for more than $366,000 in fees and costs. Reporitn cludes data on absences Morris Holmes, superintendent of the Little Rock School District, ha~ begun regularly updating the School Board on the progress the district is making toward meeting its goals of raisipg student achievement. The resulting quarterly report is a big one, 348 pages, chock-full of2010 and 2011 data - including teacher absenteeism and stu~ent absences and tardies - information that previously hasn't always been as timely or easy to put a finger on. There were 6,046 schoolbased certified-employee absences for illness in th.e second quarter this year that ended in December. That was 265 more days than the 5,781a bsences f?r illness in the second quarter m the 2010-11s chool year. A total of 711.5 personal leave days were taken by teachers and principals in the second quarter of this school year. That's up from the 603.5 personal leave days taken in the same time period last year. The number of absences for professional leave dec~d from 2,053 in the second quarter in the previous school year as compared with 1,460.5 in the second quarter that just ended. As for the district's 25,027 students, an average of 1,256 students were absent ~ach day in the second nine-week quarter of the school year. In that same period, there were 12,497 students who were tardy to school a total of36,358 times. The quarterly report also includ\\!S grade-by-grade and school-by-school test results, as well as numbers of students in gifted education, special education and English-languagelearning programs. Data on student enrollment in foreign language, art and Advanced Placement courses is included, as are data on how many students qualify for subsidized school meals and how many 1 students were disciplined so far this year as compared with 1,.,.,... Theaa nnounces scholarshwipi ns The Thea Foundation of North Little Rock has announced the winners of its 2012 Performing Arts Scholarship Competition in which 77 high school seniors competed Jan. 7 for scholarships. John Hatfield ofRussellville High School won first place and a scholarship of $4,000. Mary-Katelin Ward, North Little Rock High School, won second place and a $3,500 scholarship. Stacy Hawking, North Little Rock High School, received third-place honors and a $3,000 scholarship. Sara Williams, a homeschooled student from Roland, won fourth place and a $2,500 award. Meredith Short, North Little Rock High School, placed fifth\nDominic Smith of Rogers Heritage High was sixth\nElizabeth Wheeler, a home-schooled student from Alexander was seventh\nWalter Dodd, Little Rock Parkview Magnet High\nwas eighth\nDylan Worth, Cabot High, was ninth\nand Ashley Tramel, Russellville High, was 10th. Each of the fiftb-throughlOth- place winners received $2,000 awards. Hono~able mention awards went to Robert Brave, Little Rock Central High\nChacall Charles, Little Rock Central High\nGrace Dyer, Rogers High\nTaylor Jacob, Joe T. Robinson High\nJenna O'Dell, Farmington High\nand Michael Roberson, Little Rock Catholic High School for Boys. District piles up fiscal distress Statef urtherc itesc ountys chools . CY:}!\"THIA,}J:QWELL i_r~figul_ari5\\u~~.s,.~ _oy~redb y 'ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE stl#tanq private aui:hts. The Arkaqsas P!'!par.t- The district, which has al-ment of Education is recom- ready lpst its locally elected mending that the Pulaski School Board and its boardCounty Special School Dis- hired superintendent, is in trict be classified as fiscally jeopardy of being merged .distressed because of a $5.5 with one or more other million drop in the. district's school systems if it cannot financial reserves between fix its financial problems. the beginning and end of the Bill Goff, the Pulaski 2010-ll school year. County Special district's The agency recomrnenda- chief financial officer, said tion to the Arkansas Board of the district will very likely Education is unprecedented  have to cut at least $7 million because the school system in 17penses for the coming is already in the state's fiscal 2012-13 school year. distress program and actu- He characterized the ally under state control. The state's latest recommendastate classified the district as tion as a call for the district fiscally distressed in March to add to a plan it prepared 2011 for a different reason last year in response to its - financial management See PCSSDP,a ge 3A PCSSD al times that were last used throughout the district in 2009-10. That change would  Continued from Page 1A save about $500,000, offiinitial placement in the state's cials estimate. A new schoolfiscal distress program. bell schedule would require \"We will have to revise our fewer bus routes and buses financ::ial imprqvemen't plan as well.a.sfewer.payments to to ~l)_()w,.tiowwew ill:remedy employees for before- and our de.dining balances\n\"' said after-school supervision qf Goff. sjf1ents.-'  ..     Thit is necessary, he said, . Additionally, the 'district to build.up 'the district's year- has restructured its employend b~Iahies while accom- ee fringe benefit package in a modating some new but nee- way that will save the district essary costs such as replacing money, Go.ess ~aid'. buses.  And district administrators The state Education Board and leaders of th'e teachers is to act on the department's and support ~ervice employee latest recommendation for unions haye agreed to no genfiscal distress at its meeting eral raises for this school year, at 9 a.m. Monday. although eligible employees .Jerry Guess, the district's are rec::eiving a step inerease state-appointed superinten- fortheir additionalyear of _dent, notified the Education  work experience. . .  Department that the state's -- Gue.ss s'aid the dis,trict is third-largest_ district ~on't pi~mii,n'g. touse rdoney in oppose the state's rriove to, its building fun:d toCrehcivate expand the list of problems about a dozen schools:  ithl disfrict must correct. He  :''[n cl:oing Hiat work, we will\nchowever, attend'Mon- believe'thatwill increase ef-  d.a . _ r,,\nIsw.e. .i_llb~tein e~r.. ed.p.'..,'.L.: a,.rt.'a..:.t-..f,.,.e.i\nd ency .iri some of those \" rn , l:iJ~gs arid:th\n:i.i:wilSl !Vues meeting to address the' state  costs,\" he said: \"We are hopBoard with a statement of ing that by doing those renowhat has been done, as well as vation projects we will entice my proposal for future action, the community to continue to to remove PCSSD from its attend our schools and perfiscal distress status,\" Guess haps return' some kids who wrote last week to Kathleen are not in our schools back Crain, interim assistantcom- to our schools.\" missioner for fiscal and ad- The district .would likely ministrative services at the receive an increase in state Education Department. aid for any growth in s~dent \"We are looking at a lot enrollment.  of things for the new year,\" Enrollment is 17,637 this Guess said in an interview year, a 136-student inqease Monday about possible cost- over the previous year. Over saving measures. the long term the district's Those measures include enrollment has decreased, the possibility of returning to falling from 21,871 in 1988-89 school opening and dismiss- to 18,710 in 2000-01. Guess also welcomed what could be a warmer-than-average winter this year as away to save tens of thousands of dollars in utility costs. \"We need some things to break our way,\" he said. Guess said he and Goff are continuing this week to consider other options. \"We are spending a lot of time trying to figure out how to approach these issues in the most reasonable and equitable way possible.\" Adding to the reasons why the Pulaski County Special district is in fiscal distress won't buy the district any more time to correct its financial deficiencies, Seth Blomeley, a spokesman for the Education Department, said Monday. The district now has a little more than a year left to comply with what will be its revised financial improvement plan. The district's revised plan will be subject to state approval. A district in the state's fiscal distress program, by Jaw, has no more than two years to correct its financial problems. The state board must consolidate, annex or reconstitute any school district that fails to remove itself from the fiscal distress classification within the two-year window, uniess the state board finds that there are extenuating circumstances at play beyond the control of the school districts. The Education Department can take over a fiscally distressed district at any time before the two years expires if the agency staff determines that the district is not making TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2012  3A satisfactory progress. ders in excess of the district's ' Indeed, the department policy of $1,000 per vendor  took over the county district per month. last June, dismissing Charles At the time, state officials Hopson, who had been su- thought the district had suffiperintendent for just about cient reserve funds. But after a year, and dissolving the the state took over the district seven-member school board. last June, state officials deterGuess was appointed super- mined that the district had intendent by Arkansas Edu- drawn from its reserves. cation Commissioner Tom Goff said Monday .that Kimbrell. Kimbrell serves as the district's legal balances the district's school board. dropped from $9.5 million to Last month, Kimbrell called $4 million by the end of last on state lawmakers to amend year. Legal balances are those the state's fiscal distr.ess law to that the district has discretion aliow tb~--statetc' i hold on to on ho:w to\"s pend and are not contro'I.ofajo~~~cooldistrict earmarked for specific purfor ..u p:tq fj.\\r(!y e:s. Kimbrell poses. s~ld tw9\n.years is not always The district is benefiting enough.time for a community this school year from a oneto:- be re1dy to choose school time, $15.4 million windfall boarcL~e.mb~rs who can man-. in operating funds, which is age dismctfmances: and select the result of a change in.state a cap~ble sperinte~qent.  . law on the ~ccounting for lo- Th~\nJtuli\\ski Goiin\n-t~yp e- cal property'tax revem.ie,to dal qidtrictJ i.its'p l'ii.c\n'_eind the district. . fiscahdistress-fn 2011. after As a resuit of that ~barige, State'f)iv.i~ion ofLegisiative Arkansas s~hool districts no Audit:w.vi'stigationsihito the 101:ger defer tax revenue redistricfcjtedinternal control ce1ved befor~ June 30 to the d~fici('iri:ci1'etlh a:leta to'::rru.ir, ' next school year. . a~pr~:bt-i~fion' of.:'iqre tli'~n: \\\u0026gt; 9o_ff hafsaid that the. a,c$ 400,000'in cine department,, com:itmg change g~ve t~e ~uexcess pay to a former SU- laski ~ounty Special d1stnct perintendent, and unallowed more time to get current-year expense reimbursements to reve~ue an~ current year exadministrators and School pend1tures m sync. Board mernl:iers. State aiidi-tors also found failure in the district to follow purchasing policies and poor oversight of overtime compensation: Additionally, private auditors cited the district in fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 for failing to put controls in place for reconciling bank statements in a timely manner, failing to document funding sources for employee pay, and issuing blanket purchase or- Countys choold istrictt o cut 77 jobs ' .  CYNTHIA HOWELL ' ARKANSADS EMOCRAT-GAZETrE ' The Pulaski County Special School District will reduce its staff by 77 positions through attrition and layoffs, and it will seek concessions in benefits and working conditions from employee unions in an effort to cut a total of $13 million for the 2012-13s chool year. Superintendent Jerry Guess and Bill Goff, the chief financial officer in the 17,000- student district, announced  the budget-cutting plans at an Arkansas Board of Education meeting Monday in which thestate board added declining year-end balances to the reasons why the district is classified as fiscally distressed. As part 9f the fiscal distress  program\n, th(! district's expenditures'are subject to state Department of Education approval. The district has the remainder of this year and tpe coming school year to right its financial problems or the state board must take action, such as merging the district with one or more other districts. ' The state board initially classified the district as fiscally distressed in March 2011 because of financial mismanagement of pubHc funds uncovered by state and private audits. After the state Department of Eduqation took control pf the district last June by dissolving the School Board and See PCSSDP, age6 A Pesso  Continued from Page 1 A dismissing the board-hired superintendent, officials determined  that the district's legal balances in 2010-11 had dropped from $9.5 million to $4 million by the end of the year. Legal balances are funds that a district generally has discretion on how to spend, and are not earmarked for specific purposes. Guess told the board the district has identified more than $6 million in cuts but needs to reduce $7 million in employee benefits that are in excess of those required by the state to take effect iri 2012-13. Most employees in the district are represented by either the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers or the Pulaski Association of Support Staff. Guess told the Education Board he would notify the unions today that the district will request reopening negotiations on those contracts. \"Our goal is to first convince the union that the situation ... is critieal and it does exist and that it will be fatal to the continued existence of the district if those conditions are not corrected,\" said Guess, who was appointed in late June to head the district by state Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell. Kimbrell serves in the role as the district's School Board. \"I do not want to approach these negotiations with an attitude of not succeeding or in a threatening posture,\" Guess said. But he also said: \"What I will do if we do not succeed, 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.\" Pressed by state board members to elaborate, Guess only said he was committed to reaching an agreement and to having a productive 2012-13 school year for students. Goff told the board that without budget cuts, the district - which has a $170 million budget and more than 2,800 employees - would exceed revenue by $13,633,277 in th~ coming school year. The district has identified $6,667,680 in reductions, including the elimination of 77 positions through retirements and resignations or, if necessary, a reduction-in-force to save a projected $3.85pilllion. Those would includ~ teaching, administrative ahd support staff positions. Another $775,328 will be saved by not filling positions already vacant. To offset eliminated jobs, the district would fill classes to the maximum number of students permitted by state standards. Other identified cuts include a $1.5 million change , in the employee's insurance i\n,p.ckage, as well I\\S a new copier machine contract, and a change in the opening and dismissal times for schools. Goff has identified $14.85 million in benefits that are not required by the state and could be cut from the contract with the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers. Another $1.4 million in benefits also could be cut from the district's contract with the, Pulaski Association of Sup-i port Staff, he said. ( Provisions in the emploriee contracts that could be cut include reducing the teacher work year from 192 to 190 days at a savings of $795,000, restricting the payment of teachers for noninstructional duties such as bus and recess duty at a savings of $642,752, and discontinuing the salary credits to teachers for professional groyVth classes given in the district, a savings of $2.8 million. . Other contracted benefits subject to cuts include $669,678 in \"severance\" pay to teachers who retire, $135,032 in stipends'to 37 teachers who earned-certification from the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards and $996,137 in longevity pay to 556 teachers and administrators who have reached the top of the salary s.chedule. The district would save nearly $3 million by contributing only the state-required $131 per month to employee health insurance versus $272.80 per month now paid to 1,747 covered employees. Another $1.4 million could b~ !ealized by cutting dental, v1s1on and disability insurance. Additional benefits now provided in the teachers' contract that are subject to possible cuts dea,1w ith leave time in excess of one sick day for each month of employment. The current leave policies cost the district about $2 million a year in substitute teacher pay. Goff tpld the board that the $7 million in cuts to employee costs are needed to compensate so~e antic~pated increases, mcluding $1.4 million in experience step increases to employees for next year a $2.8 million bus replacenie'.nt  program, a $500,000 increase in workers' compensa:ti,\nm insurance, a $588,000 transfer of funds to the food service program, and a 1 percent fucrease of $1.7 million to the legal balance fund to protect the district in case of emer-  genci~s. Education Board member .~rend_a Gullett of Fayetteville questioned why Guess and the Education Department had to adhere to the employee contracts since the state takeover. \"Why do you have to negotiate with anyone?\" she asked. \"It would be in the best interest of the district to come to an agreement and work together,\" Kimbrell said. \"This pathway is in the best interest of the kids and the school . district.\" Curtaicl harters, LR schoolsu rge District tells U.S. court that state vi9lateds ettlementm, akei t pay CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE The state should be stopped from opening or expanding charter schools and forced to pay Pulaski Coun- . ty's three school districts for di~trict students who moved to the independently run charter schools, attorneys for the Little Rock School District and black students known as the Joshua intervenors said Tuesday. In a motion submitted to U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr., the attorneys argued that the state - including the Arkansas Department of Education and the state Board of Education - have violated in multiple'ways a 1989 settlement agreement in the long-running Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit. , Chris Heller and Clay Fendley, attorneys for the Little Rock district and Rep. John Walker and Robert Pressman for the Joshua intervenors contend that the violations include state retaliation against the three Pulaski County districts because of the settlement. Those retaliatory acts inSee CHARTERPSa,g e 7A Charters  Continued from Page 1 A elude limiting payments for school bus transportation in the districts, subjecting the three districts.to special fmancial audits and failing to reimburse the Little Rock district for legal fees incurred in the district's successful attainment of unitary status in 2007. \"The State's admissions and other undisputed evidence show significant and continuing State violations of the 1989 Settlement Agreement,\" the attorneys wrote. \"None of the facts necessary for the Court to rule in fa\\! Or of LRSD and Joshua are in dispute. LRSD should be granted summary judgment,\" the attorneys said in the filing that totaled more than 1,000 pages, including depositions and reports. Summary judgment is a court order in which a judge decides that there are no disagreements about the facts in a case and that a judge can make a decision without a trial or court hearing. Tuesday's motion comes in the aftermath of the Little Rock School District's May 2010 motion to enforce the settlement agreement in regard to the state-approved establishment of independently run charter schools\"in Pulaski County. The district has argued that the charter scho9ls - of which there are 12 - were approved witho'ut considering the ef fect the schools would have on,magnet schools and the majority-to-minority student transfer program in the three districts.  Those interdistrict student transfer programs are part of the 1989 settlement agreement and are an effort to promote racial desegregation in the three districts.  Attorneys said in Tuesday's filings that 331 Little Rock students moved directly froln magnet schools td, char- More information Schoodl istricttsa keovear nd desegregation arkansasonline.com/dese' gdoc/ ter schools between 2005-06 and 2010-ll, and 20 more Little Rock district students moved from the majority-to-minority student transfer program to charter schools. In August, Marshall directed the district and the Joshua intervenors - who contend that the state failed to meet its obligations to work to improve the achievement of black students in the three districts - to file a joint statement of facts in the case this month. The state, repr:esented by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's office, and the Pulaski County open-enrollment charter schools, have been directed by the court to file their own statement of facts by March 12. Marshall has set a March 29 hearing to decide what steps to take next. Representatives of the attorney general's office and the charter school intervenors said late Tuesday that they had just received the motion for summary judgment and accompanying documents and had not had time to review them. \"I will ... respond in court according to the time frame established. by Judge Marshall,'' said Jess Askew III, an attorney for the charter schools. The Little Rock district and Joshua intervenors told Marshall that state officials had approved charter schools without court approval\nhad failed to identify or develop programs to remediate achievement disparities between black and white students\nand had \"abandoned\" its responsibility to monitor desegregation and remedia-tion efforts in the district. The attorneys wrote that state officials limited the amount of ai:'d for state school-bus tr'ansportation to the three school districts in - such a way that the districts are reimbursed at a lesser percentage than the state average, a violation of the settlement agreement. They also said that the attorney general and \"other state actors\" including University of Arkansas departments in Fayetteville and \"private persons and entities have engaged in an orchestrated public relations campaign designed to discredit desegregation efforts in Pulaski County generally and LRSD specifically that has created something lik~ the 'hysterical political atmosphere' surrounding desegregation reminiscent of the 1960s.\" The 1960s reference is from a 1985 court decision in the case. The attorneys asked that the state Board of Education be enjoined from approving any new open-enrollment charter schools or increasing the size of the schools unless court approval is granted to do so. The state also should be directed to retroactively pay the three Pulaski Coupty school districts the .state aid the districts would have re-ceived had charter school students participated in the majority-to-minority student transfer program, the attor-neys said.  Additionally, they said, the Arl\u0026lt;aJ1saDs epartment of Education should be directed to identify programs, policies or procedures designed to remediate the racial achievement disparity that exists between black and white students in Pulaski County district schools. The state agency should further be directed to develop a .revised plan for monitoring the remediation of that disparity, the. attorneys said. The attorneys also asked that the state be prevented from enforc\ning a state law that authorized.\"forensic\" audits of the three districts and that the state be precluded from consolidating, annexing or reconstituting the three Pulaski County districts unless authorized by the federal court. The potential for such consolidation exists because both the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special districts have been placed in the state's fiscal distress program and must correct financial problems identified by the state within l years or forced by the state to merge with one or more other districts. Lawmakersu rgep ush to end desegregatiocna se ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE I Two state lawmakers have proposed a resolution for the Arkansas House of Representatives and Arkansas Senate to offer their \"full support\" for ~he governor and attorney general to take \"every lawful and responsible action\" within their authority to seek and litigate for a court order bringing an immediate end to the Pulaski County school desegregation case and the settlement agreement involving the state. State Sen. Gilbert Baker, RConway, and Rep. Tim Summers, R-Bentonville, filed a resolution for the Legislature to consider in the fiscal session. Since the 1988-89 school year, the state has paid more than $1 billion in total and about $70 million a year in desegregarion funding to the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts, according to the resolution. Baker said he proposed it to show that Gov. Mike Beebe and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel \"have the support of the Legislature behind , them as they move forward\" trying to settle the case. \"There is a pretty strong view across Arkansas that it is time to deal with that case,\" Baker said. As a result of the order from a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis, desegregation efforts by the Pulaski County Special district will continue to be monitored by the federal courts for the foreseeable future.  The Little Rock and North Little Rock districts have been released from court supervision in the 29-year-old lawsuit. All three districts, however, remain parties in the lawsuit and receive about $70 million a year in state desegregation aid that other districts in the state do not get. ARKANSADS EMOCRAT-GAZE'ITE a-periocdl assd ay focuso fs essions The Little Rock School District is hosting a series of informational meetings this month for parents of upper-elementary and middle-school pupils regarding a proposal to establish an eight-period class day in the district's seven middle schools. The change would begin in the 2012-13s chool year. Most of the middle schools currently operate on a college- style block schedule in which students alternate between four 90-minute classes one day and four 90-minute classes in other subjects the next day. The revised schedule would be made up of eight 44-minute classes every day. The district has arranged the schedule so that district officials can meet with parents from up to two schools at a time. On Monday, a session will be held at Forest Heights Middle School for parents of pupils who attend or will attend Forest Heights or Pulaski Heights middle schools. The session will be from 5:30 to7 p.m. A second session is planned for 5:30 to 7 p.m. Tuesday at Dunbar Middle School for the parents of current or future pupils at Dunbar and Horace Mann Magnet middle schools. A final session is planned from 5:15 to 6:45 p.m. Feb. 27 at Henderson Middle School for the parents of current and future Henderson pupils. Current middle-school parents and parents of children in third, fourth and fifth grades are encouraged to attend the meeting at their closest neighborhood school. School Board members will attend the sessions. A session was held Thursday for parents of Cloverdale and Mabelvale middle-school pupils. Educationno tebook Thea competition winnerrse vealed The Thea Foundation has announced the winners of its 2012 Visual Arts Scholarship Competition for high school seniors and its Visual Arts Competition for high school juniors. to Anna Britton, Harding Academy\nAmber Ivey, Cabot High\nMykel Rodriguez, Conway High\nAshley Swindle, Jonesboro High\nMadison Teague, Harding Academy\nHeather Watson, Jacksonville High\nand Kathryn Wells, Bauxite High. The junior winners each received $100. They were: Jacob Schlag, North Little Rock High\nand Ashley Trieschmann, Hot Springs High. The artwork of the winning students will be on display in the Thea Foundation gallery through March 23 at 401 Main St. in North Little Rock. A total of 160 high school seniors competed for a combined total of $25,000 in scholarships. A total of 64 high school juniors competed for a total of $1,000 in cash prizes. The artworks of any medium were based on the theme, \"Happy Remembrances of the Holiday Season,\" taken from Thea Kay Leopoulos' journal entry titled \"Christmas.\" The winning seniors were Tulsi Patel, Morrilton High, first place, $4,000\nValeria Chavez, El Dorado High, second place, $3,500\nMichaela Osborne, Bentonville High, third place, $3,000\nDerek Schultz, North Little Rock High, fourth place, $2,500\nAustin Benson, Morrilton High, fifth place, $2,000\nKatie Connelly, El Dorado High, sixth place, $2,000\nCole Harken, Morrilton High, seventh place, $2,000\nDarren Waddles, Mountain View High, eighth place, $2,000\nHaley Martin, Lake Hamilton High, ninth place, $2,000\nEun Ha, Little Rock Central High, 10th place, $2,000. t:Honorable mentid'\\s went Districtosf fered Emmanuelle Esters, North transitioninhge lp Little Rock High, first place\nJamie Freeman, Cabot High, The Arkansas Public second place\nChris Graham, School Resource Center is ofBen ton High, third place\nfering its member school disSergio Garcia, North Little tricts assistance in transitionRock High, fourth place\ning from Arkansas education Rebecca Richmond, North standards to the new 1ComLittle Rock High, fifth place\nmon Core State Standards in Holly Roomsburg, El Dorado math and English/language High, sixth place\nMacKenzie arts. Thompson, Little Rock Cen- The pilot initiative, Achievtral High, seventh place\nAn- ing by Changing, is funded gela Eichhorn, Harding Acad- with a grant from the Wale my, eighth place\nMorgan ton Family Foundation and Thompson, Paris High, ninth through fees paid bv the 26 place\nand Rebekah Cooley, schools that were selected to Paris High, 10th place. try the program. Additional Honorable mentions went schools will be added in the t~ Mic_helle ~allantine, F_lip- fall for the program, which is pm ~1gh\n:r1ffa1\n1yC ollm~, designed to provide teachers Sheridan High\nDianna Godi- , with research-based stratenez, North Little Rock Higi_: I gies for teaching from the new and more rigorous standards. The Achieving by Changing program is being carried out through the use of regional hubs. Each hub is matched with an Achieving by Changing coach who will teach the strategies, provide on-site support and monitor each school's progress. Keepingey eso nt he ball ,_,,\n.~~~,/i!\u0026gt;~~r .- ~\n,..,.,,.,\n1,\n,,.,. . ' \nA...,\ns~sOem~rat-07G,\nj\nAigiGK'.r.,cF.A:Al!ANO w,~~~-~\"\"-:\n-.r~\n. ,,, ... 1  t!\n:-1  ~.......... - _ .~ Geese' Ausl?je\nthe Harlem Globetrotters star, shows o~ his skills Wednesday for fifth-graders, including Syqney Kellam (l~ft) and Audrey Hall, at Williams Magnet Elementary in Little Rock. Talksb etweend_i strictu, nionss hort,n ot so sweet CYNTHIA HOWELL  ARKANSDAESM OCRAT-GAZETTE Contract negotiations between leaders of the Pulaski County Special School District and its two employee unions ended Wednesday almost as soon as they began, leaving unanswered the question of how the district will cut $13.6 million from its 2012-13b udget. the Pulaski Association of employee salaries and insurClassroom Teachers, said the ance benefits for next year district's contract negotiating before discussing potential team \"walke'd out\" of the con- budget cuts. district since July, declined could resume,although nothWednesday to talk specifi- ing is scheduled. cally about the.brief negotia- \"I don't know what is gotions session, citing terms in,_ ing to happen next,\" Guess the district's contract with said. 'Tm trying to act very teachers prohibiting the dis- responsibly and very carecussion with media_ of con- ftilly to make sure that whattract proposals or the status ever steps we take next. are of bargaining before an,im- defensible, appropriate and tract talks within a half-hour \"We gave a proposal that of their start. addresses the budget by not The district's team left, Nix increasing it\n'' Nix said. \"Jney said, after she and representa- refused to sign it unless we tives of the Pulas_ki Associa- 1 agreed to open the entire tion of Support Staff repeated contract. That's not going to the assertions that they made happen.\" passe is declared. made with integrity.\" Guess said neither side de- Guess and Bill Goff, chief Marty Nix, president of in earlier letters that agree- Jerry Guess, superintenments had to be reached on dent 'of the 17,000-student dared an impasse Wednes- financial officei: in the district day, meaning the negotiatioru\nSee TALKSP,a ge 9A Talks  Continued from Page 1 A - which is operating under state control and without an elected school board - told the Arkansas Board of Education on Feb.13 that the district needed to cut $13.6 million in the coming year to balance the district's $170 million budget. The district leaders told the Education Board that they had already identified about $6.6 million in cuts, including the elimination of some 77 jobs through attrition or layoffs, but needed contract concessions from employee groups to save another $7 million. \u0026lt;\noff said there is about $14 million in benefits and costs in the teachers' contract and abo4t $1.4 million in the sup-port staff contract in excess of what is ,,, required by state law for school district employees. Some of those additional benefits include a 192- Goff day work year for teachers as opposed to 190 days required by law, pay for lunch and bus duty, and a $272.80 monthly contribution per employee for health insurance as compared with the $131 required by law. Guess told state officials that failure to convince the unions of the district's financial problems and to resolve the problems would be \"fatal\" to the district's continued existence. He also said he had a plan for \"unilateral implementation of the district's last, best and final offer to the union\" that he was prepared to carry out if the negotiations are not successful. The employee associations Wednesday proposed to the district's negotiating team :, that there be no acrossthe- board pay raises and no increase in employee health insurance payments for the . coming school Nix year, Nix said. The district's team refused to accept that proposal without an agreement from the employees to reopen their entire contracts that are otherwise due to expire in 2015. The employee groups refused to reopen the entire agreements. \"We'll address a lot of the budget concerns, but we are not going to agree to open the contract to do it,\" Nix said, adding that most of the terms in the 172-page teacher contract don't deal with monetary issues. \"I've said it everywhere: We will address their budget concerns once [a revised] contract is implemented,\" Nix said. Any employee concessions or exceptions to the terms of the contract produced in the budget talks could be enacted through a signed \"memorandum of understanding\" between the employee groups and the district, she said. Such memoranda have been used routinely, she said, the most recent one dealing with a change for next year in class scheduling at some of the secondary schools. Guess said he has told the union leaders that \"We have to be able to discuss all of the negotiated agreement.\" That's necessary, he said, if the district is to ensure that students are well-served academically next year and if the budget changes are going to be softened for as many employees as possible. Nix and Emry Chesterfield, president of the Pulaski As_sociation of Support Staff, said Wednesday afternoon that they were uncertain what would happen next but that their organizations were willing to continue talks with the district leaders. ''.Anytime, anyplace,\" Chesterfield said. He said the district's use of two outside attorneys and a c!onsultant on its negotiating team at a time when the district is in financial trouble was objectionable. The attorneys earn $175 to $20d an hour. Guess responded in a separate interview, \"My imperative is to do this well. I want all of the advice I can get. \"I think this is a very, very complicated process, and I think experienced people should be consulted to be sure that the course we pursue is the right course and pursued the right way.\" Attorneys Allan Roberts qf Camden,the district's chief negptiator, and Jay Bequette of the Bequette \u0026amp; Billingsley law firm in Little Rock, participated in Wednesday's negotiations .. Don Stewart, a former assistant superintendenffor business in the district, was the consultant. He has been assisting the district with financial matters since shortly after the state Department of Education took o.ver the Pulaski County Special district in June because of financial mismanagement issues. The state takeover occurred after the state Education Board classified the district as being in fiscal distress in March 2011. As a result, the district has up to two years to correct the financial issues, which include mismanagement and spending more than it is receiving, before the state board is compelled to take action against it. That could be mej-ging the di_stricJt o_p ne or more other school districts. Besides Stewart and the attorneys, others on the district's negotiating team are: Guess\nGoff\nPaul Brewer, chi~f executive officer/executive director of human resources\nand Linda Remele, deputy superintendent ()f elementary education/chief academic officer. Representatives for the employees include Nix\nChesterfield\nSandra Roy, executive director for both unions\nand chief nego'tii!tors .Deen . Minton for the teachers and Don Clevenger for the sup~ port staff. Letters exchanged between the district and associations set the stage for the dispute Wednesday. The teacher association sent letters last week that proposed Wednesday's meeting, citing Article XVII of the teachers' contract that says the district and teachers agree to annually open negotiations on the salary and insurance provisions. Guess responded with a letter giving the association notice that the district was seeking modification to the  entire conGuess tract under the modification provision, Article I, Section 5. \"The administration  proposes modification of the entire agreement in order to comply with the Arkansas Department of Education fiscal distress 'removal mandate,\" Guess wrote. \"That mandate is that the district negotiate ~Ith PACT changes ln the certified employee compensation package1 set forth in the PACT agree~ ment that will result in substantial economic savings.''. Guess acknowledged in his letter that the contract negotiations \"are going to be regressive.\" - . . The -union -leader,s. wrote Guess,fate Wednesday__: after the meeting - stating that they were \"extremely disappointed\" with the district team leaving the talks.  \"Your chief negotiator gave us a 'take it or leave it' ultimatum. Dr. Guess, we will not be bullied in this process,\" Nix and Chesterfield wrote. The two said the district's refusal to accept union offers that deal with the highest cost items in any district budget in the midst of a budget crisis are \"unconscionable.\" The district has about 2,800 employees. 2 schoolu nions declareim passe in contractta lks PulaskiC ountyd istrict'iss sues now on mediationfa st track CYNTI:!IA HOWELL ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE The teacher and support staff unions in the Pulaski County Special School District declared an impasse Friday in the 2012-13c ontract negotiations with district officials. The unions have scheduled federal and state mediators to work with bargaining teams on Tuesday. The declaration of an impasse is the latest development in efforts by the state's third-largest district ofl7,000 students to cut $13.6 million in expenses from its 2012-13 budget. District leaders have said they need employee concessions to balance the budget of about $170 million. Union leaders have said they want to lock in salary and insurance terms for next year at this year's rates before working with district officials on any additional budget matters. \"We believe that media-tion is the most expeditious way to resolve the issues before us,\" Marty Nix, president of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, and Emry Chesterfield, president of the Pulaski Association of Support Staff, wrote Friday to school district Superintendent Jerry Guess in a letter declaring the impasse in contract talks. Guess quickly responded with his own letter: \"I welcome your decision, and we will be agreeable to return to the table.\" . However, Guess added that the district's negotiating team was not consulted about mediation or the date. \"I am unable to confirm all team members for Tuesday and would agree to a meeting on Thursday,\" the superintendent wrote. In the third letter of the day, Nix and Chesterfield held fast to the Tuesday date. \"We understand if all of See PCSSDP,a ge3 A PCSSD  Continued from Page 1 A your team is not able to attend. As you know we have met with you in negotiations when not all of our team was in attendance,\" Nix and Chesterfield wrote. \"The urgency of resolving our differences is of paramount importance\ntherefore we look forward to seeing you on February 28.\" Guess said in an interview that he wants the parties to meet, but he doesn't plan to do it on Tuesday. \"I don't think I can get all of my folks ready for Tuesday,\" he said. \"I will sit down with the leadership of PACT and PASS and we will contact those mediators together and we will find a time when we can all meet. Or, if they don't want to be in the room when I contact them, I'll contact them by mysel I want to work together. I don't know how I can try any harder. \"I didn't know about the impasse,\" he said. \"I didn't know that they had contacted mediators. I didn't know that a meeting was being planned. So, I'm going to have to do the best I can to find a ytay to get us all together.\" The impasse declaration Friday comes in the aftermath of the first and only recent bargaining session that took place Wednesday between the district and the two employee unions. It lasted no more than 30 minutes. The district's negotiating team left the talks when representatives of the employee associations insisted on settling salary and insurance provisions before dealing with the district's call to cut $13.6 million in expenses to balance the 2012-13b udget. The employee associations on Wednesday had proposed locking in the salaries and the district's contributions to employee health-insurance coverage at this year's rates, meaning no across-the-board raises for employees - although step increases for experience presumably would be paid to employees eligible for them. Guess and Chief Financial Officer Bill Goff told the Arkansas Board of Education on Feb.13 that the Pulaski County Special district - which is operating under state control and without an elected school board - had identified nearly $6.7 million in expenses to be cut. Those cuts will include the elimination of 77 jobs through attrition and layoffs, but district leaders said they need concessions from employees to cut an additional $7 million. Goff has said the teachers' existing contract - due to expire in 2015 - provides teachers with about $14 million and support staff with $1.4 million in benefits over and above what is required by state law. For teachers, those extra benefits include a 192-day work year as opposed to a 190-day year that is required by law. Additionally, the district contributes $272.80 a month for employee health insurance versus the $131 a month required by the state. The district also pays teachers for noninstructional duties such as recess and.bus supervision, whereas state law says teachers can do up to an hour of duty a week without additional pay. Nix on Friday, in an interview, said that declaring an impasse was the fastest way to resolving the issues. \"We are going to address the financial needs that they presented to the state Board of Education on Feb. 13,\" she said, reiterating her position from Wednesday. \"But we are not going to give up all of our contract, all of the agreements that we have in there, which it seems like the superintendent wants us to do.\" Nix said it is the associations' intent to address with district leaders all of the potential areas for cost-cutting that Goff listed as being extra in the employee contracts. \"We definitely want to,\" she said, but she added that the associations want to deal with the salaries and insurance issues first. Those two issues are specifically identified in the teacher contract as being subject to annual negotiations. Other parts.of the contract can be opened if there is mutual agreement of the bargaining teams. Nix has suggested that any changes in employee benefits and working conditions made necessary by the _budget problems could be handled through memoranda ofunderstanding. More than half of the district's teachers and support staff mustbe members of their respective associations for the associatio~s to i\nepresent them in contract.talks. Usually, employees pay for their union dues through payroll deductions. District officials reported Friday that there are 1,327 teachers, of whom more than half - 794 - pay dues to the teachers' union through pay-roll deductions.  A total of 423 support staff employees pay dues through payroll deduction to the Pulaski Association of Support Staff, which is slightly less than half of the 851 employees who are eligible to join the association. It couldn't be immediately determined Friday night whether enough J support staff employees are paying dues out of pocket to get the membership number over 50 percent The teachers' contract includes an impasse resolution section. When eitherparty declares an impasse on any unresolved item, both parties agree to contact the Federal Mediation Conciliation Service to request the agency's services. Mediation will commence within five days after a metliator  is appointed or at the earliest convenience of the mediator. A mediator typically goes back and forth between the teams to work out differences. Either team can declare a second impasse, at which time the issues go to a factfinder. The fact-finder listens to what the teams say are their final, best offers and_p repares a written nonbinding opinion on how the matter should be resolved. If no agreement is reached between the parties after factfinding, either team can ask for an impasse hearing before the school board, according to the teachers' contract. Since the Pulaski County Special district was taken over by the state last.June because of financial mismanagement, Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell will serve as the district's school board.  School'districdt elays bargainingm eeting. ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE \"We have contacted the Representatives of the Pu- mediators and look 1for,ward  laski County Special School to seeking you on Thursday,\"  District and the district's teach- Marty Nix, president of the er and support-staff unions teachers' organization, and will meet, with state and ,fed- Emry Chesterfield, president eral mediators Thursday ih a of the support staff association, renewed effort to reach 'agree- wrote to Guess on Monday. : merits aifectmg' employee con- \"We are very hopeful that we tr.ad.s_ andt he school district's can reach a resolution to the . bu~get i 2012-13. } . issues befor~ us, they adde\\i. The mediation session will The unions had declared an be.~in at 10:30 a,Jll, at the Ar-  impasse Friday after a 30~rninkansas Education Association ute J:?argain:ing_sessi\u0026lt;:\u0026gt;nWednesheadquarte~ s. .  . day between the district and \\  The mediation session\nwas the two employee' unions. initjalslcyh eduled for tod~yb ut  ..T ji.e district's neg\u0026lt;\nltiating Pu:faski\nCountyS pecial-School team left the talks when rep)? J'l:rict'S 1\n1perihtend~nJte rry. resenti)t_iveso f the' .employee Guess tpld the Pulaski.As.sq- associations -insisted 6ri setciation of Classroom Te~chers  tling salary an,~ irisun~nce an~it:h e Pulaski Assqc:iatiorio f. provisions,petor~ dealing with ~ilP,poi\nSt taffl ast weel\u0026lt;,t):iatJlis' the 'distriGt'.s crutio ,c ut $l3.6 teamcou ld hot be ready'(o~tfue.: ,.i:nillion~ xpe~~sto balance essiim today.   ( ' j .... './ ,th~f~g-~ budg~t\n'  .''\nH~ sl\\'ggested ~ ..: :rJiuri.djY : ,., /. ~~~.,S1\\$a.rid .~!iif Fihan~fal me.et~g to the ~o~Je?.4.~p  (2f1f,e,1r ?j}Glo\nf -told t~e !}randr~ so, contacteii one,?tIB.f ,,'. kl\\Il5as1 Boar19f ~duf_at1on',on mediatqrs over the weekend.td i ,'.E ebh'l.t3h:a t th,e-.P.hlasletio unty seek/~hange ih the time... _.. ,:$Iii~fat'district ..!...'\nwh1c.his  Le,i!-\\le~of~ ~- e nr9,,$qipl\u0026lt;:\u0026gt;y-ope\na~ii:g un,der state coiiy!1Pl ee .group_ps ut1allyJ11S1steodn and witl\\,o\\.W,iiellle cted sclfool a sessio~ today, but they wrote board - had 'identified l'leiirly tq. Guess \u0026lt;\n\u0026gt;Mn o_nday\n~ aying $6.7 mi!Jion irJ~. jcpenses:too e th\u0026lt;!,t\" git he spirit'6f collabora- ct.' :' \n ,. \":, tiont',th.~-associaij~p.s woi!ld  H owever\ndistric,t .lea,4e'rs mee't ~ith the distric,t. team $aid'th.ey_ neeq cop.ce~!l.i'l\nJ.ns ~cj !Ilediators ,cm the .i{terna- from egipl~yeei to.ht ari:ail.- tiye date.    ., :',, ' , . , - diJJonal' $7 ~qn.     . 4B  WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012  Uniformeeds cort Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/BENJAMIKNR AIN Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps student James Sudeen waits in the hallway at Parkview Magnet High School to escort the Little Rock school superintendent and other administrators during a tour of career-technical education classes in the district's high schools Tuesday. Arkansas Democrat ~(f,azette Gettingth e point Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/BENJAMIKNR AIN Tyler Robinson gets a finger stuck Tuesday by University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences nursing student Kathryn Dawson during an optional screening at a health fair for students at Parkview Magnet High School in the Little Rock School District. Sessionsm ediated, but no deal struck 'EVIEBLAD ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE The leaders of the Pulaski County Special School District and its employee unions were unable to reach an agreement Thursday after three hours of mediated . discussions about proposed changes designed to help the district trim $7 million from its 2012-13b udget. Staff, which represents em_ ployees ~ the 17,000-student district, met in one room of the Arkansas Education Association headquarters Thursday, discussing proposals with a state and fedt! ral mediator, who met with Guess and an attorney in a separate .room. District, The groups plan to continue~ alks at io,:'30 a.m .. Monday at the district's administration building.  Union leaders and stateappointed Superintendent JE\nrrY Guess described Thursday's talks as \"positive,\" but they wou-ld not discuss the specifics of the negotiations. Union leaders have said they want to lock in salary and insurance terms for next year at this year's rates before considering any other budget matters. Those issues weren't settled Thursday, Nix said. _She would not say if the ~ons held the same position on the matter. .. umons Guess wouldn't speculate about whether another' day of negotiations would yield an agreement among the groups. in talks 3 hours \"We're all going to do the right thing, and I think the presence of mediators have brought us closer to that,\" said Marty Nix, president of the Pulaski Association of Class.room Teachers, the teachers' unibn. \"I think this has been a good day, and we've been talking about important issues,\" he said Thursday. \"But there have been no p_i:oposals and no d,ecisions.\" Nix and Emry Chest~rfield, president of the Pulaski Association of Support The mediators - contracted through the Federal Mediation Conciliation ~aIk s _ its financial situation through I , a state-approved plan within two years, Arkansas law al- .  Continued from Page 1 B lows the state to take further Service - determined when actions - including merging to break for the day, Guess it wi\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_293","title":"Chicago Cold War: John McNalis","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, New York, Clinton County, Plattsburgh, 44.69949, -73.45291","Vietnam, 16.16667, 107.83333"],"dcterms_creator":["McNalis, John","Yaros, Craig"],"dc_date":["2012-04-09"],"dcterms_description":["Reverend John McNalis was born and raised in Chicago. After graduating high school, he began working through Roman Catholic seminary and decided to join the military. As an ordained chaplain in the United States Air Force, Rev. McNalis was stationed all over the country. After serving for many years during the Cold War, he retired from the military in 1997."],"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. Air Force","Oral history","Interviews","Cold War","Catholic","Catholic Church","Clergy"],"dcterms_title":["Chicago Cold War: John McNalis"],"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/293"],"dcterms_temporal":["1968/1997"],"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: 1:04:09 minutes"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"kai_chm-oh_239","title":"Chicago Cold War: Erku Yimer","collection_id":"kai_chm-oh","collection_title":"Oral History Collection (Chicago History Museum)","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Ethiopia, 9.0, 39.5","United States, Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, 41.85003, -87.65005"],"dcterms_creator":["Yimer, Erku","Moomey, Kirstin"],"dc_date":["2012-04-05"],"dcterms_description":["Erku Yimer was a co-founder of the Ethiopian Community Association of Chicago. Born in Ethiopia, Dr. Yimer came to the United States in 1975. After attending the University of Chicago, Dr. Yimer helped build the Ethiopian Community Association of Chicago, which primarily assists refugees with their resettlement."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","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","Civil war","Refugees"],"dcterms_title":["Chicago Cold War: Erku Yimer"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"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/239"],"dcterms_temporal":["1944/1975"],"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: 21:17 minutes"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"kai_chm-oh_289","title":"Chicago Cold War: Dace Kezbers","collection_id":"kai_chm-oh","collection_title":"Oral History Collection (Chicago History Museum)","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Germany, 51.5, 10.5","Hungary, 47.0, 20.0","Latvia, 57.0, 25.0","United States, Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, 41.85003, -87.65005"],"dcterms_creator":["Kezbers, Dace","Yaros, Craig"],"dc_date":["2012-04-03"],"dcterms_description":["Dace Kezbers was born in Riga, Latvia, in 1943. Shortly after she was born, her family moved into a Displaced Persons camp in Germany to avoid the Soviet occupation of Latvia. Kezbers and her family moved several times over the next few years until finally coming to Chicago in 1954. Throughout her life, Kezbers was involved in Chicago's Latvian community."],"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":["American Latvian Association in the United States","Oral history","Interviews","Cold War","World War, 1939-1945","Revolutions","Protest movements","Broadcasting"],"dcterms_title":["Chicago Cold War: Dace Kezbers"],"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/289"],"dcterms_temporal":["1949/1989"],"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: 42:32 minutes"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_135","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":["2012-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["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/135"],"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,~-------------------..... : - -- Dr. Tom W. Kimbrell Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Joe Black Newport Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Toyce Newton Crossett Mireya Reith Fayetteville Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019 - (501) 682-4475 W ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer April 30, 2012 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 DPMmD Y Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of April, 2012 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~C-~~ Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. LR-C-82-866 DPM/HDY PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 2012. BY: Jer C. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar No. 2001 -205 Ark. Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on April 30, 2012, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~c.~ J\nE~ Lasiter IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 ~~fe~ c,g:tt:f$\n!ttfqfrn~tipn-avail~hle~Jit ~foff'.~ 1'\n'2012,- the ~/\\OE efalculated the S,1~t~,\"FQqrl'd_afJ~f.fFun,ging for FY:.111-12_ sd!?ie~ to ,periodic adjustments: B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Based on the information avaffable at Mar.ch 31, 2o\"12:the ADE calculated for FY 1-1 /12, supj_ect tQ pe_riodic ~djustments.    ~ ,   C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 On March 31 , 2012, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 11/12 were as follows: LRSD - $45,023,480 NLRSD - $25,442,676 PGSSD - $31\n285,944 The allotments of State Foundation Funding, calculated for FY 11 /12 at March 31, 2012, subject to periodic adjustments,. '-'!'ere as follows: LRSD - $61 ,907,286 NLRSD - $\n34,983,681 PCSSD-$43,018,176 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March 31 , 2012, for FY11/12, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Based on the informa~iori _available\nthe ADE calffated at March 31, 201.2,  for FY11/12, subject t9 periodic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 On October 26, 2010, changes were made in the expense per cnild to $8,336. Based on the in-formation-available, the ADE calculated at March 31\", 2012, for FY11/12, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Distributions for FY 11/12 at March 31, 2012, totaled $10,596,190. Allotment calculated for FY 11/12 was $14,373,720 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 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. ~~tuaJ as_ of Aprll 30,29~~ Distdbutions for FY1'VT~'al Marctf 31,, 20127w~r_e\nLRSD - $3it~o\n922 I . , - NLRS~ :.,$3,?95\n395 P~SSD _-$6J333,3t6 The allotmerts calcufa~d for: FY :j 1Tf2 at riifarch 31\n2012, -subjed to periodic adjustments, w~re: LR.SD- $4,:458,463 NLRSD - $5,564,846 Pesso - $9,761,876 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of April 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 April 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 April 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 09/10: 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-th ird payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 201 1, 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 05706 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 April 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: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. 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 April 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 4 7 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 April 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 Centr:al 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 47 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 April 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, 4-47 passenger buses and 1-47 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 PCSSO 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. 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 April 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. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 2. Actual as of April 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 April 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 April 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. 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 April 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. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each School Year through June 30, 1996. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 2. Actual as of April 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 April 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. 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. 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 April 30, 2012 (Continued) 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 April 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. 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. 14 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) II. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) 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_tbe 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. 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 April 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. 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 April 30, 2012 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. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation Staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its Executive Summary were provided to the ADE Administrative Team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 Schools in the ECOE Process and their School Improvement Plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Staff developed a definition for instructional programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 Schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. 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 April 30, 2012 In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation Data Collection Workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 Schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its Executive Summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its Executive Summary were filed with the Court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its Executive Summary were made available to the districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 Schools in FY 97/98. 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. 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. 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 April 30, 2012 (Continued) 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 ans 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. 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. 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 April 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 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 April 30, 2012 (Continued) On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. The Assistant Directer 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. 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. 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 April 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 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 April 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 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 April 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004, at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE Staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the School Districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed desegregation funding by the ADE. 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 April 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. Or:t May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phas.e 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 April 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 _naL io 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 April 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 April 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 Jur:ie 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 onhe 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 (ODM), 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 ODM 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 April 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, tr.e 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 in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 April 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 th e 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 Colclnty 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 April 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 April 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 requiremer.1ts. 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 relates 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 April 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 5, 2012, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the lmplement~tion Phase activities for the p'reviqus guarter. Mr. WilHe Morris, ADE L~ad Planner for Desegregation, updated the\ngroup on all relev\nmt desegr~gation, issues_: Mr. Scott Rjchar9so11, As~istant Attorney General, stated that on March 19\n2012, th~y were still waiting for Judge Marshall to release thf3 State from the 1993 Settlement Agreemecit. The settlemerit sch~dules had not oeen discus_sed, in the last two year~. Mr.. Rfp~ards0n\nalso stated th~t or:i March 29, 201_2, the two\"niain things that were submitted te\u0026gt; the Co'urts were, Gharter Schools Open Enrollment and Achievement Gaps Mr. Morris stated tt:,e big issue is trying to address the nine (9) non-unitary -cfreas in the last Cort Order while in fiscal distress. The funding for the facilities in the Western part ofthe County is better than the funding for pre-existing facilities. On March 1, 2012, Dr. Stein received the l?CSSD 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 relea~ed from the Court. There- has been no feedback on C.RSD from Mr .. Heller. The Charter School Laws are the only thing having a negativ~ impact on their litigation. Mr, Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated there has been no rf3sponse to letters in the past 5-6 years. The next Implementation l?hase 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 April 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 April 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 April 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 8. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 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 April 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 April 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 April 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. 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 April 30, 2012 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior Legislative Session and new ADE Regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 Legislative Session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999, at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999, at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 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 April 30, 2012 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999, at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County Districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not 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 school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001, at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 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 April 30, 2012 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 , at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 , at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE Regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County School Districts. The next meetir:.ig-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 Augyst 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 204-8 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 204-8 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 April 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 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the District did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, a letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the District did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"de- _ annexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the SenateCommittee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the School Districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The Districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the Teacher Scholarship Program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE Administrative Team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its Executive Summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 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 April 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 Semianmial Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE Administrative Team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its Executive Summary were distributed to all Board Members. The Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education Meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and Executive Summary at the July Board Meeting. 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 April 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 attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its Executive Summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's Monitoring Plan and Monitoring Reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary. 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 April 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 Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its Executive Summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation Monitoring Process and the update on Test Validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its Quarterly Meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its Executive Summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 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 April 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 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. 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 i formed 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 April 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 April 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 Summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. 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 April 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 April 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 ExecutiYe 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 April 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 approvetl 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 April 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 of 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 April 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 th\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":"vrc_ful_vcu-37852","title":"An oral history interview with Federal Branch, Ephraim Briggs, Wanda Brown, Charles Crawley, Waverly Hughes, Patricia Melvin, Eric Robinson, Willie Robinson, and Douglas White, March 29, 2012","collection_id":"vrc_ful","collection_title":"Historic Fulton Oral History Project","dcterms_contributor":["Morris, Caroline Chandler, 1980- (interviewer)","Jones, Spencer E., III","Briggs, Ephraim","Branch, Federal","James Branch Cabell Library Special Collections and Archives.","Greater Fulton's Future (Project). Legacy Committee","Virginia Local Initiatives Support Corporation","Neighborhood Resource Center (Richmond, Va.)","The Valentine","VCU Libraries (publisher)","Johnson, Corliss Freda","White, Douglas","Robinson, Willie","Robinson, Eric","Melvin, Patricia Briggs","Hughes, Waverly","Crawley, Charles","Brown, Wanda Ellen"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, City of Richmond, 37.55376, -77.46026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2012-03-29"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Caroline Morris speaks with a number of individuals in the field about what it was like to live in the Historic Fulton neighborhood of Richmond, Va. Willie Robinson discusses his memories of Historic Fulton when he was growing up, his understanding of the revitalization project, the changes that have taken place in Historic Fulton, and what he would like to see for Historic Fulton in the future. Ephraim Briggs talks about his early upbringing in the Historic Fulton neighborhood. Eric Robinson describes what Historic Fulton was like when he was growing up, how his family had to move due to the urban renewal project, and how he feels about the impact of the project. Waverly Hughes describes how he grew up in Historic Fulton, how it influenced his career as a musician, and how he comes back to visit old friends. Charles Crawley discusses his memories of the Historic Fulton urban renewal project and what he would like for the future of Historic Fulton. Wanda Ellen Brown talks about her family home, childhood friends and relatives, social activities, and what it was like growing up in the Historic Fulton community. Patricia Briggs Melvin reminisces about growing up in Historic Fulton. Wanda Ellen Brown and Patricia Briggs Melvin both discuss coming back to the community and attending Historic Fulton reunions, memories of living in Historic Fulton, and repercussions of the Historic Fulton urban renewal project. Douglas White discusses the negative impact the urban renewal project had on the Historic Fulton community. Federal Branch describes growing up in Historic Fulton, attending Webster Davis School during desegregation, moving out of the neighborhood to Fulton Hill, and his hopes for Historic Fulton in the future.","An interview conducted as part of the Historic Fulton Oral History Project documenting life in the Historic Fulton community in the East End of Richmond, Virginia.","An interview conducted in the field in Historic Fulton by Caroline Morris."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":["contentdm id: ful/id/107","F234.R56"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Historic Fulton Oral History Project"],"dcterms_subject":["Richmond (Va.)--Social conditions","Neighborhoods--Virginia--Richmond--Social conditions","Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority","City planning--Citizen participation","Urban renewal--Virginia--Richmond"],"dcterms_title":["An oral history interview with Federal Branch, Ephraim Briggs, Wanda Brown, Charles Crawley, Waverly Hughes, Patricia Melvin, Eric Robinson, Willie Robinson, and Douglas White, March 29, 2012","Fulton field interview, March 29, 2012"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu:37852"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright, and the copyright is held by The Valentine. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, non-commercial use of this material is permitted. For any commercial uses, permission is required."],"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["White, Douglas--Childhood and youth--Anecdotes","White, Douglas--Interviews","Robinson, Willie--Childhood and youth--Anecdotes","Robinson, Willie--Interviews","Robinson, Eric--Childhood and youth--Anecdotes","Robinson, Eric--Interviews"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_ful_vcu-37834","title":"An oral history interview with Alice N. Ellis and Dudley R. Lanthrip, March 27, 2012","collection_id":"vrc_ful","collection_title":"Historic Fulton Oral History Project","dcterms_contributor":["Morris, Caroline Chandler, 1980- (interviewer)","Ellis, Donald","VCU Libraries (publisher)","Fralin, Rebecca","Lanthrip, Dudley R.","Ellis, Alice N.","James Branch Cabell Library Special Collections and Archives.","Greater Fulton's Future (Project). Legacy Committee","Virginia Local Initiatives Support Corporation","Neighborhood Resource Center (Richmond, Va.)","The Valentine"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, City of Richmond, 37.55376, -77.46026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2012-03-27"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Alice N. Ellis and Dudley R. Lanthrip discuss what it was like to grow up in the Historic Fulton neighborhood of Richmond, Va., during the 1930s and 1940s. Alice N. Ellis describes her early home life, friends in the community, jobs held by her and her family members, and social activities in the neighborhood. Dudley R. Lanthrip describes growing up in Historic Fulton, church activities and events, and trips that he took with his family. Both Alice N. Ellis and Dudley R. Lanthrip reminisce about local businesses and houses in Historic Fulton, working for the Millhiser Bag Company, the influence their upbringings in Historic Fulton had on their lives, and the closeness of the neighborhood in Historic Fulton.","An interview conducted as part of the Historic Fulton Oral History Project documenting life in the Historic Fulton community in the East End of Richmond, Virginia."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":["contentdm id: ful/id/80","F234.R56"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Historic Fulton Oral History Project"],"dcterms_subject":["Richmond (Va.)--Social conditions","Tobacco industry--Virginia--Richmond--Employees","Neighborhoods--Virginia--Richmond--Social conditions"],"dcterms_title":["An oral history interview with Alice N. Ellis and Dudley R. Lanthrip, March 27, 2012"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu:37834"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright, and the copyright is held by The Valentine. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, non-commercial use of this material is permitted. For any commercial uses, permission is required."],"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Lanthrip, Dudley R.--Childhood and youth--Anecdotes","Lanthrip, Dudley R.--Interviews","Ellis, Alice N.--Childhood and youth--Anecdotes","Ellis, Alice N.--Interviews"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"kai_chm-oh_243","title":"Chicago Cold War: Roberta Wood","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Wood, Roberta","Wright, Brandon"],"dc_date":["2012-03-23"],"dcterms_description":["Roberta Wood was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 4, 1949. She was born to Communist parents, but her journey toward Communism took a much different path. Roberta and her family moved to Riverside, California where she graduated from high school in 1957. While traveling in Europe, she met several women who invited her to the Soviet Union for an international women's conference. After the conference, she toured the country. Upon returning to the United States in 1970, Wood joined the Communist Party. She moved to Chicago in 1974 to work in the steel mills of South Chicago, where she was active in the United Steel Workers of America."],"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","Civil rights movements","Communism","Steel-works","Labor unions"],"dcterms_title":["Chicago Cold War: Roberta Wood"],"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/243"],"dcterms_temporal":["1953/1980"],"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: 52:14 minutes"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"kai_chm-oh_313","title":"Chicago Cold War: Lydia Usha","collection_id":"kai_chm-oh","collection_title":"Oral History Collection (Chicago History Museum)","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Israel, Jerusalem, 31.76904, 35.21633","Russia, Saint Petersburg, 59.93863, 30.31413","United States, California, City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco, 37.77493, -122.41942","United States, Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, 41.85003, -87.65005"],"dcterms_creator":["Usha, Lydia","Moomey, Kristin"],"dc_date":["2012-03-20"],"dcterms_description":["Lydia Usha left the Soviet Union in 1990 and went to Israel, and eventually the United States. Dr. Usha studied medicine in the United States. She eventually went on to work in the oncology department at Rush Hospital in Chicago."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","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","Antisemitism","Refuseniks","Citizenship"],"dcterms_title":["Chicago Cold War: Lydia Usha"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"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/313"],"dcterms_temporal":["1957/1992"],"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: 35:00 minutes"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":202,"next_page":203,"prev_page":201,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":2412,"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}}]}}