{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_43","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":["2010-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.). 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/43"],"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\nDr. Tom W. Kimbrell Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Naccaman Williams Springdale Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Toyce Newton Crossett Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-10 19 (501) 682-4475 ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer i\\RKANSAS DEPARTi\\tENT OF EDUCATH)N October 29. 2010 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3--1-93 Mr. John W. \\Valk.er 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 Roel\u0026lt;. AR 72203-1510 [ 1 - 0 LUTIJ oedliijRlffiP!rJ!G Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 I 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 7220 I RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special Sc/1001 District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WR W Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Educations Project Management Tool for the month of October 2010 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~C.-~~ Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsd ,--\"'E OF DESEGREGrt TION lnONITOP.ING i_\n:--\n1TED STATES DISTRICT COCRT EASTER..'\\/ DISTRICT OF ARKA\\JSAS WESTER\" DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCIIOOL DISTRICT V. \u0026gt;lo. LR-C-82-866 Vv RW PULASKI COGNTY SPECIAL SCI IOOL DISTRICT NO. I. et al NOTICE OF FILING PLANTIH DEFE\u0026gt;ID. \\NTS In accordance with the Court s Order of December I 0, 1993. the Arkansas Department of Education hereb1 gives notice of the filing of the ADE\"s Project Management Tool for October. 20 I 0. BY: .Je _ C. Lasiter. General Counsel .\\rk. Bar No. 2001-2005 Ark. Department of Education CERTJF[CATE OF SER\\'[CE I. Jerem, Lasiter. certif) that on October 29, 2010. f caused the foregoing document to be served b) depositing a copy in the L.\nnited States mail. postage prepaid. addressed to each of the folio\\\\ ing:\n\\,Ir. Christopher Heller Frida). Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark -WO West Capitol. Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ~lr. John W. \\Valker John Walker. P .. \\. 1723 Broad\\\"a, Little Rock. AR 72206 \\Ir. Mark Burnette Mitchell. Blackstock. Barnes \\Vagoner. Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Roel\u0026lt;. AR 72203-15 l 0 Office of Desegregation :Vfonitoring One L.\nnion . ational Plaza 12-+ West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock. A.R 7220 l Mr. tephcn W. Jones Jack, L: on \u0026amp; Jones -+25 ,,_,est Capitol. Suite 3-+00 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Mr. M. Samuel Jones. If[ Mitchell. Williams. Selig. Gates \u0026amp; Wood) ard -+25 \\\\'est Capitol. Suite 1800 Little Roel\u0026lt;. AR 7220 l 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 INTERVl::N-oRS 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 October 31, 2010 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 October 31 , 2010 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 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 October 31 , 2010  .. ,5!'aff.~ble\nJn,i ====-==~~QJ'~OJO ~\"'--\"'~:.W.:..1.c=. .= ==[=lo=d=iG adjust', . 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 October 31, 2010 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 October 31 , 2010 On September 10, 2009, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,212 per court order. The final Magnet payment for FY 08/09 was $511,455. 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 October 31, 2010 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 October 31 , 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2010 for FY 09/10, 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 October 31, 2010 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 October 31 , 2010 In September 2007, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 07/08 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 October 31, 2010 In August 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 08/09 to the Districts. In August 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In January 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 09/10 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 October 31 , 2010 In January 2010, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At January 31, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $2,778,700 NLRSD - $887,615.26 PCSSD - $2,229,905.22 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 09/10: LRSD - $1 ,354,368.33 NLRSD - $510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 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 October 31 , 2010 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) 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. 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 th,e 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 09/10 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. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) 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. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) 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 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. 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 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 October 31 , 2010 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 October 31 , 2010 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 October 31, 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 October 31, 2010 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 October 31, 2010 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. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 201 O 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. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11. 13 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 dispa[ities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were vis ited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education and the Districts. Then it was filed with the Court. 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. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted , and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 17 11. 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201 -A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 11. 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 October 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 19 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 October 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 20 11. 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress rn reduclng disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 21 11. 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The 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 for 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 for 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. 22 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. declared the LRSD unitary and released the district from federal court supervIsIon. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County districts for a time period not to  exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the school districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 12, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for 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. 23 11. 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On October 11 , 2007, 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. He handed out news articles about the LRSD bein~ declared unitary and the Joshua interveners filing a notice of appeal to the st Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua interveners 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 interveners. 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 for 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 lnterveners 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 lnterveners. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lnterveners 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 lnterveners. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lnterveners 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. 24 11. 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, 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. 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 of 2008. Act 2 was passed in the special legislative session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31 . Also discussed in the Implementation Phase meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the district. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an independent district. He said that taking Jacksonville out of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in federal district court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for 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 2008-09 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. 25 11. 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings 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 \"districtwide, 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. 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 October 31, 2010 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, 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. 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 for 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. 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 October 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, 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. 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 for 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 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 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. 28 11. 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 October 31, 2010 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, 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. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enroflments 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 for 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 for 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 update 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. 29 11. 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 October 31, 2010 (Continued) u oots fnPula'sl\u0026lt;iC . - 30 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 October 31 , 2010 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 October 31 , 2010 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 31 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 October 31 , 2010 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 October 31 , 2010 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 October 31 , 2010 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 October 31, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 32 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 October 31 , 2010 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 deseg reg ati on. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17-1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81st 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. 33 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 October 31, 2010 (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. 34 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 October 31 , 2010 (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 \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 35 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 October 31, 2010 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11 , in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 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. 36 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 October 31, 2010 (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. 37 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 October 31, 2010 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 October 31, 2010 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 October 31 , 2010 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 38 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 October 31 , 2010 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. 39 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 October 31, 2010 (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 r3, 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. 40 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 October 31 , 2010 (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. 41 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 October 31, 2010 (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 lnterveners filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 42 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 October 31, 2010 (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 interveners 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 lnterveners 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 lnterveners 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. 43 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 October 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 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 October 31, 2010 (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 Apri l. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 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 October 31 , 2010 (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. 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 October 31 , 2010 (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. 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the-Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of JU.f'.le 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. 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 October 31, 2010 (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. 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 21 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT anct its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 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 October 31, 2010 (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 16, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 11, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 8, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 10, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 19, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. 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) 3. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On March 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 9, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 13, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and appro_ygg tt,e PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. 53 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts h,ad been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 school$ commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits.  Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 56 VI . REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of th is report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resourc\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_198","title":"Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capasity, and transfers","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":["2010-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","School integration","Public libraries--Arkansas--Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capasity, and transfers"],"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/198"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n?,oo_ ?W.95 0 Polly Ramer From: Date: To: Subject: Polly, \"Ring, Jean\" \u0026lt;Jean.Ring@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Monday, March 07, 2011 1 :43 PM \"'Polly Ramer\"' \u0026lt;paramer@odmemail.com\u0026gt; M to M's There are still 2 NLRSD students that are M to M for 10/11. So the figures should be 337 .83 for the county and 2.00 for NLRSD. Sorry I was late getting back to you!! Jean A. Ring Director, Finance and Accounting Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 P (501) 447-1089 F (501) 447-1158 Page 1 of 1 3/7/2011 Polly Ramer From: \"BERRY SHARON\" \u0026lt;SBERRY@pcssd.org\u0026gt; Date: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 4:02 PM To: \"Polly Ramer\" \u0026lt;paramer@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Subject: RE: ADM for Cycle 3 for M to M Sorry, below are the figures for ADM: Little Rock - 792.36 North Little Rock - 180.69 THANKS! Sharon From: Polly Ramer [mailto:paramer@odmemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 20111:37 PM To: BERRY SHARON Subject: Re: ADM for Cycle 3 for M to M Sharon, Page I of I Sorry, but I cannot open the attachment. Can you either send it in another format or just email me the ADM's from LRSD and also from NLRSD? Just for comparison, last year those numbers were 877.96 from LRSD and 240.52 from NLRSD. Thanks. Sorry for the inconvenience. Polly From: BERRY SHARON Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 201112:53 PM To: paramer@odmemail.com Cc: BROWN DERRICK Subject: ADM for Cycle 3 for M to M Attached is the District ADM report for Cycle 3 for M to M. If you need anything else, please let me know. THANKS! Sharon Berry Assistant Director IT Pulaski County Special School District 3/4/2011 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2010/11 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002000 COUNTY: NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED TO (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 DAYS IN QTR 40 40 40 DISTRICT: 2 DAYS PRESENT TRANSPORTED 0.00 0.00 15877.50 QUARTER NO. 3 4 5 6 DAYS PRESENT NON- DAYS ADT ADA TRANSPORTED ABSENT 2/1 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7662.50 579.00 396.98 588.54 1 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 602.99 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 396.98 588.54 602.99 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 1 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1001-CENTRAL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 22 20 206 218 6 20 0 0 0 0 121 107 0 4 724 10 19 15 187 166 10 12 2 0 0 0 104 106 2 624 11 25 18 198 ~ 156 6 5 0~ 0 0 0 110 '3610 7 2 628 Pl\n~ -7~\n. 12 13 13 136 ~ 88 4 3 2~ 0 0 124 90 3 3 480 CENTRAL TOTAL: 79 66 727 628 26 40 4 1 0 0 459 410 7 9 c._ ~-- 1002-HALL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM I HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 3 2 119 139 28 37 0 0 0 0 8 10 0 0 346 10 2 2 142 135 22 27 0 0 0 0 15 5 0 1 351 11 2 2 122 ~ 120 20 20 0 ~ 0 0 0 17 f~ . 11 0 315 1\u0026lt;s7) 12 3 139 77 10 15 0 \" 0 0 0 9 12 0 0 266 HALL TOTAL: 8 9 522 471 80 99 0 0 0 0 49 38 1 1 1278 1003-MANN M/5 I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 2 5 89 61 11 8 3 0 0 0 54 35 3 272 07 7 6 70 t 84 10 10 ~o 0 0 52 ~ 45 2 288 ,, 1?1 ~~ 08 4 6 75 64 14 8 0 0 0 0 43 50 4 269 MANN M/5 TOTAL: 13 17 234 209 35 26 4 0 0 0 149 130 8 4 (s29 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information SeNices Page 1 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1005-PARKVIEW I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 7 4 80 92 16 8 1 0 0 0 63 43 1 2 317 10 85 78 11 14 0 0 54 40 2 289 11 0 5 75 58 12 7 \\.). 2 0 0 53 0-.: 41 3 258 ? J ~ 12 4 71 V'ti 60 11 2 3 ~ 0 0 0 53 It~ 44 2 252 PARKVIEW TOTAL: 9 14 311 288 50 31 6 3 0 0 223 168 8 5 -1116 1006-BOOKER I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 0 28 22 2 4 0 0 0 0 16 17 3 95 02 0 0 31 26 6 5 0 0 0 0 13 11 0 93 03 0 0 31 25 2 5 0 0 0 0 18 10 2 94 0 0o \u0026gt; \"\n. 04 0 0 26 28 2 9 0 0 0 21 11 2 0 99 j6 05 0 26 27 5 0 0 14 15 0 92 K 0 24 25 3 6 0 0 0 5 16 0 0 81 BOOKER TOTAL: 3 1 166 153 16 34 1 1 0 1 87 80 6 5 \u0026lt;'5-5_4_\n_\n.-- 1007-DUNBAR M/S I GRADEi AF AM BF BM I HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 3 2 147 134 7 7 0 0 0 0 17 19 0 4 340 07 2 112 l'\\ 112 7 9 \u0026lt;J 0 0 0 13 11 3 1 272 q// \\~ 08 3 0 98 97 5 4 0 0 0 0 8 16 0 1 232 DUNBAR M/S TOTAL: 8 3 357 343 19 20 1 0 0 0 38 46 3 6 844 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information SeNices Page 2 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL I008-FAIR I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 0 97 138 4 10 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 266 10 0 130 ~ 122 9 7 0 0 0 0 6 8 0 0 283 11 0 0 81 ~ 73 6 3 ~o 0 0 4 ~ 8 0 0 176 ct6 7i) 12 0 59 63 5 5 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 FAIR TOTAL: 0 3 367 396 24 25 1 1 0 0 22 28 0 0 009-FORST HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 06 0 75 81 6 4 0 0 0 0 7 12 0 187 07 0 0 82 ~74 14 1 0 \"' 0 0 0 7 7 0 186 ~11o 08 0 2 78 89 6 3 0 0 0 9 17 0 0 205 FORST HTS M/S TOTAL: 1 2 235 244 26 8 1 0 0 0 23 36 0 2 578 010-PUL HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 3 69 58 3 2 0 1 0 0 61 74 274 07 4 11 68 ~ 67 2 8 1 ~ 1 0 0 67 ~1 77 0 307 p1i 1 3 61 rro 75 0 0 ~ 08 1 1 80 76 0 0 300 PUL HTS MIS TOTAL: 6 17 198 200 6 11 2 3 0 0 208 227 1 2 ~o/ I012-MCCLELLA I GRADEi I = I AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 1 0 144 134 20 14 0 0 0 0 4 13 0 0 330 10 0 0 117 )..:. 113 9 15 0 l\" 0 0 0 3 ~ 6 0 264 ~{)o 11 0 0 93 0o 82 11 9 0 O(J 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 203 12 0 0 83 48 11 3 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 151 MCCLELLA TOTAL: 1 0 437 377 51 41 1 0 0 0 12 27 0 1 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 3 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL I013-HENDERSN M/S !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 0 0 105 10 8 0 0 0 0 6 10 0 0 211 07 4 2 98 15 8 0 0 0 10 7 0 0 257 3~lT) 08 2 2 115 91 9 11 2 0 0 0 6 6 0 2 246 HENDERSN M/S TOTAL: 6 4 318 275 34 27 3 0 0 0 22 23 0 2 714 015-CLOVR M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 06 0 1 66 92 18 20 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 207 07 70 i 81 15 17 0 0 0 0 3 ~ 3 0 0 191 1S4 08 0 0 79 75 14 22 0 0 0 0 ~ 4 0 0 195 CLOVR M/S TOTAL: 1 2 215 248 47 59 0 0 0 0 10 11 0 0 '593 016-MABEL M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 06 0 2 93 106 11 14 0 0 0 0 9 6 0 0 241 , ~ 116 J. 07 0 0 70 10 10 0 0 0 12 ~ 11 0 231 ~')7. 08 0 0 96 ~ 91 12 13 0 0 0 9 3 0 226 MABEL M/S TOTAL: 0 2 259 313 33 37 1 1 0 0 30 20 1 1 c.__698 ) 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 4 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1017-BALE I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 20 25 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 61 02 0 0 19 33 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 60 03 0 19 27 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 59 04 0 2 22 rt-24 2 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 2 'll 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 22 f\\\" 24 2 0 \" 0 0 0 0 'r 0 2 52 1110 K 2 24 19 6 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 61 p 0 0 6 10 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 BALE TOTAL: 3 6 132 162 15 18 1 1 0 0 11 12 0 3 C 1018-BRADY I GRADEi AF AM I BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 25 25 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 59 02 0 0 27 21 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 60 03 0 0 14 ~,, 15 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 37 04 0 0 14 \"' ~ ?JJu 20 2 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 , ~ 05 0 0 21 19 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 50 K 0 27 23 6 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 64 p 0 0 9 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 20 BRADY TOTAL: 1 0 137 130 17 19 0 0 0 0 11 11 1 0 021 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 5 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1020-MCDERMOT I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 1 0 21 20 4 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 59 02 0 0 18 23 3 3 1 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 57 03 0 0 20 27 6 6 0 0 0 0 5 4 70 04 25 ~ 31 2 2 J 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 71 \"- ,ij 1J7. 05 0 0 24 '- 24 3 \\) 0 0 0 0 2 ~ 1 0 0 55 K 2 0 19 fl 19 5 4 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 60 p 0 0 12 14 5 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 40 MCDERMOT TOTAL: 4 1 139 158 26 25 1 0 0 1 28 25 1 3 ~2 1021-CARVER I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 23 22 2 0 0 0 0 16 14 0 0 81 02 0 0 20 23 2 3 0 0 0 0 9 15 0 0 72 03 3 20 ~ 23 3 0 0 0 8 r\\ 11 1 0 72 04 0 3 23 ~ 21 4 0 0 0 8 \\'{\\ 17 0 0 78 tt 1\"' 05 2 0 25 25 0 0 0 0 8 11 75 K 1 3 15 16 2 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 52 p 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19\n..\u0026gt; ) CARVER TOTAL: 8 8 130 141 9 15 0 2 0 0 56 76 3 1 ~9 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 6 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1022-BASELINE I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 4 16 7 15 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 44 02 0 0 11 12 12 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 45 03 0 0 10 14 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 04 0 0 11 1 11 5 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 41 ef~ I, 05 0 0 7 15 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 K 0 0 12 18 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 51 p 0 0 3 3 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 BASELINE TOTAL: 0 0 58 89 51 67 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 277 023-FAIR PRK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM p 3 37 ~ 35 2 4 0 0 43 ~ 46 4 3 180 _)o} FAIR PRK TOTAL: 1 3 37 35 2 4 0 1 1 0 43 46 4 3 ?.i8o.: .----- 1024-FORST PK I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF I WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 2 2 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 31 27 0 73 02 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 25 32 0 68 03 2 7 n... 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 19 27 0 66 \u0026lt; G j'? 7. 04 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 33 21 0 0 72 05 2 0 9 4 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 24 28 0 0 67 K 7 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 28 23 0 0 63 p 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 21 11 0 40 FORST PK TOTAL: 7 7 40 29 5 5 2 0 0 0 181 169 4 0 449 ) 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 7 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1025-FRANKLIN I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 19 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 02 0 0 28 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 03 0 0 30 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 04 0 0 36 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1, 2 0 0 58 0 05 0 0 21 ~ 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 1 K 0 0 27 22 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 55 p 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 FRANKLIN TOTAL: 0 0 167 135 4 5 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 320 1027-GIBBS I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 12 9 2 2 0 0 0 0 10 6 0 43 02 2 1 8 14 0 0 0 0 9 7 2 0 45 03 2 0 15 q 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 10 0 46 04 5 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 46 ~\u0026gt;l 05 0 1 13 13 0 0 2 0 0 8 9 0 48 K 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 7 9 0 39 p 0 14 15 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 39 GIBBS TOT AL: 11 4 87 78 4 7 0 3 1 0 53 51 6 1 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 8 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1028-CHICOT !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 58 58 27 28 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 179 02 0 0 42 r\\ 61 23 22 0 ~ 1 0 0 2 4 0 0 155 I.~, 1-- K 0 71 ~ 78 28 30 0 'll 0 0 0 5 ~ 4 0 0 217 p 0 0 61 58 45 32 0 ~ 0 0 0 4 4 206 ?r51 - CHICOT TOTAL: 0 1 232 255 123 112 0 1 0 0 16 15 1 1 029-WEST HIL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 18 13 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 2 47 02 0 0 15 21 6 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 48 03 0 0 23 S:l\\ 15 3 0 ~ 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 47 C 04 0 0 20 0 17 2 2 0 0 0 3 0\\ 4 0 0 49 pJ. IJ 'l 05 0 0 18 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 K 0 0 13 16 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 39 p 0 0 9 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 20 WEST HIL TOTAL: 0 0 108 111 21 16 0 1 0 0 10 19 2 3 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 9 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1030-JEFFRSN I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 10 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 27 31 0 0 77 02 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 33 0 0 73 03 0 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 17 0 0 52 04 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 23 o... 33 0 0 67 (6Jo ~ 0 2 --..:: 05 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 \"l 30 0 0 60 K 2 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 17 27 0 0 59 p 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 19 15 0 0 40 JEFFRSN TOTAL: 5 2 42 35 4 0 1 0 0 0 153 186 0 0 032-DODD GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 01 0 11 14 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 47 02 0 10 10 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 43 03 0 0 17 (.) 24 10 11 0 0, 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 66 G 'I. 0v. \\ jtJ~ 04 0 0 16 :i 17 6 8 0 \" 0 0 0 6 'h 4 3 0 60 ~ 05 0 0 12 12 5 3 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 41 K 0 0 19 16 8 12 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 61 p 0 0 12 10 5 6 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 40 DODD TOTAL: 0 2 97 103 53 55 0 0 0 0 16 23 4 5 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 10of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1033-MEADCLIF !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 16 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 48 02 0 0 18 18 8 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 52 03 0 0 20 10 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 39 04 0 0 17 t 18 8 0 ~ 0 0 0 3 \\ 4 0 0 51 117 05 0 0 25 \\'\\. 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 ?i 0 0 0 50 f K 0 0 23 18 3 5 0. 0 0 0 2 0 0 52 p 0 0 12 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 MEADCLIF TOTAL: 0 0 137 104 22 25 0 0 0 0 14 10 0 0 \u0026lt;-__? 1035-M L KING !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM I TOTAL I 01 0 0 45 43 2 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 100 02 0 1 37 52 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 100 03 0 45 34 2 0 0 C 1 0 0 3 0 0 87 04 0 0 42 J } 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 6 0 0 103 qo1, 05 0 0 49 ii 40 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 1 101 K 0 0 42 34 2 0 0 0 3 4 0 88 p 0 0 31 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 56 M L KING TOTAL: 1 1 291 278 7 5 0 3 0 0 15 31 1 2 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 11 of21 1036-ROCKFELR I GRADEi AF AM Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 24 15 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 45 02 0 0 21 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 03 0 0 21 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 44 _0_4 __ 0_ _ 0_ _ 1_8~'.,--2__0_ ___ 0 __ 0_~~,.?\"--0 0_ _ 0 _ 2 2 _5'.....,...._3_ _ o __ o_ __ 44_ _ ~J1 05 o o 20 ()r, 15 o o o o o o T 3 o o 40 K O O 23 29 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 57 p 3 26 36 4 0 2 0 0 14 14 103 -... ROCKFELR TOTAL: 1 3 153 154 6 2 1 2 0 0 21 28 2 1 374/ 1037-GEYER SP I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 0 20 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 02 0 0 12 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 03 0 0 22 ~ 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 u _o_4 __ 0_ _ 0_ _ 1_3_~~~_1_s_ o_ __ 5 __ o_~~--o ___ o __ o_ ______ o __ o ___ 3__5_ ii% 05 0 0 12 9 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 K O O 28 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 GEYER SP TOTAL: P O O 18 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 125 87 8 14 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 ~40 7 L 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 12 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1038-PUL HT E I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 2 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 14 11 48 02 0 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 12 19 0 0 49 03 0 0 12 11 0 0 '\\. 0 0 0 15 21 2 0 62 04 2 0 18 18 2 0 -f\\. 0 0 0 8 13 0 0 62 ~f! fl' 05 2 20 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 15 1 2 76 K 0 2 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 13 0 0 36 PUL HT E TOTAL: 4 6 71 71 3 3 0 1 0 0 75 92 4 3 333 1040-ROMINE I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 30 27 3 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 70 02 0 31 22 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 67 03 0 0 32 20 7 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 63 ,10 04 0 0 31 f\"t) 25 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 i 05 0 0 19 25 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 K 0 0 21 25 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 58 p 0 0 17 13 5 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 40 ROMINE TOTAL: 0 1 181 157 32 27 0 0 0 0 5 11 1 1 ~6 ) '-.:..,.:.. 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 13 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1041-STEPHENS !GRADEi AF AM I BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 36 34 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 02 0 0 40 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 03 0 0 24 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 04 0 0 38 ~ 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 2 0 63 q~?~ 05 0 0 28 t 32 0 0 'o 1 0 0 1 \"' 1 0 0 64 K 0 0 33 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 68 p 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 35-=---- STEPHENS TOTAL: 0 0 210 197 11 5 0 1 0 0 4 7 2 1 ~ 1042-WASHNGTN !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 0 41 40 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 86 02 0 35 28 0 0 0 2 0 71 03 0 0 26~ 40 2 0 {) 0 0 0 2 0 73 C\\, r'fj 04 0 42~ 39 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 qi7. ' 0 0 85 05 0 0 36 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 K 0 0 33 42 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 p 0 0 24 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 59 WASHNGTN TOTAL: 0 2 237 259 6 10 0 1 0 0 5 8 1 5 ~ 10/1412010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 14 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1043-WILLIAMS I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 5 3 15 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 13 0 0 64 02 3 6 15 17 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 65 03 3 4 22 ~ 15 2 2 ~ 0 0 13 11 0 2 76 04 6 2 27 18 2 0 0 12 f) 10 2 0 82 9~7 ', Cl j 05 5 7 23 15 0 3 0 0 0 13 8 0 0 75 K 3 3 11 19 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 54 WILLIAMS TOTAL: 25 25 113 105 4 8 3 3 0 0 64 61 3 2 ~~ 1044-WILSON I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 0 16 18 4 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 47 02 0 0 14 23 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 47 03 0 0 12 X?14 4 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 39 04 0 12 15 0 ~ i~ 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 34 05 0 15 22 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 1~ 1. K 0 0 10 18 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 41 p 0 0 14 12 3 7 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 40~ WILSON TOTAL: 0 2 93 122 19 34 0 0 0 0 13 9 0 1 293 045-WOODRUFF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL p 0 2 54 61 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 126 WOODRUFF TOTAL: 0 2 54 61 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 126 o, 1 10 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 15of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1046-MABEL EL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 1 24 25 5 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 65 02 0 1 21 14 6 7 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 58 03 0 0 27 31 5 4 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 75 04 0 0 17 17 2 4 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 48 '1~7 05 0 0 33 32 5 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 77 K 0 0 19 21 4 5 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 58 p 0 0 12 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MABEL EL TOTAL: 0 2 153 145 28 30 0 2 0 0 26 12 2 1 047-TERRY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 01 2 3 16 28 4 7 1 0 0 4 15 83 02 3 2 25 22 8 4 1 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 77 03 0 27 n 14 3 5 0 2 0 0 11 ~ 9 0 0 72 D) 04 0 21 f\\ 22 4 4 1 0 0 0 9 7 0 1 70 i~7i) 05 0 3 25 16 2 7 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 68 K 0 22 26 7 12 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 1 82 p 2 0 9 12 5 7 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 40 TERRY TOTAL: 9 9 145 140 33 46 3 3 0 1 44 55 1 3 --49-2 - 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 16of 21 Little Rock School District , October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1048-FULBRIGH I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 0 20 12 0 3 0 0 0 0 35 31 0 0 103 02 3 4 9 10 0 2 0 0 15 22 0 68 03 5 17 23 0 0 0 0 20 26 0 0 94 04 2 22 a 15 2 2 0 'l) 0 0 0 18 \"\" 23 0 86 :P7,, 3 9 ~ 7 0 2 0 \\j: 05 0 0 0 31 ~ 23 0 0 76 ~ t K 6 4 17 ' 13 0 2 0 0 0 0 31 29 2 0 104 p 3 3 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 16 0 0 FULBRIGH TOTAL: 19 19 99 83 6 10 2 3 0 0 156 170 2 2 049-ROBERTS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 01 7 4 5 14 2 4 0 0 0 40 53 0 131 02 6 14 10 0 0 0 0 0 49 32 0 114 03 11 2 0 0- 0 0 0 32 ~ 44 0 0 106 04 8 2 8 2 0 0 \\}' 0 0 0 36 34 0 108 ~11\" 05 2 6 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 28 0 64 K 2 4 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 36 43 1 119 p 2 3 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 17 28 0 0 6,9 ROBERTS TOTAL: 27 15 74 74 10 8 0 1 0 0 225 262 4 2 O2~ / 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 17 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1050-0TTER CR I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 27 4 8 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 76 02 0 26 40 2 5 0 0 0 6 4 0 86 03 2 28 34 6 8 0 0 0 0 13 7 0 0 99 04 2 29 D 38 5 8 0 :, 0 0 0 5 ~ 13 0 0 101 U'l(o 05 2 32 22 2 4 0 0 0 0 7 ' 8 0 79 K 0 26 27 7 6 0 2 0 0 6 5 0 81 p 0 0 12 11 3 4 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 40 OTTER CR TOTAL: 7 4 175 199 29 43 0 4 0 0 50 48 2 1 /562 1051-WAKEFIEL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM I TOTAL 01 0 0 32 32 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 87 02 0 0 37 33 15 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 f1 ~1 1f\n1 03 0 0 37 26 5 10 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 82 04 0 0 33 41 8 9 0 ' 0 0 0 1 \" 2 0 95 05 0 0 37 38 10 10 0 0 0 2 101 K 0 0 30 26 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 p 0 0 16 15 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 WAKEFIEL TOTAL: 0 0 222 211 65 62 1 1 0 0 2 9 4 1 578 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 18 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1052-WATSON I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 03 0 0 49 '\\.... 49 18 18 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 141 \u0026amp;o,1 04 0 0 47 ~ 51 16 18 0 0 0 0 3 ~ 4 0 0 139 05 0 0 42 -~ 40 22 16 0 ' 0 0 1 0 0 123 =) WATSON TOTAL: 0 0 138 140 56 52 0 2 0 0 8 7 0 0 /4o3 1703-FELDER ALC I GRADEi AF AM I BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL ~ 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1) -\nJ./-v 07 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 /41' I 08 0 5 J l, 4 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 I )- ~D 09 0 0 11 23 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 37 /l~iO i)J 10 0 0 7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 _,,o ,G 17 I , 11 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ,:i .# :\u0026gt; 12 0 0 0 (,zQ 1 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 1 'g FELDER ALC TOTAL: 1 0 26 55 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 85 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information SeNices Page 19 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1711-HAMILTON AC !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 06 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 14 i'.f 'I? 07 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 08 0 0 14 9 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,V~ 09 0 0 30 53 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 90 10 0 0 28 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 78 tp11\u0026gt; 11 0 0 9 23 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 35 12 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HAMIL TON AC TOTAL: 0 0 97 179 1 4 0 0 0 0 9 16 0 0 306 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 20of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 725-AL T AGCY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 t~SJ) rj-\n,~~ 02 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 i? p ~ ..J- 7 (),I, (_)I, //? 03 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 f / I _,,1) 04 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 f '-'~ (ff' 1-J\nJl?-\"D1 ~~ 05 0 0 o ~l 6 0 0 0 () 0 0 0 0 2. 0 0 0 6 .\n2.3 :\n,\n, {) I\niof l ()o' 06 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 07 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 /r\u0026gt;il~P 08 0 0 1 I I 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 3 0 0 8 11_ ~f\nJi~-17 )-' 7 09 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1' ~.-, 10 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 15 2 0 0 0 f() 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 ,~ K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ALT AGCYTOTAL: 0 0 7 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 58 1767-ACC LP !GRADEi AF AM I BF I BM HF I HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 10 0 0 0 ~ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 25 ?\n/1- ~' 27 2 0 0 0 0 1 5J 4 0 0 60 \u0026gt; 12 0 0 41 68 5 8 ' 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 133 ACC LP TOTAL: 0 0 66 96 7 9 1 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 e~/ GRAND TOTA~L:. 269 265 8,619 8,563 1,135 1,204 41 47 2 3 2,667 2,750 91 87 25,743 I , /21,../4..I CJ ~(,, 5 0 0 0 I 0 IQ I , / D 0 g~ t/71/\u0026gt; ,JJ.~ All- o 0 1 --/o r, I\"'\"- ---L--'- I'?- '. \u0026lt;\" c-' / /Cl ,0 0 :S~ -- -- --- ,17,c5,Y ~ 1-1./:\n_ ~-3/01 ,,:?5~, \") 0- 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 21 of 21 .. Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment By Grade Report With Agency FINAL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF I NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 25 18 629 641 111 125 3 5 0 1 241 268 11 10 2,088 02 19 21 602 \\ 634 120 102 5 5 0 0 8 7 1,959 03 15 16 649-{J 607 96 112 :{ 9 0 0 9 6 1,956 04 26 18 668 ~ 643 71 109 3 0 0 10 5 2,004 05 18 18 635 603 77 89 2 6 0 0 182 207 6 12 1,855 /~,~~/ 06 7 13 645 66 63 3 1 0 0 161 ~ 165 4 7 1,749 07 18 21 581 73 64 4 .K... . 2 0 0 164 ~ 165 4 6 1,775 08 11 13 622 618 61 63 5 '\u0026lt;~ 1 0 0 157 175 5 4 1,735 5\n)..~9- 09 33 27 688 801 74 91 1 1 0 0 207 186 1 6 2,116 10 22 19 698 .'5::6:7 8 61 75 3 1 0 0 185 ~ J 173 4 4 1,923 11 27 25 605 ):~ 546 58 45 2 2 0 0 191 ~ 175 6 2 1,684 12 15 21 534 414 46 36 7 2 0 0 196 160 5 4 1,440 71(.,~ K 23 20 631 633 116 134 0 4 0 1 203 219 9 7 2,000 p 10 15 432 458 105 96 0 5 2 150 169 9 7 1,459 TOTAL: 269 265 8,619 8.563 1,135 1,204 41 4 2 3 2,667 2,750 91 87 25,743 ~ V Elert\\..) ~-y(, 5 ~'t99\n,9~7 1-a,3 I l~1. /?1 A._l,1 I 0\n... ~~ g,\u0026gt; /.JII !, \u0026lt;is99 --- _____,---/ ~9 13, ~9~ r,1..,or I~ -$)9 ,\nft\u0026gt;~ ----- r ~-- ~-7 ,n1,~ 0 (,, r/ 111 hit\u0026gt; ~ I 0 ~7 .} 7. 5.? --- ~ \u0026lt;?\" I $,~\n,-5 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services I /-/1? Page 1 oft C v.,., -_)  ~~:.\nJo:s Air _,?t-1/ 7:\nC:. /-73 ?/C. /..5 C ~ /J' ,,,c\n/~--/.. ~5 / ~ G:r ..V,iif-1 ~..yl? f 7, ?7 I,, 91. ~ :\n),lq8 /4 .... I cef,J. ./... .\nL., 5.-Vc-2/' t.,1f --r::\n~1 / ?, t:'\n. -I ~ ~ ~----- ?6~4-, SCHOOL CAPACITIES HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY PORT. CLASSRMS CAPACITY TOTAL CAPACITY CENTRAL 2276 20@25 500 2776 J.A. FAIR 1200 6@ 25 150 1350 HALL 1754 0 0 1754 MCCLELLAN 1440 0 0 1440 PARKVIEW 1200 6@25 150 1350 Subtotal 7870 32@25 800 8670 MIDDLE 0 CLOVERDALE 885 0 0 885 DUNBAR 888 4@25 100 988 FOREST HEIGHTS 780 0 0 780 HENDERSON 960 4@25 100 1060 MABEL VALE 681 8@25 200 881 MANN 900 0 0 900 PULASKI HEIGHTS 858 0 0 858 Subtotal 5952 16@25 400 6352 ELEMENTARY 0 BALE 488 0 0 488 BASELINE 360 0 0 360 BOOKER 645 2@25 50 695 BRADY 528 0 0 528 CARVER 556 1 @25 25 581 CHICOT 749 6@25 150 899 DODD 271 8@25 200 471 FAIR PARK ECC 304 0 0 304 FOREST PARK 400 2@25 50 450 FRANKLIN 532 0 0 532 FULBRIGHT 565 10@25 250 815 GEYER SPRINGS 358 0 0 358 GIBBS 472 0 0 472 JEFFERSON 471 0 0 471 KING 715 0 0 715 MABEL VALE 443 0 0 443 MCDERMOTT 453 4@25 100 553 MEADOWCLIFF 358 0 0 358 OTTERCREEK 537 4@25 100 637 PULASKI HEIGHTS 350 0 0 350 ROBERTS 895 0 0 895 ROCKEFELLER 481 0 0 481 ROMINE 507 0 0 507 STEPHENS 646 0 0 646 TERRY 575 6@25 150 725 WAKEFIELD 607 0 0 607 WASHINGTON 836 0 0 836 WATSON 591 12@25 300 891 WESTERN HILLS 320 0 0 320 WILLIAMS 585 0 0 585 WILSON 340 0 0 340 WOODRUFF - ECC 160 0 0 160 Subtotal Elem. 16098 55@25 1375 17473 Subtotal Mid. 5952 16@25 400 6352 Subtotal H.S. 7870 32@25 800 8670 Grand Total 29920 103@25 2575 32495 Alternative Schools HAMILTON 912 0 0 912 FELDER (Badgett) 162 0 0 162 --- ACC at METRO 250 0 0 250 Alternative Total 1324 0 0 1324 11-01-10 Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation Caoacitv Calculator For District Use K-5 Elementarv Kinderaarten thru 5th Grade # General # S12ecial~ Student 10-11 % Classrooms Rooms Net Caoacitv Enrollment Ca12aci~ Amboy 22 6 16 400 335 84 Belwood 15 9 6 150 138 92 Boone Park 31 13 18 450 315 70 Crestwood 29 10 19 475 478 101 Glenview 17 9 8 200 160 80 Indian Hills 34 9 25 625 595 96 Lakewood Elem 22 4 18 450 406 91 Lynch Drive 29 12 17 425 270 64 Meadow Park 13 5 8 200 172 86 North Heiqhts 31 12 19 475 395 84 Park Hill 24 10 14 350 277 80 Pike View 25 9 16 400 346 87 Seventh Street 28 12 16 450 262 59 Total _,.4875 4149 86 I Redwood Pre-K J 1-,, J,./ 0 tJ l.. - Pre-k - 5 total i.---- \\ \\ /( ~,-'I-'\n\\ / - DEC - J 2010 TOPSJ Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportatio Capacity Calculator For District Use 6-12 Secondary 6th Grade thru 12th Grade # General #of Student Classrooms Students Caoacitv West Campus 65 30 1657.5 East Campus 60 30 1530 Lakewood Middle 33 30 841.5 Ridqeroad Middle 28 30 714 Rose City Middle 16 30 408 Poplar Street Middle 31 28 737 Secondary Total 5887 Arqenta Alternative District Total 10762 10-11 I % I Enrollment Ca~ac1ty 1452 88 1350 89 695 83 453 64 138 34 625 85 4713 80 8862 83 ~ EC - 2010 l=flCEOF DESEGREGMttOTNIOITNO RING Oct 10 2010 HIGH SCHOOLS B w CENTRAL 1355 869 FAIR 763 50 HALL 993 87 MCCLELLAN 814 39 PARKVIEW 599 391 ACC 162 15 HAMITL ON/SWLA 198 17 FELDER 65 2 ALT. AGENCIES 15 3 SUB TOTAL 4964 1473 MIDDLES CHOOLS CLOVERDALE 463 21 DUNBAR 700 84 FORESTH EIGHTS 479 59 HENDERSON 593 45 MABEVL ALE 572 50 MANN 443 279 PULASKHI EIGHTS 398 435 HAMILT ON/ SWLA 78 8 FELDER 16 0 ALT. AGENCIES 11 6 SUB TOTAL 3753 987 ELEMENTARY BALE 294 23 BASELINE 147 12 BOOKER 319 167 BRADY 267 22 CARVER 271 132 CHICOT 487 31 DODD 200 39 FAIR PARK 72 89 FORESTP ARK 69 350 FRANKLIN 302 8 FULBRIGHT 182 326 GEYERS PRINGS 212 6 GIBBS 165 104 JEFFERSON 77 339 KING 569 46 MABEVL ALE 298 38 MCDERMOTT 297 53 MEADOWCLIFF 241 24 OTTERCREEK 374 98 PULASKHI EIGHTS 142 167 ROBERTS 148 487 ROCKEFELLER 307 49 ROMINE 338 16 STEPHENS 407 11 TERRY 285 99 WAKEFIELD 433 11 WASHINGTON 496 13 WATSON 278 15 WESTERNH ILLS 219 29 WILLIAMS 218 125 WILSON 215 22 WOODRUFF 115 4 ALT. AGENCIES 21 2 SUB TOTAL 8465 2957 GRANDT OTAL 17182 5417 LRSDO FFICIALE NROLLMENT 2010-11v s. 2009-10 October 1, 2010 Oct 1 2009 0 TOTAL %BLK B 232 2456 55.2% 1296 54 867 88.0% 880 198 1278 77.7% 1115 95 948 85.9% 742 126 1116 53.7% 601 17 194 83.5% 178 3 218 90.8% 215 1 68 95.6% 47 0 18 83.3% 18 726 7163 69.3% 5092 109 593 78.1% 498 60 844 82.9% 647 40 578 82.9% 587 76 714 83.1% 657 76 698 81.9% 514 107 829 53.4% 440 48 881 45.2% 371 2 88 88.6% 70 1 17 94.1% 9 0 17 64.7% 10 519 5259 71.4% 3803 47 364 80.8% 280 118 277 53.1% 196 68 554 57.6% 330 38 327 81.7% 288 46 449 60.4% 285 239 757 64.3% 519 119 358 55.9% 162 19 180 40.0% 72 30 449 15.4% 59 10 320 94.4% 309 63 571 31.9% 160 22 240 88.3% 219 37 306 53.9% 158 12 428 18.0% 80 20 635 89.6% 612 65 401 74.3% 310 62 412 72.1% 277 47 312 77.2% 275 90 562 66.5% 386 24 333 42.6% 149 67 702 21.1% 18 374 82.1% 322 62 416 81.3% 343 20 438 92.9% 447 108 492 57.9% 420 134 578 74.9% 404 25 534 92.9% 538 110 403 69.0% 305 43 291 75.3% 240 73 416 52.4% 221 56 293 73.4% 231 7 126 91.3% 74 0 23 91.3% 23 1899 13321 63.5% 8694 3144 25743 66.7% 17589 w 0 TOTAL %BLK 940 168 2404 53.9% 62 52 994 88.5% 99 178 1392 80.1% 36 62 840 88.3% 430 106 1137 52.9% 21 12 211 84.4% 12 6 233 92.3% 1 0 48 97.9% 4 0 22 81.8% 1605 584 7281 69.9% 19 106 623 79.9% 81 45 773 83.7% 70 36 693 84.7% 47 96 800 82.1% 73 61 648 79.3% 348 79 867 50.7% 407 36 814 45.6% 9 3 82 85.4% 2 1 12 75.0% 4 1 15 66.7% 1060 464 5327 71.4% 21 42 343 81.6% 7 108 311 63.0% 196 43 569 58.0% 33 44 365 78.9% 157 34 476 59.9% 35 226 780 66.5% 52 98 312 51.9% 99 9 180 40.0% 353 25 437 13.5% 7 7 323 95.7% 574 52 786 20.4% 15 29 263 83.3% 112 30 300 52.7% 341 11 432 18.5% 62 14 688 89.0% 46 58 414 74.9% 60 44 381 72.7% 40 60 375 73.3% 89 71 546 70.7% 180 13 342 43.6% 51 11 384 83.9% 17 52 412 83.3% 6 14 467 95.7% 153 118 691 60.8% 23 139 566 71.4% 18 25 581 92.6% 18 92 415 73.5% 35 26 301 79.7% 155 66 442 50.0% 24 35 290 79.7% 15 5 94 78.7% 2 0 25 92.0% 2996 1601 13291 65.4% 5661 2649 25899 67.9% NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas RACIAL COMPOSTION OF SCHOOLS  Incl ding Kindergarten D Oc ober 1, 2010 School Enrollment Black % Non-black % Amboy 335 229 68% 106 32% Belwood 138 111 80% 27 20% Boone Park 315 284 90% 31 10% Crestwood 478 129 27% 349 73% Glenview 160 132 83% 28 18% Indian Hills 595 154 26% 441 74% Lakewood 406 101 25% 305 75% Lynch Drive 270 231 86% 39 14% Meadow Park 172 156 91% 16 9% North Heights 395 242 61% 153 39% Park Hill 277 138 50% 139 50% Pike View 346 245 71% 101 29% Seventh Street 262 255 97% 7 3% Elementary Total: 4,149 2,407 58% 1,742 42% Poplar Street Middle 625 366 59% 259 41% Lakewood Middle 695 288 41% 407 59% Ridgeroad Middle 453 357 79% 96 21% Rose City Middle 138 117 85% 21 15% Middle School Total: 1,911 1,128 59% 783 41% NLRHS-East Campus 1350 740 55% 610 45% NLRHS-West Campus 1452 829 57% 623 43% Total High School: 2,802 1,569 56% 1,233 44% I District Total: 8,862 5,104 58% 3,758 42% R I FC - J 2010 ORING LEA: 6002050 White Black Grade Total M F M F PK 20 5 4 2 K 53 5 3 22 01 66 13 7 18 02 58 6 5 24 03 48 8 1 15 04 54 5 7 21 05 56 4 5 20 - --- Totals ,,. 355 46 32 122 w/o PK 335 41 28 120 21.97% 67.04% 1 North Little Rock School District Amboy Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 19 1 3 0 0 0 0 21 2 5 0 0 0 0 17 4 2 0 0 0 0 17 3 4 0 0 0 0 16 3 2 0 0 0 0 19 4 4 0 0 0 0 116 19 20 0 0 0 0 109 17 20 0 0 0 0 10.99% 0.00% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002053 White Grade Total M F M K 23 1 1 01 20 1 1 02 31 3 2 03 18 5 2 04 32 0 1 05 14 2 0 1/\"\" Totals {138 l/ 12 7 13.77% Black F 7 10 10 4 17 3 51 North Little Rock School District Belwood Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 60 2 6 0 0 0 0 80.43% 5.80% 0.00% 0.00% I \\ I Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002054 North Little Rock School District Boone Park Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl .Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 56 1 2 20 28 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 K 56 3 2 17 33 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 44 2 1 18 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 49 0 2 24 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 53 2 1 25 22 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 57 0 4 27 24 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 56 1 1 24 29 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -? \\ Totals 371 9 13 155 177 8 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 w/o PK 315 8 11 135 149 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.93% 89.49% 4.04% 0.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002055 White Grade Total M F M K 82 31 24 01 83 30 29 02 79 27 30 03 75 31 22 04 79 26 29 05 80 29 27 Totals 478 174 161 70.08% North Little Rock School District Crestwood Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat F M F M F M F 13 10 1 2 0 1 0 0 11 10 0 1 0 2 0 0 11 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 11 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 15 1 0 2 0 0 0 62 67 3 3 5 3 0 0 26.99% 1.26% 1.67% 0.00% J1fo Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002056 White Grade Total M F M PK 18 0 0 K 37 5 5 01 30 3 1 02 21 1 2 03 26 1 0 04 22 1 2 OS 24 2 2 Totals 178 13 12 w/o PK 160 13 12 14.04% Black F 11 14 10 8 8 9 6 66 55 North Little Rock School District Glenview Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 1 3 0 0 0 0 77 1 2 0 0 0 0 83.71% 2.25% 0.00% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002057 North Little Rock School District Indian Hills Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F K 95 38 32 12 8 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 105 31 40 18 13 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 97 31 42 11 10 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 03 98 38 32 14 11 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 04 98 31 34 12 14 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 102 31 32 11 20 3 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Totals 595 200 212 78 76 9 3 5 6 2 3 0 1 0 0 69.24% 25.88% 2.02% 1.85% 0.84% 0.17% 0.00% LEA: 6002058 White Grade Total M F M K 60 20 26 01 72 27 26 02 72 25 23 03 72 29 25 04 64 23 18 OS 66 14 25 Totals ~406 138 143 ~ 69.21% North Little Rock School District Lakewood Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat F M F M F M F 4 7 2 0 0 0 1 0 13 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 11 8 0 4 0 1 0 0 8 8 0 0 1 1 0 0 12 8 0 1 2 0 0 0 10 9 4 1 1 2 0 0 58 43 7 7 4 5 1 0 24.88% 3.45% 2.22% 0.25% 1o l Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002059 White Grade Total M F M 06 625 105 106 Totals 625 105 106 33.76% North Little Rock School District Poplar Street Middle October 1, 2010 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat F M F M F M F 185 181 17 21 2 3 0 1 185 181 17 21 2 3 0 1 58.56% 6.08% 0.80% 0.16% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 0.00% 0.64% LEA: 6002060 North Little Rock School District Lynch Drive Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 40 3 2 21 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 54 3 4 22 23 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 38 3 1 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 52 5 3 23 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 42 6 0 17 15 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 44 1 3 24 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 40 2 1 17 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _,,.-- l Totals 310 23 14 140 126 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK'-- -270 20 12 119 112 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.94% 85.81% 2.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 LEA: 6002061 North Little Rock School District Meadow Park Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 20 1 2 11 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 25 0 0 12 9 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 31 2 1 18 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 35 4 1 15 13 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 22 0 0 14 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 26 0 0 10 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 33 0 0 17 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Totals 192 7 4 97 74 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK - 172 6 2 86 70 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.73% 89.06% 4.17% 1.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% JI 111 /D LEA: 6002063 North Little Rock School District North Heights Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 40 1 3 9 13 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 54 5 2 16 15 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 61 1 6 23 16 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 60 9 1 18 9 8 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 78 3 2 28 25 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 62 2 5 17 21 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 80 3 3 31 23 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---., Totals 435 24 22 142 122 55 69 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK -395 23 19 133 109 53 57 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.57% 60.69% 28.51% 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002064 North Little Rock School District Park Hill Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 19 4 1 5 5 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 53 9 3 15 11 9 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 55 7 2 14 20 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 so 7 10 9 9 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 46 3 8 9 16 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 34 4 3 9 9 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 39 9 4 12 5 2 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ,.-\"j Totals ,,,,.......,29/6 43 31 73 75 39 32 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 w/o PK \u0026lt;- ---277 39 30 68 70 38 30 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 25.00% 50.00% 23.99% 0.68% 0.34% 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002065 North Little Rock School District Pike View Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 40 5 3 9 18 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 59 6 8 15 22 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 54 7 1 18 21 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 70 6 8 24 26 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 47 3 5 15 21 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 52 8 3 19 15 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 64 6 4 30 19 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 386 41 32 130 142 21 11 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK 346 36 29 121 124 18 10 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 18.91% 70.47% 8.29% 2.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 LEA: 6002069 North Little Rock School District Seventh Street Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 40 1 1 20 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 52 0 0 26 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 39 0 0 19 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 53 0 0 23 30 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 03 41 1 0 17 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 35 0 0 17 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 42 0 2 21 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i.---. Totals l/\"'\"302 1-- 2 3 143 150 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK ~ 262 1 2 123 132 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.66% 97.02% 0.99% 0.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002070 White Black Grade Total M F M F 07 375 86 104 91 08 320 89 83 69 ~ Totals 695 175 187 160 52.09% 41.44% North Little Rock School District Lakewood Middle October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 73 8 9 3 1 0 0 55 7 10 3 4 0 0 128 15 19 6 5 0 0 4.89% 1.58% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002075 White Black Grade Total M F M F 09 794 155 144 215 10 556 101 120 132 ~ \\ Totals/ 1350 ,/ 256 264 347 ,_ 38.52% 54.81% North Little Rock School District NLRHS East Campus October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 230 27 16 3 2 0 0 163 11 19 6 3 1 0 393 38 35 9 5 1 0 5.41% 1.04% 0.07% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.15% 0.00% . , LEA: 6002076 North Little Rock School District NLRHS West Campus/Argenta October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 09 65 5 1 40 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 156 15 7 74 52 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 615 105 133 143 194 20 14 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 616 118 146 144 166 15 14 3 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 /\"\" i Totals 11.?) .../243 287 401 428 42 31 5 8 5 1 1 0 0 0 36.50% 57.09% 5.03% 0.90% 0.41% 0.07% 0.00% . . LEA: 6002077 White Black Grade Total M F M F 06 16 2 0 11 07 59 6 2 24 08 63 4 1 32 -- Totals .../.i._38_ /_12, .- 3 67 10.87% 84.78% North Little Rock School District Rose City Middle October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 50 4 2 0 0 0 0 4.35% 0.00% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% . . LEA: 6002702 White Grade Total M F M 07 224 14 9 08 229 17 8 Totals V453 31 17 10.60% North Little Rock School District Ridgeroad Middle Charter October 1, 2010 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat F M F M F M F 80 98 17 5 1 0 0 0 95 84 8 16 0 0 1 0 175 182 25 21 1 0 1 0 78.81% 10.15% 0.22% 0.22% ..).I Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002067 White Black Grade Total M F M F PK 245 16 10 88 Totals 245, 16 10 88 10.61% 82.86% North Little Rock School District Redwood Preschool October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 115 5 8 1 0 0 0 115 5 8 1 0 0 0 5.31% 0.41% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.00% 0.82% . .., LEA: 6002000 White Black Grade Total M F M F PK 538 37 28 196 228 K 703 126 110 195 206 01 698 127 116 206 192 02 727 124 129 211 199 03 666 130 98 184 195 04 659 101 109 205 191 05 696 103 106 208 215 ..1/,~,.' I I, {!/J ~ IQ3/ 06 641 107 106 196 183 07 658 106 115 195 197 08 612 110 92 196 161 09 859 160 145 255 246 10 712 116 127 206 215 11 615 105 133 143 194 12 616 118 146 144 166 -\u0026lt; \"./ -\n,, , z., .,,, \"' .P Totals 9400 1570 1560 2740 2788 North Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian M F M F 15 27 1 2 25 30 6 4 29 23 1 4 28 29 2 3 24 26 6 1 26 21 4 2 30 23 4 4 ~\n_ 18 21 2 3 26 14 4 1 17 28 3 4 30 16 3 2 15 22 7 3 20 14 1 3 15 14 3 5 O 318 308 47 41 Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1/.J)h) 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 (, \" .r 11 7 2 2 1 5 lw/o PK I 88621 15331 15321 25441 25601 3031 2811 461 391 101 61 I I I 33.30% I 58.81% I 6.66% I o.94% I 0.19% I 0.04% I 0.06% I November 23, 2010 Margie Powell One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1610 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Powell: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 NOV\n~ ) 2-IO C~FICEOF DESEGREGt OA ITTIO RIHG Attached is an updated copy of the 2010-2011 October 1 Enrollment Report to replace the copy you received earlier this month. There was a minor error in calculations and an additional 13 students have been added to the secondary enrollment. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. CiJ~Bc~ Brenda Bowles, Ed. D Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services C Sam Jones, Attorney PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black !1Q Adkins PreK PK 35 31 30 24 11 9 140 School Total 35 1,,1.f3 1 30 ~) 24 11 Jv 9 140  47.14% 52.86% School Total Including_ PK 35 31 30 24 11 9 140 47.14% 52.86% 2 Baker Elementa,:y_ 01 13 15 22 19 12 15 96 02 16 19 25 22 14 13 109 03 9 14 17 18 7 16 81 04 14 16 9 20 8 7 74 05 9 14 18 11 10 7 69 KF 13 10 16 \\ 17 14 12 82 ~/t:' IL,? f-) School Total H. ~ 107 ?' 107 ~'~ I!l. 511  31.70% 68.30% !U C[Y_stal Hill Elementa,:y_ 01 26 20 43 38 2 3 132 02 17 19 32 35 5 109 03 20 25 31 26 4 107 04 29 12 31 36 2 2 112 05 26 27 38 30 4 2 127 KF 18 18 38 32 6 5 117 School Total 136 'J-121 213 \\ 197 23 14 704 36.51% ' 63.49% PK 6 i 9 11 ,)? 10 3 1 40 -5) School Total Including_ PK 142 , 130 224 207 ~ 12 744 .,/ 36.56% 63.44% 21_ Bay_ou Meto Elementary_ 01 3 3 31 31 70 02 4 0 27 32 2 0 65 03 3 1 17 29 0 51 04 2 0 27 28 1 59 05 2 3 19 21 0 2 47 KF 4 24 25 0 2 56 School Total 18 8 145 166 4 7 348 7.47% \u0026amp;i 92.53% PK 0 i~ 0 10~~, 10 0 0 20 1 Schoof Total Including_ PK 1! ~ 155 176 1 z 368 V' 7.07% 92.93% 2. Clinton Elementa,:y_ 01 23 33 25 29 7 9 126 02 29 29 26 20 5 8 117 03 31 28 33 23 3 119 04 29 28 25 13 6 3 104 05 28 28 13 13 1 2 85 KF 25 31 21 31 6 8 122 School Total 165 177 143 \\ 129 26 33 673 50.82% 49.18% PK 15 ~')-, 25 21 0  11 5 l,~ 2 79 ?'., School Total Including_ PK 1801 202 164@ 140 ~\nJi 752  50.80% 49.20% RE E!VED i\nOV\n~ 0 2010 3-8 Q,CfiOCEF DEStGfi~Q1~1.TiOl~NNI TORING PUU\u0026gt;.SKI COUNTY SPEaAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black ~ Dupree Elementary 01 18 17 15 9 5 2 66 02 10 13 12 10 0 5 so 03 15 12 11 6 3 2 49 04 10 8 11 10 2 5 46 OS 10 11 8 2 4 42 KF 10 J 14 10 9 3 4 so o'1- /~ a1 \u0026gt;l Schoof Total ll. l I. Z M. 1.. ll 303 48.84% 51.16% 102 Harris Elementary 01 18 11 5 2 0 37 02 14 15 3 0 3 1 36 03 19 14 3 3 2 42 04 12 13 3 4 2 35 OS 13 11 3 2 31 KF 17 16 4 4 43 '7' '1 11'? 9' ,C\\ Schoof Total ~ ~ -21? -11 11. z 224  77.23% 22.77% 103 Jacksonvi/le Efementar'i. 01 9 16 5 5 7 2 44 02 18 16 8 8 2 4 56 03 22 20 4 6 4 4 60 04 19 16 6 9 4 4 58 OS 16 18 2 4 4 4 48 KF 18 ~~ 9 10 9 8 2 56 ., 1L\u0026lt; ~' I Schoof Total 102 ~\nl. ~ ~ l!l. 322./ 61.18% 38.82% 104 Landmark Elementary 01 7 5 10 11 4 3 40 02 4 6 9 12 4 2 37 03 8 12 10 15 5 3 53 04 12 6 14 11 4 3 50 05 7 7 11 11 2 39 KF 7 4 20 14 7 53 School Total 45 40 74 ~ 74 26 13 272 31.25% 68.75% PK 3 \" 6 9 11.t 10 7 5 40 1 School Total Including PK ~ ~ 1 M ll. 1.!!. 312  30.13% 69.87% 105 Lawson Elementary 01 7 5 11 19 2 0 44 02 5 6 18 15 2 1 47 03 3 4 13 21 2 2 45 04 5 4 18 20 0 0 47 OS 6 7 26 15 2 2 58 KF 6 6 16 9 0 38 Schoof Total 32 32 102 ? 99 9 5 279 22.94% 77.06% PK 1 l.\u0026lt;.t, 3 a? 1 I 3 20 ~\"?\u0026gt; Schoof Total Including PK ll.\nl. 110 ill 1Q . 299 22.74% 77.26% 4-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA - 14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 106 Tolleson Elementary_ 01 6 4 13 16 4 44 02 10 5 22 10 1 49 03 6 8 14 12 3 44 04 10 15 8 8 3 2 46 05 10 5 8 12 3 39 KF 14 15 19 15 4 2 69 School Total 56 52 84 73 14 12 291 37.11% 62.89% PK 4 I~~ 17 iJ 10 ~jl 3 40 ~ School Total Including PK ~ 101 \\ ll. 1. 331  35.05% 64.95% 108 Oak Grove Elementa!}'. 01 4 8 21 19 5 4 61 02 2 15 12 5 3 38 03 9 3 14 8 4 5 43 04 6 4 16 13 5 4 48 05 5 3 12 17 4 45 KF 7 7 15 12 6 49 School Total 33 26 93 81 29 22 284 20. 77% 79.23% PK 2 11 13 r) 15 13 6 60 )\\} School Total Including PK\n!_ 1d\" E. 106? ~ ~ 1() l! 344  20.93% 79.07% 110 Robinson Elementary_ 01 4 2 10 5 2 24 02 3' 4 12 11 3 34 03 5 11 16 12 2 47 04 8 5 11 12 1 38 05 8 7 7 10 2 3 37 KF 2 0 9 8 4 2 25 School Tola/ 30 29 65 58 14 9 205 28. 78% 71.22% PK\n11 0 4 H 7 7 2 20 .J,' School fatal Including PK ~ @ ,~ M. 11 ~~ 11 225  26.22', ~ 111 Scott Elementary_ 01 5 11 5 0 23 02 5 3 7 9 0 0 24 03 5 4 5 16 0 31 04 4 7 4 6 0 1 22 05 0 6 13 9 0 29 06 2 2 2 5 1 13 KF 4 2 13 7 0 27 School Total 25 25 55 57 3 4 169 29.59% 70.41% PK ~~~ 2 6 1 9 1 'l 20 ,1). School Total Including PK ll. 1. 1.? 66 1 . 189 / 28.04% ZLifili 5-8 ' PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 112 Sherwood Elementar'i_ 01 6 8 12 17 7 3 53 02 7 6 16 17 3 5 54 03 12 8 17 14 4 56 04 14 10 15 13 3 56 05 12 10 17 17 3 60 KF 10 7 18 12 2 8 57 School Total  61 49 95 90 22 19 336 32.74% 67.26% PK 2 l ... 2 5 q 8 1 ~~ 20 School Total Including_ PK g 1 100 ~ ll. 356...,,, 32.02 67.98% 113 S'i_lvan Hills Elementar'i. 01 7 14 13 13 50 02 14 6 15 7 3 46 03 19 11 12 9 0 52 04 14 10 16 12 0 53 05 12 18 16 14 4 2 66 KF 18 13 17 12 4 2 66 School Total 84 72 89 67 13 8 333 46.85% 53.15% PK 1 ry 5 6 \"~ Op1 20 ~ School Total Including_ PK ~ 1\" ll. ~ H 11 !1 353-./' 45.89% ~ 119 Jacksonville Middle School 06 89 56 43 52 6 7 253 07 67 67 32 31 6 5 208 08 80 67 57 34 4 6 248 .., L, 0 ., 236 J1\n') School Total 190 132 117 ll 11. 709  60.08% 39.92% 120 Fuller Middle School 06 48 55 34 21 8 4 170 07 53 54 38 33 9 7 194 08 54 ,, 52 32 35 6 4 183 ,:-\"' _,, ~?--~ ~ School Total 155 w. 104 ll. 1i 547 57.77% 42.23% 122 S'i_lvan Hills Middle 06 61 69 62 71 5 5 273 07 45 44 41 44 5 4 183 08 53 55 48 46 8 5 215 7 '\u0026gt;,\" ) q ~ School Total 159 168 151 161 11. H 671  ~ ~ 123 Jacksonville Hig_h 09 103 83 41 51 5 4 287 10 52 74 45 50 3 3 227 11 68 55 45 43 4 2 217 12 46 80 51 30 4 3 214 School Total 269 292 182 174 ll !1 945 59.37% 40.63% 6-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPEaAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 125 Mills High 09 64 so 47 33 9 7 210 10 54 57 40 47 9 5 212 11 69 43 31 35 6 9 193 12 62 51 16 30 4 2 165 :J~'7' ,A ~l School Total 249 201 134 145 M ll 780  57.69% 42.31% 126 Oak Grove High 09 52 40 so 49 4 6 201 10 34 20 24 31 3 113 11 26 20 16 26 2 3 93 12 21 f 22 15 22 0 5 85 ..,,_o,, School Total ??J,'.J 133 102 105 ~ 128 2 1i 492  47.76% 52.24% 127 Robinson High 09 35 32 42 32 6 3 150 10 10 24 24 30 4 2 94 11 28 24 41 27 4 2 126 12 29 17 38 24 3 5 116 ..,, J 'J ,,..t.'-l --\nO.. School Total 102 2Z 145 113 ll. 11 486 40.95% 59.05% ill Sylvan Hills High 09 72 55 59 58 8 3 255 10 42 48 35 38 4 7 174 11 44 42 45 so 8 4 193 12 38 qo 49 52 52 5 7 203 -\"\" \u0026gt;-llr ~ 196 ~ 194\n):. School Total 191 198 ?. ll 825  47.27% 52.73% 129 Cato Elementary 01 7 10 17 16 1 52 02 4 7 25 12 2 51 03 7 8 13 11 0 0 39 04 9 5 16 20 3 3 56 OS 11 5 22 20 0 0 58 KF 5 4 15 21 1 47 School Total 43 39 108 100 6 7 303 27. 06% 7 72. 94% PK 2 1\n4 2 9 ). 7 0 1? 0 20\nf}  School Total Including PK ~ ~ 117 ') 107 ~ z 323  26.63% 73.37% 130 Pinewood Elementa[Y_ 01 21 22 11 20 2 77 02 22 20 11 15 2 4 74 03 13 18 11 13 3 0 58 04 24 23 11 13 5 2 78 OS 22 16 13 8 4 2 65 KF 21 11 19 ,!J~ 11 3 1 11 76 p\n,,'(\" -\n,?) School Total 123 ~ 110 ~ M 11!~ ll 428 / 54.44% 45.56% 7-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 135 College Station Elementar'i 01 13 12 2 2 1 31 02 11 11 2 0 2 0 26 03 11 7 5 2 0 0 25 04 9 11 7 2 31 05 11 16 4 6 39 KF 10 9 3 0 0 23 0 School Total 65 66 23 12 5 4 175 74.86\nJr. 25.14% PK 6 0\" 6 2 1 0 \\ \\ 2 17 School Total Including PK I1 ll l. 11  ~ 192./' 74.48% 25.52% 136 North Pulaski High 09 51 34 61 65 8 4 223 10 37 35 63 59 13 6 213 11 38 35 49 43 11 12 188 12 34 50 47 57 4 4 196 f!,'lu 160 :3\u0026gt;- I ,y \u0026gt; School Total 154 220 224 ~  820 38.29% 61.71% 137 Arnold Drive Elementar\ny_ 01 0 13 20 5 7 46 02 3 5 16 9 1 9 43 03 4 3 6 6 2 4 25 04 6 3 10 5 1 26 05 1 4 5 6 2 5 23 KF 2 3 8 17 5 5 40 '1_ School Total 17 18 58 63 16 31 203 17.24% 82. 76% PK 2 ,J 2 15 /1 7 3 ? 8 37 School Total Including PK 1! gJ2 I1 I2. 1! 12 240 ~ 83.75% 139 Oakbrooke Elementar\ny_ 01 14 17 23 19 0 6 79 02 18 16 23 15 0 73 03 18 18 36 18 0 0 90 04 21 14 21 25 2 84 05 22 10 21 24 79 KF 22 19 28 22 0 92 I '/ .,, School Total 115 94 152 ._/123 4 9 497 42.05% 57.95% ~ 11 r ., PK 5,., 8 13 2 40 School Total Including PK 120 105 160 136  1.1 537/ 41.90% 58.10% 140 Northwood Middle 06 38 28 51 50 14 8 189 07 36 49 57 44 12 7 205 08 36 40 43 49 9 11 188 ,, /'rt' r ~, School Total 110 117 151 143 ~  582  39.00% 61.00% 8-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA  14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 141 Tay_lor Elementary: 01 23 20 11 13 0 0 67 02 25 18 11 12 1 68 03 8 16 9 10 2 2 47 04 22 30 6 7 1 68 05 13 16 12 9 3 0 53 KF 25 1 21 16 14 4 81 'J 1161- 'I)' '1 384/ 61.72% \u0026amp; School Total 121 g g 11 i 38.28% 142 Pine Forest Elementar::t. 01 13 15 33 32 3 5 101 02 9 15 25 22 2 3 76 03 10 16 27 37 3 5 98 04 22 13 32 27 0 96 05 12 9 37 30 5 3 96 KF 11 9 34 4 20 2 5 81 -71 )?,. q ~ School Total Zl Zl 188i) 168 ~ ~ E. 548  ~ 71.90% 143 Robinson Middle 06 26 25 44 37 8 10 150 07 25 26 33 27 4 2 117 08 29 26 39 23 9 2 128 r1 .\u0026gt; School Total Q )9 Zl ill ll l1 H. 395  39.75% 60.25% 146 Bates Elementary: 01 17 16 24 16 4 7 84 02 13 10 11 10 8 9 61 03 15 26 17 17 2 8 85 04 21 18 21 6 3 6 75 05 18 16 14 10 9 5 72 KF 17 13 14 15 6 9 74 School Total 101 f\ni 99 101 74 32 44 451 44.35% ~ 55.65% PK 6i 9 11 ciit\u0026gt;9 4 ii 40 School Total Including PK 107 108 112 l ~ ~ ~ 491 43.79% 56.21% 1j2, Maumelle Middle 06 57 55 78 70 10 9 279 07 40 51 78 64 3 7 243 08 59 52 69 \" 64 5 3 252 \u0026gt;- ,.:\n\" J i. School Total 156 158 225 198 11!. 11 774/ 40.57% 59.43% 150 Chenal Elementar::t. 01 10 10 41 32 2 5 100 02 12 14 36 27 5 2 96 03 11 11 25 30 6 4 87 04 15 15 30 26 3 90 05 19 16 22 32 4 4 97 KF 8 ,\u0026gt;ti 6 29 ~ 44 j'-1 89 ? J., School Total li ll 183 ~ 1 191 11 11 559  ~ 73.70% 9-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 TOTAL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black PreK Totals 91 118 185 161 59 48 673 32.54% 67.4611 KF 294 248 416 380 90 85 1513 01 275 284 422 407 79 80 1547 02 275 264 407 342 74. 77 1439 03 283 298 366 360 59 68 1434 04 337 286 368 346 59 56 1452 05 293 283 361 337 69 61 1404 E/ementa Totals wlo PreK 1757 417 8789 38.91% 61.09% 3,,J,, Elementa Totals with PreK 475 9461 38.46% 61.54% 06 321 290 314 306 52 44 1327 07 266 291 279 243 39 32 1150 08 311 292 288 251 41 31 1214 09 377 294 300 288 40 27 1326 10 229 258 231 255 36 24 1033 11 273 227 35 32 1010 12 230 26 979 19/i i Seconda Totals 1007 116 8039 48.76% 51.24 District Totals w/o PreK 3764 3576 4198 3954 693 543 16818 43.62% 56.3811 District Totals with PreK 3855 3704 4383 4116 751 691 17501- 43.19% 56.8111 \"1,{\n9~. i,\n,  I I, -3 .\u0026gt;J~f~ 7, 8-8 November 12, 2010 Margie Powell, Federal Mo Office of Desegregation Mo oring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Powell: Enclosedis a copy of the October State reporting. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 NOV. 2010 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 This data is being utilized for If you have any questions please con ncerely, /,1 ~,,),-- /(yv---{1 Dr. Brenda Bowles, Assistant Superintende for Equity and Pupil Services c Sam Jones, Attorney RECE~\\fED NOV 1 J. ~ 2010 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFIOCFE SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 DESEGREG1Ai1T0I1OllIT' ORING Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black M Adkins PreK PK 35 31 30 24 11 9 140 School Total 35 31 30 24 11 9 140 47.14% 52.86% School Total Including_ PK 35 31 30 24 11 9 lli 47.14% 52.86% U Baker Elementary 01 13 15 22 19 12 15 96 02 16 19 25 22 14 13 109 03 9 14 17 18 7 16 81 04 14 16 9 20 8 7 74 05 9 14 18 11 10 7 69 KF 13 10 16 17 14 12 82 School Total H ~ 107 107 ~ l.Q 511 31.70% 68.30% ~ Crystal Hill Elementary 01 26 20 43 38 2 3 132 02 17 19 32 35 109 03 20 25 31 26 4 1 107 04 29 12 31 36 2 2 112 05 26 27 38 30 4 2 127 KF 18 18 38 32 6 5 117 School Total 136 121 213 197 23 14 704 36.51% 63.49% PK 6 9 11 10 3 1 40 School Total Including_ PK 142 130 224 ~ ~ 11 lli 36.56% 63.44% ~ Ba~ou Meto Elementart. 01 3 3 31 31 1 70 02 4 0 27 32 2 0 65 03 3 17 29 0 51 04 2 0 27 28 1 59 05 2 3 19 21 0 2 47 KF 4 24 25 0 2 56 School Total 18 8 145 166 4 7 348 7.47% 92.53% PK 0 0 10 10 0 0 20 School Total Including_ PK 1! !! 155 178 ~ z 388 7.07% 92.93% 11. Clinton Elementart. 01 23 33 25 29 7 9 126 02 29 29 26 20 5 8 117 03 31 28 33 23 1 3 119 04 29 28 25 13 6 3 104 05 28 28 13 13 1 2 85 KF 25 31 21 31 6 8 122 School Total 165 177 143 129 26 33 673 50.82% 49.18% PK 15 25 21 11 5 2 79 School Total lnctc,:'ing_ PK lli 202 164 140 ll ~ 752 50.80% 49.20% ~ 1 - 8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Bid Percentages Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black ~ Dupree Elementary 01 18 17 15 9 5 2 66 02 10 13 12 10 0 5 50 03 15 12 11 6 3 2 49 04 10 8 11 10 2 5 46 05 10 11 8 7 2 4 42 KF 10 14 10 9 4 50 Schoo/ Total !J. I !l ll ll ll. 303 48.84% 51.16% 102 Harris Elementary 01 18 11 5 2 0 37 02 14 15 3 0 3 36 03 19 14 3 3 2 42 04 12 13 3 4 2 35 05 13 11 3 2 31 KF 17 16 4 4 43 Schoo/ Total ll fill l! 11 11 l lli 77.23% 22.77% 103 Jg_cksonvil/e Elementary 01 9 16 5 5 7 2 44 02 18 16 8 8 2 4 56 03 22 20 4 6 4 4 60 04 19 16 6 9 4 4 58 05 16 18 2 4 4 4 48 KF 18 9 10 9 8 2 56 Schoo/ Total 102 ~ ~  1!1 lQ 322 61.18% 38.82% J.!M Landmark Elementary 01 7 5 10 11 4 3  rJ 02 4 6 9 12 4 2 37 03 8 12 10 15 5 3 53 04 12 6 14 11 4 3 50 05 7 7 11 11 2 39 KF 7 4 20 14 7 53 School Total 45 40 74 74 26 13 272 31.25% 68.75% PK 3 6 9 10 7 5 40 Schoo/ Total Including PK ~ ~ u ~ ll 11 m 30.13% 69.87% 105 Lawson Elementa!l'. 01 7 11 19 2 0 44 02 5 6 18 15 2 1 47 03 3 4 13 21 2 2 45 04 5 4 18 20 0 0 47 05 6 7 26 15 2 2 58 KF 6 6 16 9 0 38 School Total 32 32 102 99 9 5 279 22.94% 77.06% PK 1 3 8 4 ~ 20 Schoo/ Total Including PK ll ~ 110 m 1Q . 299 22.74% 77.26% 2-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name ~Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 106 Tolleson Elementary 01 6 4 13 16 4 44 02 10 5 22 10 49 03 6 8 14 12 3 44 04 10 15 8 8 3 2 46 05 10 5 8 12 3 39 KF 14 15 19 15 4 2 69 School Total 56 52 84 73 14 12 291 37.11% 62.89% PK 4 4 17 10 2 3 40 School Total Including_ PK Q ~ 101 ~ 11 11 m. ~ 64.95% 108 Oak Grove Elg_mentar:Y 01 4 8 21 19 5 4 61 02 2 1 15 12 5 3 38 03 9 3 14 8 4 5 43 04 6 4 16 13 5 4 48 05 5 3 12 17 4 4 45 KF 7 7 15 12 6 2 49 School Total 33 26 93 81 29 22 284 20.77% 79.23% PK 2 11 13 15 13 6 60 School Total Including_ PK ~ ll. 106 ~ ~ l! ~ 20.93% 79.07% ill Robinson Elementary 01 4 2 10 5 2 24 02 3 4 12 11 3 34 03 5 11 16 12 2 47 04 8 5 11 12 1 38 05 8 7 7 10 2 3 37 KF 2 0 9 8 4 2 25 School Total 30 29 65 58 14 9 205 28.78% 71.22% PK 0 0 4 7 7 2 20 School Total Including_ PK\nlQ ~ ~ M 11 11 225 26.22% 73.78% 111 Scott Elementa!Y 01 5 11 5 0 23 02 5 3 7 9 0 0 24 03 5 4 5 16 0 31 04 4 7 4 6 0 22 05 0 6 13 9 0 29 06 2 2 2 5 1 13 KF 4 2 13 7 0 27 School Total 25 25 55 57 3 4 169 29.59% 70.41% PK 2 6 9 1 20 School Total Including_ PK il ll. !! M ~ ~ ill 28.04% 71.96  3-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 112 Sherwood Elementart. 01 6 8 12 17 7 3 53 02 7 6 16 17 3 5 54 03 12 8 17 14 4 56 04 14 10 15 13 3 56 05 12 10 17 17 3 60 KF 10 7 18 12 2 8 57 School Total 61 49 95 90 22 19 336 32.74% 67.26% PK 2 2 5 8 2 20 School Total Including_ PK ll 1. 100 !! ll 11. 356 32.02% 67.98% ill Sylvan Hills Elementart. 01 7 14 13 13 2 50 02 14 6 15 7 3 46 03 19 11 12 9 0 52 04 14 10 16 12 0 53 05 12 18 16 14 4 2 66 KF 18 13 17 12 4 2 66 School Total 84 72 89 67 13 8 333 46.85% 53.15% PK 5 6 7 0 20 School Total Including_ PK M l1 M ~ 11 ~ 353 45.89% 54.11% 119 Jacksonville Middle School 06 89 56 43 52 6 7 253 07 67 67 32 31 6 5 208 08 80 67 57 34 4 6 248 School Total 236 190 132 117 1. 1. 709 60.08% 39.92% 11.QF uller Middle School 06 48 55 34 21 8 4 170 07 53 54 38 33 9 7 194 08 54 52 32 35 6 4 183 School Total 155 161 104 ~ ll ~ 547 57.77% 42.23% 122 Sylvan Hills Middle 06 61 69 62 71 5 5 273 07 45 44 41 44 5 4 183 08 53 55 48 46 8 5 215 School Total ill m ill ill 1. ~ 671 48.73% 51.27% 123 Jacksonville Hig_h 09 103 83 41 51 ~ 4 287 10 52 74 45 50 3 3 227 11 68 55 45 43 4 2 217 12 46 80 51 30 (\"- 3 214 School Total 269 292 182 174 1. ll 945 59.37% 40.63% ii 4-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black ill Mills High 09 64 50 47 33 9 7 210 10 54 57 40 47 9 5 212 11 69 43 31 35 6 9 193 12 62 51 16 30 4 2 165 School Total .ill w. 134 145 ~ ll 780 ~ 42.31% 126 Oak Grove High 09 52 40 50 49 4 6 201 10 34 20 24 31 3 1 113 11 26 20 16 26 2 3 93 12 21 22 15 22 0 5 85 School Total 133 102 105 128 ! ll 492 47.76% 52.24% ill Robinson High 09 35 32 42 32 6 3 150 10 10 24 24 30 4 2 94 11 28 24 41 27 4 2 126 12 29 17 38 24 3 5 116 School Total ill !l ill 113 11 11 486 40.95% 59.05 128 Sr/van HIiis High 09 72 55 59 58 8 3 255 10 42 48 35 38 4 7 174 11 44 42 45 50 8 4 193 12 38 49 52 52 5 7 203 School Total 196 194 191 198 ~ 11 ill 47.27% 52.73% ~ Cato Elements!}'. 01 7 10 17 16 1 52 02 4 7 25 12 1 2 51 03 7 8 13 11 0 0 39 04 9 5 16 20 3 3 56 05 11 5 22 20 0 0 58 KF 5 4 15 21 47 School Total 43 39 108 100 6 7 303 27.06% 72.94% PK 2 2 9 7 0 0 20 School Total Including PK ~ ~ 117 107 . l 323 26.63% 73.37 119. Pinewood Elements!}'. 01 21 22 11 20 2 77 02 22 20 11 15 2 4 74 03 13 18 11 13 3 0 58 04 24 23 11 13 5 2 78 05 22 16 13 8 4 2 65 KF 21 11 19 11 11 76 School Total II ill !.1Q I! ~ 11 11 ill 54.44 45.56 5-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 135 f\n_ol/eg_eS tation Efementa/'.Y_ 01 13 12 2 2 1 1 31 02 11 11 2 0 2 0 26 03 11 7 5 2 0 0 25 04 9 11 7 2 31 05 11 16 4 6 1 39 KF 10 9 3 0 0 23 0 Schoof Total 65 66 23 12 5 4 175 74.86% 25.14 PK 6 6 2 0 2 17 .choof Total Including_ PK lJ. ll ~ ll ~  192 74.48% 25.52% 136 North Pulaski High 09 51 34 61 65 8 4 223 10 37 35 63 59 13 6 213 11 38 35 49 43 11 12 188 12 34 50 47 57 4 4 196 Schoof Total 160 154 220 224 ~ ~ 820 38.29% 61.71% 137 Arnold Drive Efementa!Y. 01 0 13 20 5 7 46 02 3 5 16 9 1 9 43 03 4 3 6 6 2 4 25 04 6 3 10 5 1 1 26 05 1 4 5 6 2 5 23 KF 2 3 8 17 5 5 40 Schoof Total 17 18 58 63 16 31 203 17.24 82.76 PK 2 2 15 7 3 8 37 Schoof Total Including_ PK !l. 1Q ll ~ !l. ~ 240 16.25% 83.75% 139 Oakbrooke Efementa!Y. 01 14 17 23 19 0 6 79 02 18 16 23 15 0 1 73 03 18 18 36 18 0 0 90 04 21 14 21 25 2 84 05 22 10 21 24 79 KF 22 19 28 22 0 92 Schoof Total 115 94 152 123 4 9 497 42.05 57.95 PK 5 11 8 13 2 40 Schoof Total Including_ PK 120 105 ill! ill ~ 11 537 41.90% 58.10% 140 Northwood Middle 06 38 28 51 50 14 8 189 07 36 49 57 44 12 7 205 08 36 40 43 49 9 11 188 Schoof Total 11.Q 117 151 143 ~-- ~ 582 39.00% 61.00% \" 6-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Bid Bid Name Other Percentages Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black ill Ta'{_lorE lementary 01 23 20 11 13 0 0 67 02 25 18 11 12 1 1 68 03 8 16 9 10 2 2 47 04 22 30 6 7 2 68 05 13 16 12 9 3 0 53 KF 25 21 16 14 4 81 School Total 116 121 M g 11 J! ill 61.72% 38.28% 142 Pine Forest Elementary 01 13 15 33 32 3 5 101 02 9 15 25 22 2 3 76 03 10 16 27 37 3 5 98 04 22 13 32 27 0 2 96 05 12 9 37 30 5 3 96 KF 11 9 34 20 2 5 81 School Total l1 l1 ill 168 1. n 548 28.10 71.90 143 Robinson Middle 06 26 25 44 37 8 10 150 07 25 26 33 27 4 2 117 08 29 26 39 23 9 2 128 School Total ~ l1 116 !!l 11 Y. 395 39.75% 60.25% 146 Bates Elementary 01 17 16 24 16 4 7 84 02 13 10 11 10 8 9 61 03 15 26 17 17 2 8 85 04 21 18 21 6 3 6 75 05 18 16 14 10 9 5 72 KF 17 13 14 15 6 9 74 School Total 101 99 101 74 32 44 451 44.35% 55.65% PK 6 9 11 9 4 40 School Total Including PK 107 108 ill ~ ~ ~ ill ill'.lli 56.21% 149 Maumelle Middle 06 57 55 78 70 10 9 279 07 40 51 78 64 3 7 243 08 59 52 69 64 5 3 252 School Total ill 158 .ill ill 11 u m. 40.57% 59.43% 150 Chenal Elementary 01 10 10 41 32 2 5 100 ... 02 12 14 36 27 5 2 96 03 11 11 25 30 6 4 87 04 15 15 30 26 3 90 ,, 05 19 16 22 32 4 4 97 KF 8 6 29 44 89 School Total 1. 11 133 191 u u fil 26.30% 73.70% 7-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 TOTAL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female .Mfil! Female Total Black Non-Black PreK Totals u 12B ill w ~ g, m 32.54 87.48%! Kf 294 248 416 380 90 BS 1513 01 275 284 422 407 79 80 1547 02 275 264 407 342 74 77 1439 03 283 298 366 360 59 68 1434 04 337 286 368 346 59 56 1452 OS 293 283 361 337 69 61 1404 Elementao,\n: Totals w/o PreK mz !W lMQ lm WI w: 1~ 38.91% 81.091 Elementao,\nT:o tals with PreK 184B 1791 2525 2334 4B9 475 9462 38.46 81.54%1 06 319 288 312 301 51 43 1314 07 266 291 279 243 39 32 1150 08 311 292 288 251 41 31 1214 09 377 294 300 288 40 27 1326 10 229 258 231 255 36 24 !033 11 273 219 227 224 35 32 1010 12 230 269 219 215 20 26 979 Secondary Totals 2005 1911 1B56 1777 262 215 B026 48.79 51.21%11 District Totals wlo PreK ~ ~ 41~ ~ ~ ~ l~l~ 43.83 srnII District Totals with PreK is~ ~ ~m ilU m. ~ 1Z,4Bf. 43.20% 58.80%11 8-8 ELEMENTARY Class PRE-K SCHOOLS Capacity (Rev,sed) Blk NB Adkins 526 72 66 Arnold Dr 453 6 31 Baker 428 0 0 Bates 863 16 24 Bayou Mato 697 0 20 Cato BOO 4 16 Chenal 550 0 0 Clinton 840 40 39 Coll Sta 439 12 5 ~talHIII 870 15 25 Ouoree 496 0 0 Hanis 906 0 0 Jax Elem 850 0 0 Landmark 711 10 30 Lawson 372 4 16 Oak Grove 626 17 43 Oakbrooke 553 17 23 Pine Forest 554 0 0 Pinewood en 0 0 Robinson 544 0 20 Scott 294 3 17 She\u0026lt;wood 561 4 15 Svtilan Hills 606 6 14 TavlOf 566 0 0 ToHeson 561 8 32 Total Elem: 15,345 234 436 SECONDARY Cius SIXTH SCHOOLS (\"R-cervtyt sedl Bl\u0026lt; NB 7 Leamlno Academ-. 90 2 0 Star Acadernv TBA 0 0 FulerMiddle 1360 103 67 Jax MlckUe 990 141 108 Jax Hinh 1360 0 0 Maumele Middle 840 113 168 MIDSH lah 1130 0 0 North Pulasij Hloh 1050 0 0 Northwood Mid 1030 68 124 Oak Grove tflQh 1130 0 0 RobinsonM id 650 51 98 Robinson Hlah 770 0 0 Svtvan HIits Mid 1060 131 140 Svl\\lan Hills HkJh 1120 0 0 Tola! Secondary 12.600 607 705 TOTAL ENROLLMENT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ht Quartff Enrotlmi1nt TNI Count 2010--11:O ctober 1l, 2010 (Le1W11lnARc ad*nrt St.r Acll\u0026lt;f\"myrmwcounted '\" 11epftratP 1choots\",) KIND FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk % 138 ,t ~ .... - o. 0  - o \u0026lt; -,,\"'.'i0l' J:'!\"'Liu o or 0 l!\".!0 !',. 0, 0\n O 72 52.2% 37 6 34 40 2 44 46 8 35 43 8 17 25 10 17 27 6 15 21 '\"\"' {46) 19.2% 0 24 59 83 27 68 95 35 74 109 24 57 81 30 44 74 23 46 69 ~.r.,:\n~o0 =\"I 163 31:9% 40 30 44 74 33 52 85 23 38 61 41 44 85 38 37 75 34 39 73 --o. 215 43.6% 20 5 49 54 6 64 70 4 61 65 4 47 51 2 58 60 5 42 47 w\u0026lt;1\u0026gt; .,~o \"\"--.o 26 7.1% 20 9 38 47 17 35 52 11 41 52 15 25 40 14 42 56 16 42 58 li.\nrJ.Dl\n.\\\naO _,,..,. 'llij 26.5% 0 14 75 89 20 60 100 26 70 96 22 64 86 30 60 90 35 62 97 '~ 147 26.3% 79 56 66 122 56 72 128 60 58 118 60 60 120 58 47 105 55 29 84  .,\"'1). 385 50.9% 17 19 4 23 25 7 32 22 5 27 18 8 26 21 11 32 28 11 39 1~5 74.0% 40 37 81 118 47 87 134 38 73 109 46 60 106 41 71 112 54 74 128 . ..,.,0 wn ,.,, ... 276 36.9% 0 24 26 50 37 30 67 24 26 50 27 22 49 18 28 46 22 21 43 .. , .. o i,I ......., I 152 49.8% 0 35 9 44 28 7 35 30 7 37 35 8 43 27 11 38 23 7 30 ~ ~ _,,. 178 78.4% 0 28 29 57 26 18 44 34 22 56 42 18 60 35 22 57 34 14 48 :i. ... ~( j\n'll'O ~ 199 61:8% 40 11 42 53 13 27 40 10 27 37 19 33 52 20 30 50 14 25 39 .,,,:\u0026gt;\nO ., ~- 97 31.2% 20 12 26 38 13 32 45 11 36 47 7 38 45 9 38 47 14 45 59 ,..t-..-4-r0- iO. , 70 23.3% 60 14 34 46 11 51 62 4 34 38 14 30 44 10 38 48 8 37 45 :iCt.\"\"0 \n78 22.6% 40 41 51 92 31 48 79 34 39 73 36 54 90 35 49 84 31 48 79 ~'l\u0026lt;.O ~. '$ 225 41.9% 0 20 81 81 27 74 101 23 52 75 26 74 100 35 61 96 19 75 94-.:-ovc ... D 150 27.4% 0 38 40 76 43 35 78 43 32 75 32 26 58 46 30 76 38 26 64 ~(J \\t., ~-- 240 55.9% 20 4 21 25 7 17 24 8 26 34 15 31 46 13 25 38 15 22 37 ~o 0 ,, 62 27.7% 20 8 21 29 7 16 23 8 16 24 9 22 31 11 10 21 6 23 29 4 8 12 56 29.6% 19 16 40 56 13 41 54 14 39 53 21 36 57 23 34 57 22 37 59 ...-..:...1  .,: - . 113 31.8% 20 33 34 67 20 29 49 20 26 46 30 22 52 25 29 54 29 37 66 ..,..,.!),\u0026gt;: ,-.:.\u0026lt;1.T'i, 163 46.0% 0 48 34 82 44 24 68 43 24 67 24 21 45 so 16 66 29 23 52 ~ .... , ..,,\n:,.,.DI..,~ ( 238 62.6% 40 29 39 68 10 32 42 13 32 45 14 30 44 22 22 44 15 24 39 -.,o  0 - ., ' 111 34.5% 670 561 957 1518 563 990 1553 544 893 1437 589 847 1436 623 830 1453 575 824 1399 4 8 12 3,693 39.0'.4 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 11:O u11rtltfE nrollrnftf'ltT otI Coont201n.11: Octobr 1. 2010 (Ul111mfnoA Clldemv ~t.r ACJ1dNnyn nw eounffld \"\" a P~\"'ht- \"~honh, ...) SEVENTH EIGHTH NINTH TENTH ELEVENTH TWELFTH TOTAL SECONDARY TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk % NonBlack \n. 2 3 4 7 10 3 13 19 3 22 10 1 11 5 1 6 1 0 1 50 80.6% 12 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 24 29 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 24 45.3% 29 170 106 85 191 105 n 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 314 57.8% 229 249 132 71 203 143 99 242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 416 59.9% 278 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 166 71 237 123 102 225 123 91 214 128 90 218 540 60.4% 354 281 88 152 240 109 143 252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 310 40.1% 463 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 117 0. 211 110 101 211 108 81 189 115 51 166 450 57.9% 327 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 135 214 73 139 212 73 113 186 86 110 196 311 38.5% 497 190 88 118 206 76 112 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 230 39.4% 354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 107 195 52 58 110 46 49 95 42 42 84 228 47.1% 256 149 50 84 114 54 70 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 40.1% 232 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 84 150 36 61 97 52 74 126 46 72 118 200 40.7% 291 271 88 0. 182 104 105 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 323 48.8% 339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 130 256 88 83 171 87 106 193 87 117 204 388 47.1% 436 13121555 588 1143 601 609 1210 685 653 1338 492 545 1037 40. 515 1009 505 482 987 3,939 49.0'.4 4,097 I 7,632 43.6'!. 9,8821 TOTAL ELEMENTARY Non-Black 66 193 348 278 341 239 411 371 51 471 153 49 123 214 231 267 312 397 189 162 133 242 191 142 211 5,785 TOTAL 19.4% 62 54.7% 53 42.2% 543 40.1% 694 39.6% 894 59.9% 773 42.1% 777 61.5% 808 60.6% 584 52.9% 484 59.9% 387 59.3% 491 51.2% 662 52.9% 824 51.0% 8,036 56.4o/,I 17,514 .,,. Page4 of5 Total 47.8% 138 80.8% 239 68.1% 511 56.4% 493 92.9% 367 73.5% 325 73.7% 558 49.1% 756 26.0% 196 63.1% 747 50.2% 305 21.6% 227 38.2% 322 68.8% 311 76.7% 301 77.4% 345 58.1% 537 72.6% 547 44.1% 429 72.3% 224 70.4% 189 68.2% 355 54.0% 354 37.4% 380 65.5% 322 61.0% 9,478 R C DEC- r 2010 R tA Office of Educational Accounlabtily. Pnnted oo 10/22/2010 at 11:15 AM.\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":"fda_houck_390146","title":"Incorporating social justice in tourism planning: racial reconciliation and sustainable community development in the Deep South","collection_id":"fda_houck","collection_title":"Davis Houck Papers","dcterms_contributor":["Barton, Alan W. (Authoraut)","Leonard, Sarah J."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2010-10-01"],"dcterms_description":["Summary: Article on tourism and racial reconciliation in Tallahatchie County, Mississippi."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Oxford, U.K. : Community Development"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["http://purl.fcla.edu/fsu/MSS_2015-007"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights--History--20th century","African Americans--Crimes against","Civil rights","Journalism--Political aspects--United States","Mississippi--Race relations","Racism in the press","Rhetoric--Political aspects--United States--History--20th century","Trials (Murder)--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Incorporating social justice in tourism planning: racial reconciliation and sustainable community development in the Deep South"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Florida State University Libraries. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_MSS_2015-007_S03_SS03_I008"],"dcterms_temporal":["1900/1999"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"auu_auc-167_auc-167-0076-1","title":"\"Their Memories, Our Treasure\" Presentation at Albany State, October 2010","collection_id":"auu_auc-167","collection_title":"The Spelman Independent Scholars Oral History Project","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Georgia, Dougherty County, Albany, 31.57851, -84.15574"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2010-10"],"dcterms_description":["Dr. Gloria Wade Gayles presents on the Spelman Independent Scholars project at Albany State University. She talks about some of the places scholars have visited as well as highlights from interviews that have been conducted. Some scholars in attendance read quotes from interviews with elders. They also discuss some of the major historical events they have studied for this project. These include the rise in lynching in the period after World War I and Martin Luther King Jr.'s work in Albany, Georgia."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"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":["Spelman Independent Scholars Oral History Project||http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12322/fa:167"],"dcterms_subject":["African American women","Oral history","African Americans--Civil rights"],"dcterms_title":["\"Their Memories, Our Treasure\" Presentation at Albany State, October 2010"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Spelman College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12322/auc.167:0076_1"],"dcterms_temporal":["2010/2019"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["moving images"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_p15728coll3_395916","title":"Jefferson Thomas Congressional Records","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Snyder, Vic, 1947-"],"dc_date":["2010-09-15/2010-09-29"],"dcterms_description":["This is a folder contains a tribute to Jefferson Thomas made by Vic Snyder to the House of Representatives.","This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["The Little Rock Nine Collection (CHSC 350)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["School integration--Arkansas--Little Rock","Central High School (Little Rock, Ark.)--History","School integregation--Arkansas--Little Rock","African Americans--Civil rights--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Jefferson Thomas Congressional Records"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15728coll3/id/395916"],"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":["Snyder, Vic, 1947-","Thomas, Jefferson, 1942-2010"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_p15728coll3_396732","title":"Jefferson Thomas funeral programs","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2010-09-10"],"dcterms_description":["This is a folder contains a funeral programs clelbrating the life of Jefferson Thomas.","This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["The Little Rock Nine Collection (CHSC 350)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["School integration--Arkansas--Little Rock","Central High School (Little Rock, Ark.)--History","School integregation--Arkansas--Little Rock","African Americans--Civil rights--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Jefferson Thomas funeral programs"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15728coll3/id/396732"],"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":["Thomas, Jefferson, 1942-2010"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_79","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":["2010-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.). 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/79"],"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\nARKANSAS DEPARTJ\\t\\ENT OF EDUCATIO Dr. Tom w. Kimbrell September 30. 20 I 0 Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Naccaman Williams Springdale Chair Jim Cooper Melboume Vice Chair Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Toyce Newton Crossett Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019 (501) 682-4475 - ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Chri tophcr Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark -IOO West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 '.'vlr. John'-.\\'. \\,\\ 'alker John Walker, P. :.\\. 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 \\lonitoring One t nion National Plaza 12-t West Capitol. Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen \\\\ '. Jones Jack. Lyon \u0026amp; Jones -l25 West Capitol. Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. !'vi. Samuel Jones 1II Mitchell, Williams, Selig. Gates \u0026amp; V-. oodyard -l25 West Capitol ,\\venue. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 7220 I RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. C.:.S. Di!\ntrict Court .Vo. 4:82-CV-866 WR W Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am l'iling the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of September 20 IO in the abo\\.erefcrenced case. [f you have any questions. please feel free to contact me at your conwnience. Sincerely, ~C-(X~ Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel RECEIVED OCT 1 2 2010 CfFICE OF DESEGREGil.T\\Ori MONITORING UNITED STATES DfSTRICT COURT EASTER.' DISTRICT OF ARKr\\\\'SAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCl!OOL DISTRICT PLAlNTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WR W PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. et al DEFE~DA1' TS OTICE or FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December l 0. 1993, the Arkansas Depanmem of Education hereby gi\\es notice of the filing of the ADEs Project Management Tool for September, 20 l 0. C . ~ J:::\u0026gt; 8 y: o-.---...... Jey(. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar I o. 2001-2005 Ark. Department of Education CERT[FICATE OF SERV[CE [, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on September 30,2010. [ caused the foregoing document to be erved b1 depositing a copy in the United States mail. postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: \\Ir. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark -+00 West Capitol. Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 7220 I -3-t93 Mr. John W. Walker John v\\'alker. P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Vlr. :v1ark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, [\\ers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation i\\[onitoring One Gnion National PlaLa 12-+ \\\\'est Capitol. Suite 1895 Little Roel\u0026lt;. AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack. Lyon \u0026amp; Jones -+25 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, :\\R 7220 I i\\lr. :vi. Samuel Jones, [II Mitchell. Williams. Selig. Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard -+25 \\,Vest Capitol. Suite 1800 Little Rock. :\\R 7220 I 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 September 30, 2010 Based on the information available at August 31, 2010, the ADE calculated the State Foundation Funding for FY 10/11 subject to periodic adjustments. 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 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 September 30, 201 O Based on the information available at August 31, 2010, the ADE calculated for, FY10/11 , subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 On August 31, 2010, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 10/11 were as follows: LRSD - $5,312,841 NLRSD - $3,253,181 PCSSD - $4,028,487 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 10/11 at August 31 , 2010, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $58,441,252 NLRSD - $35,784,992 PCSSD - $44,313,364 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 September 30, 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 2010 for FY10/11, 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 September 30, 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 2010 for FY10/11, 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 September 30, 2010 On September 10, 2009, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,212 per court order. The final Magnet payment for FY 08/09 was $511 ,455. Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 201 O for FY10/11, 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 September 30, 2010 Distributions for FY 10/11 at August 31 , 2010, totaled $1 ,389,721. Allotment calculated for FY 10/11 was $13,897,197 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 September 30, 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2010 for FY 09/10, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. J. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Distributions for FY 09/10 at June 30, 2010, were: LRSD - $4,905, 188 NLRSD - $5,958,194 PCSSD - $10,478,331 The allotments calculated for FY 09/10 at June 30, 2010, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4,905,188 NLRSD - $5,887,319 PCSSD - $10,478,331 The North Little Rock School District was overpaid for M-to-M in the amount of $159,655. They repaid $88,780 in June of 2010. 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 September 30, 201 O In September 2007, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 07/08 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 September 30, 2010 In August 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 08/09 to the Districts. In August 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In January 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 09/10 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 September 30, 2010 In January 2010, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equaf installments. At January 31 , 2010, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $2,778,700 NLRSD - $887,615.26 PCSSD - $2,229,905.22 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 09/1 O: LRSD - $1 ,354,368.33 NLRSD - $510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 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 September 30, 2010 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) 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. 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 09/10 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. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) 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. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) 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 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 Central States Bus Sales $1,135,960. 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 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 September 30, 2010 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 September 30, 201 O 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 2. Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. Actual as of September 30, 201 O Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 September 30, 2010 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 September 30, 2010 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. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 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. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11 . 13 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 September 30, 2010 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress . made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education and the Districts. 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. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development . regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 19 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 20 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 21 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The 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 Gtoup met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The 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 for 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. 22 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 September 30, 2010 (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 for 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. 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On October 11 , 2007, 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. He handed out news articles about the LRSD bein~ declared unitary and the Joshua interveners filing a notice of appeal to the 81 Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua interveners 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 interveners. 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 for 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 lnterveners 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 lnterveners. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lnterveners 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 lnterveners. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lnterveners 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. 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, 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. 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 of 2008. Act 2 was passed in the special legislative session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31 . Also discussed in the Implementation Phase meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the district. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an independent district. He said that taking Jacksonville out of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in federal district court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for 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 2008-09 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. 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings 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 \"districtwide, 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. 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, 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. 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 for 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. 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, 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. 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 for 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 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 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. 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, 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. 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 for 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 for 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 update 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. 29 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 September 30, 2010 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. 8. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1.  Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 30 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 September 30, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 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 September 30, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 31 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 September 30, 2010 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 were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17-1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81st 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. 32 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 September 30, 2010 (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 Distric~ 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. 33 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 September 30, 2010 (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 \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 34 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 September 30, 201 O (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 35 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, a letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, a letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 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. 36 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 September 30, 2010 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 September 30, 2010 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 September 30, 2010 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 37 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 September 30, 2010 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. 38 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 September 30, 2010 (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. 39 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 September 30, 2010 (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. 40 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 September 30, 2010 (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 lnterveners filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 41 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 September 30, 2010 (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 interveners 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 lnterveners 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 w_hich ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lnterveners 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. 42 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 43 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 September 30, 2010 (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. 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 September 30, 2010 (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. 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 September 30, 2010 (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. 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 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 September 30, 2010 (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. 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 21 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 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 September 30, 2010 (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 16, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 11 , 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 8, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 10, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 19, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. 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) 3. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On March 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 9, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 13, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 52 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice train ing on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists fo\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":"suc_tomcrosbystr_70","title":"Mildred McDuffie oral history interview, 2010 August 25","collection_id":"suc_tomcrosbystr","collection_title":"Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School Oral History Collection, 2006-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Crosby, Tom, 1940-","South Caroliniana Library. Office of Oral History"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Richland County, 34.0218, -80.90304","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, Booker T. Washington High School, 33.99404, -81.02565","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, Celia Dial Saxon Elementary School","United States, South Carolina, Sumter County, 33.91617, -80.38232"],"dcterms_creator":["McDuffie, Mildred, 1934-"],"dc_date":["2010-08-25"],"dcterms_description":["In this oral history interview, Mildred Weathers McDuffie discusses her educational experiences in Columbia, South Carolina at Celia Saxon Elementary and Booker T. Washington High School, Allen University (class of 1957) and the Business department, Benedict College, working at the Columbia Housing Authority and pay disparity, time spent in Georgia, teaching in Richland County School District One in Columbia, South Carolina for thirty-four years, serving as a summary court judge, and volunteer work as a Relationship Specialist at Allen University. Mildred Weathers McDuffie was born on August 3, 1934 in Wedgefield, Sumter County, South Carolina to Ethel Mae Byrd and Charlie James Weathers. She worked for Richland County School District One for over 30 years. Tom Crosby interviewed Mildred McDuffie at her office at Allen University in Columbia, South Carolina, on August 25, 2010. Interview covers McDuffie's education at Celia Dial Saxon Elementary (grades 1-6) and Booker T. Washington High Schools (grades 7-12) from the mid-1940s to the late 1950s and at Allen University until 1957."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Tom Crosby oral history collection, 2006-2011","McDuffie, Mildred 25Aug2010 CROS 035"],"dcterms_subject":["McDuffie, Mildred, 1934---Interviews","Allen University--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","Booker T. Washington High School (Columbia, S.C.)--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","African Americans--Social life and customs--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Richland County--History--20th century","African Americans--Education--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Mildred McDuffie oral history interview, 2010 August 25"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/tomcrosbystr/id/70"],"dcterms_temporal":["1939/1945","1946/1954","1955/1969"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual Research Purposes Only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 sound disc (31 min., 06 sec.) : digital, stereo.; 4 3/4 in.; 1 audiocassette (31 min., 06 sec.) : stereo. ; 3 7/8 x 2 1/2 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_tomcrosbystr_74","title":"Dorothy Evans oral history interview, 2010 August 20","collection_id":"suc_tomcrosbystr","collection_title":"Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School Oral History Collection, 2006-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Crosby, Tom, 1940-","South Caroliniana Library. Office of Oral History"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, Amidon-Bowen Elementary School, 38.87982, -77.01815","United States, District of Columbia, Washington, Samuel Chapman Armstrong Technical High School","United States, South Carolina, Laurens County, 34.48357, -82.00593","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, 34.0218, -80.90304","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, Allen University, 34.01071, -81.02037"],"dcterms_creator":["Dorrah-Evans, Dorothy Mae Lomax, 1906-2012"],"dc_date":["2010-08-20"],"dcterms_description":["This second oral history interview with Dorothy Evans covers the nearly same subject matter as the first interview."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Tom Crosby oral history collection, 2006-2011","Evans, Dorothy 20Aug2010 CROS 034 trk 2 of 2"],"dcterms_subject":["Dorrah-Evans, Dorothy Mae Lomax, 1906-2012--Interviews","African Americans--Social life and customs--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Richland County--History--20th century","African Americans--Education--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Dorothy Evans oral history interview, 2010 August 20"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/tomcrosbystr/id/74"],"dcterms_temporal":["1890/1913","1914/1918","1919/1929"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual Research Purposes Only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["2 sound discs (83 min., 60 sec.) : digital, stereo. ; 4 3/4 in.;2 audiocassettes (83 min., 60 sec.) : stereo. ; 3 7/8 x 2 1/2 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_45","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":["2010-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.). 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/45"],"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\u0026gt;-~-~ ,A.RKANSA.S -~ ~._\"1,c,ii~\n':?..S.\"4' t DEPART1\\1ENT RECEIVED OF E DUCATl01 . SEP - \"1 2010 omceoF Dr. Tom W. Kimbrell Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Naccaman Williams Springdale Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Toyce Newton Crossett Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019 (501) 682-4475 - ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer August 3 1, 20 10 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 \\Ir. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock. AR 72206 :-V1r. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock. Barnes, Wagoner, hers \u0026amp; neddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock. AR 72203-1510 DESEGREGAllON MONITORING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union ational Plaza l 2..J. West Capitol. Suite l 895 Little Rock. AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; .Jones ..J.25 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Mr. M. Samuel Jones T[] Mitchell, \\,\\'ii Iiams, Selig. Gates \u0026amp; Wood) ard 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 WR W Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter. [ am advising you that ram filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project f\\(anagement Tool for the month of August 20 l O in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions. please fee l free to contact me at your convenience. Si ncerely, ~:.:~1___ General Counsel . L':\\flTED STATE DfSTRICT COCRT EASTER:\\! Df TRICT OF ARKANSAS \\.VESTER.t'\\J DIVISfO:\\ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. ~o. LR-C-82-866 WR\\\\,' PULASKf COC, TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al OTfCE OF FfLING PLAlNTIFF DEFENDANTS In accordance \\,\\ith the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project tvlanagement Tool for :\\ugust. 2010. BY .2:::S:J ~2~:~unsel Ark. Bar . o. 2001-2005 Ark. Department of Education CERTIFfCATE OF SERVICE I, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on August 31, 2010, 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 Litt le 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 .lack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones -.J.25 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 7220 I _2(g___ Je\"@ 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 August 31, 2010 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 August 31, 2010 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 4~l~~rllititMt~~~~@ef[9.it-1B:~tiD.fwMm~~~ LRSD - $55,837,670 NLRSD - $33,911 ,339 PCSSD - $42,968,852 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 August 31 , 2010 s \u0026gt;:e, info \"'- 'M . ~eaicutafea\"a Hi.ff ~ 3 w1--20:10\nfo: ,,:_r,: ~3-~ - ::i..,--.... ______ .. ~li\u0026gt;ti_\n..:_: . ~. eeMo 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 August 31 , 2010 ~~~tlfat~ailigit0U]jjyJ:~~~ = -~ 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. G. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 On September 10, 2009, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,212 per court order. The final Magnet payment for FY 08/09 was $511,455. ID l\n'.:rca1eti1~te'EJj\"i\"at.~'tlabH'e1,1J\"~:0~gf{Qg ~\"'-\"'-,-w._...__., . ...,,,=-~.,_,,-.J.?.\n......,.=\n1~~ ~\nii\n' Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 'IDistFio m~,f! . ~ .@~ ia'c\"'u ..fE*t..eEfLf . 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 August 31 , 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2010 for FY 09/10, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. J. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 Distributions for FY 09/10 at June 30, 2010, were: LRSD - $4,905,188 NLRSD - $5,958, 194 PCSSD - $10,478,331 The allotments calculated for FY 09/10 at June 30, 2010, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD- $4,905,188 NLRSD - $5,887,319 PCSSD - $10,478,331 The North Little Rock School District was overpaid for M-to-M in the amount of $159,655. They repaid $88,780 in June of 2010. 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 August 31, 2010 In September 2007, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 07/08 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 August 31, 2010 In August 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 08/09 to the Districts. In August 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In January 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 09/10 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 August 31, 2010 In September 2009, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 08/09 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 08/09: LRSD - $4,236,159.97 NLRSD - $1,300,628.11 PCSSD - $3,482,736.87 In September 2009, General Finance made the first 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 - $1,389,350 NLRSD - $443,807.63 PCSSD - $1,114,952.61 In January 2010, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At January 31, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $2,778,700 NLRSD - $887,615.26 PCSSD - $2,229,905.22 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 August 31, 2010 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) 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. 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 09/10 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) 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. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) 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 ,036,1 15. 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 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of August 31, 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 9 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 201 O 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 August 31 , 2010 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 August 31 , 201 O 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 August 31 , 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 August 31 , 2010 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 August 31 , 2010 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. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) 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. Distribu ion in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total a~ due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 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 QOM 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. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. 13 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 August 31 , 2010 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education and the Districts. 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. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data  element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. _The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201 -A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 19 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE _Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30  p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 20 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier,  Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 21 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The 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 for 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 for 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. 22 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 August 31 , 2010 (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 for 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. 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On October 11 , 2007, 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. He handed out news articles about the LRSD bein~ declared unitary and the Joshua interveners filing a notice of appeal to the st Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua interveners 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 interveners. 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 for 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 lnterveners 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 lnterveners. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lnterveners 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 lnterveners. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lnterveners 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. 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, 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. 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 of 2008. Act 2 was passed in the special legislative session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31 . Also discussed in the Implementation Phase meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the district. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an independent district. He said that taking Jacksonville out of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in federal district court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for 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 saic\nI that ODM has proposed a 2008-09 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. 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 August 31, 2010 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings 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 \"districtwide, 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 scheduied for January 8, 2009 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 August 31, 2010 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, 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. 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 for 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. 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 August 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, 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. 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 for 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 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 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. 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 August 31, 2010 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, 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. 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 for 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 for 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 update 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. 29 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 August 31, 2010 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 August 31 , 2010 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 30 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 August 31 , 201 O The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 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 August 31, 2010 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 August 31 , 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 31 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 August 31 , 2010 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 were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17-1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81st 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. 32 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 August 31, 2010 (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. 33 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 August 31, 2010 (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 \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 34 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 August 31, 2010 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 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. 35 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 August 31 , 2010 (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. 36 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 August 31 , 2010 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 Ag~eement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 Ongoing 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 August 31 , 2010 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 37 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 August 31 , 2010 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. 38 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) During the months of Febr,uary 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. 39 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 August 31 , 2010 (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. 40 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 August 31 , 2010 (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 lnterveners filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 41 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 August 31 , 2010 (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 interveners 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 lnterveners 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 lnterveners 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. 42 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 43 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 August 31, 2010 (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. 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 August 31 , 2010 (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. 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 August 31 , 2010 (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. 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 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 August 31 , 2010 (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. 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 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 August 31, 2010 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 21 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 16, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 11 , 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 8, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 10, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 19, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. 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) 3. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On March 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. ~ ,0A9.,gu~t ~\n?6:fb~ ~h~ Arkansas -- r~_yi cl,,mRJ:.Q~d tp_g f?MI _andi!-'executiVtl_till}maryJoiJ e moQ!_[ 52 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference wa? conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information.  In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July . monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 56  VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provid\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1851","title":"Multiple court filings","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":null,"dc_date":["2010-08/2010-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)||History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2010-2019","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_title":["Multiple court filings"],"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/1851"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["92 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tws_oid16_33700","title":"Earline Duncan, 2010","collection_id":"tws_oid16","collection_title":"Crossroads interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2010-07-23"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4","application/pdf","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Memphis, Tenn. : Rhodes College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["https://vimeo.com/279358197"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Memphis (Tenn.)","Neighborhoods","Evergreen Historic District (Memphis, Tenn.)","Segregation"],"dcterms_title":["Earline Duncan, 2010"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33700"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":222,"next_page":223,"prev_page":221,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":2652,"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}}]}}