{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"fda_houck_390145","title":"America's Civil Rights Revolution: Three Documentaries About Emmett Till's Murder in Mississippi (1955)","collection_id":"fda_houck","collection_title":"Davis Houck Papers","dcterms_contributor":["Wagner, Terry"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2010-05-19"],"dcterms_description":["Summary: Article on the reopening of the Emmett Till murder case and the influence of contemporary documentaries."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television"],"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":["America's Civil Rights Revolution: Three Documentaries About Emmett Till's Murder in Mississippi (1955)"],"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_I007"],"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":"nge_ngen_annie-l-mcpheeters-1908-1994","title":"Annie L. McPheeters (1908-1994)","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Williams, Kerrie Cotten"],"dc_date":["2010-05-19"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article about Annie L. McPheeters. McPheeters was one of the first African American professional librarians in the Atlanta Public Library and an influential proponent of African American culture and history. A librarian, educator, and civil rights activist, she provided library services and resources to segregated communities through educational programs for children and adults.","GSE identifier: SS8H11"],"dc_format":["text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dcterms_subject":["Librarians--Georgia--Atlanta","Women librarians--Georgia--Atlanta","African American librarians--Georgia--Atlanta","African American women librarians--Georgia--Atlanta","African American women--Georgia--Atlanta","Authors--Georgia--Atlanta","Women authors--Georgia--Atlanta","African American authors--Georgia--Atlanta","African American women authors--Georgia--Atlanta","Auburn Avenue Research Library on African-American Culture and History--Employees"],"dcterms_title":["Annie L. McPheeters (1908-1994)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/education/annie-l-mcpheeters-1908-1994/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"ARTICLE TITLE,\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":["If you wish to use content from the NGE site for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, you must request and receive written permission from the NGE. Such requests may be directed to: Permissions/NGE, University of Georgia Press, 330 Research Drive, Athens, GA 30602."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["McPheeters, Annie L."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1815","title":"District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to enforce 1989 settlement agreement","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":["2010-05-19"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to enforce 1989 settlement agreement"],"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/1815"],"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":["59 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1818","title":"District Court, motion to enforce 1989 settlement agreement","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":["2010-05-19"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, motion to enforce 1989 settlement agreement"],"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/1818"],"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":["89 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1146","title":"Exhibits: Little Rock School District (LRSD) desegregation plan implementation timeline","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2010-05-19"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Little Rock School District (LRSD) desegregation plan implementation timeline"],"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/1146"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nLittle Rock School District (LRSD) Exhibit 4\nSpecial education and staff development\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_1816","title":"Transcript of Pulask County Special School District's unitary status hearing vol 1-15","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":["2010-05-10"],"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":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2010-2019","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Transcript of Pulask County Special School District's unitary status hearing vol 1-15"],"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/1816"],"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":["transcripts"],"dcterms_extent":["64 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_107","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":["2010-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/107"],"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\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RE IV D JUfJ 1 - 2010 Dr. Tom W. Kimbrell May 28, 2010 Commissioner DFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza State Board of Education 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Dr. Naccaman Williams Springdale Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Utile Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Toyce Newton Crossett Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019 (501) 682-4475 ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer Little Rock, AR 72201-3..J.93 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 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III\nv[itchelL Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard ..J.25 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 WRW Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of May 2010 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincere ly, ~C.ci-~ Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA1 SAS WESTER:.'\\/ DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAfNTIFF V. o. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al DEFE DANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December I 0, I 993 , the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADEs Project Management Tool for May, 2010 BY: J re y C. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar o. 2001-2005 Ark. Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on May 28,2010, 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 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Case 4:82-cv-00866-BSM Document 4453 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FILED U.S. DIST'll '.\nT COURT '=ASTERN D1S7 R\"C:T 1-'1,\u0026lt;ANSAS MA, 2.i3 ZUiC WESTERN DIVISION JAMEg,:. f).4{:CQRMACK CLERK l3v:  ( Jfo1.\u0026gt;1  L'E:P CLi:.f\n.K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for May, 2010 BY: J re y C. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar No. 200 1-2005 Ark. Department of Education  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan . IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2010 Based on the information available at April 30, 2010, the ADE calculated the State Foundation Funding for FY 09/10, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 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 May 31 , 2010 Based on the information available at April 30, 201 o, the ADE calculated for FY 09/10, subjecno periodic adjustments.  - C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2010 On April 30, 2010, distributions of State Foundation-Funding for FY 09/10- were as follows:' LRSD - $45,685,366 NLRSD - $27,745,641 PCSSD - $35,156,332 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 09/10 at April 30, 2010, subject to perioqic adjustments, were _as follows: 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 May 31 , 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 201 o for FY 09/10, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2010 Based on the information availa!)le.,-the ADE calc1:Jlc3t~d a.t AprTi 30, 2010 f~fr FY Q9/10, su~ject to periotj1c ~djustm~nts. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 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 lnformation available, the ADE calcula.ted at April 30~'2010 for FY 09/10, subject to perie\u0026gt;dic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2010 Distributio-ns for l=Y 09/10 at April 30, 2010, totaled $12,262,036~ Allotment calculated for FY 09/1 0 was $14,937,42.5 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 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 May 31 , 2010 Distributio'ns for FY 09i} d ~t J\\pril 30, 2Q1 o\n:were: L~SQ : $3,543,92~ NL:RSD\n'$5,375,088 PCSSD: $8,491,2b8 The allotments calculated for FY 09/10 at April 30\n2010, subjectto plr[odic adjustments, were: LRSD :. $4,429,907 NLRS[f- $6,718,898 PCSSD - $10,614,093 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 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 May 31 , 2010 In March 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 08/09 to the Districts. 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. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 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 fol lowing 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 - 4 7 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of May 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 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. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 07/08. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2010 (Continued) 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 31 , 2010 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove i~ 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 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 May 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 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 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 May 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 May 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 May 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. 29 111. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of May 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 May 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 May 31 , 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 May 31, 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 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 May 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 May 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 May 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-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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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. so V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 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 May 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. 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 May 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 technkal 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 May 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 May 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 May 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. 8. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31 , 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 May 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 ERi C search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of May 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 May 31 , 201 O The information for th is item is detailed under Section VI.F. of th is report. 5 7 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31 , 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 provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts\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_1830","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":["2010-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)||History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2010-2019","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education"],"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/1830"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["74 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tws_oid16_33724","title":"Al Bell, 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":["2010-04-01"],"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/278580978"],"dcterms_subject":["Oral history","Interviews","Memphis (Tenn.)","Stax Records"],"dcterms_title":["Al Bell, 2010"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33724"],"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":["King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_77","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":["2010-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/77"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n.. Dr. Tom W. Kimbrell ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RECEIVED Commissioner April 30, 2010 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATIOt1 MOfHTORJNG 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 Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019 (501) 682-4475 ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P.O.Boxl510 Little Rock, AR 72203-15 l 0 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite l 895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel fones rrr Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol A venue, 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, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of April 2010 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, \u0026amp;c~~ Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. LR-C-82-866 WR W PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.!, eta! NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS In accordance with the Court's Order of December I 0, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for April, 20 I 0 BY: , e C. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar No. 2001-2005 Ark. Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on April 30, 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 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 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, Suite 1800 Little Rock, 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 JOStiUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT\n- ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2010 Based on the information availa6Ie al March 3 f\n, 2010: tneAD!f calculatecfthe -~tate J=\nounqatiQl}:Fun~ingfor FY. 09/10\nsubject t9 periogfo ~djdsfm~r,ts~ .. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 201 O Based on the information available at March 31, 2910, the ADE calculated for FY 0~/10, 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 April 30, 2010 On March 31, 2010, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 09/10 were as follows: LRSD - $40,609,214 NLRSD - $24,662,792 PCSSD - $31,250,072 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 09/10 at March 31, 2010, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: 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 April 30, 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March 31, 2010 for FY 09/10, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2010 Bc!~ed on ~he inforr,n~ticirf _avaflable\n) he AQ( ca,icuiated--afM~(fh 3( _791.9 -for FY 0~/10, S!:Jblect to p~rio_gjq ~\u0026lt;\nfjust!!]~nts. 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 April 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 availabl~ the ADE calculated at March 31, 2010 for FY 09/10, _subj'ect to periodic ~dju~tn::,erits. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2010 Distributions for FY 09/10 at March 3(2010, totaled $10,924,341. Allotment calculated for FY 09/10 was $14,937,425 subject to periodic adj~stments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calcurated at March 31, 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 April 30, 2010 Dis_tribl.itions.for FYJ)~j1b at March 31, 2010, were: ~RSD ,. .$3,loo\n~37 NLRSD_ - $i.(7\n0\n3,202, PCqSD - $7,,42_~,807 The a11ofrnents :.cal.9_ufated for _FY 09/10 -afMarch 31, 2010, subjEi!ct\"fo\"perioqic adjustments, w~re:, ~RSD --$4,429,9Q7 . NLRSD - $6,718,858 PCSSD - $10,614,093 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 30, 2010 In March 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 08/09 to the Districts. 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. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 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 April 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. 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 April 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 April 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 April 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. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 30, 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q . Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. R. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2010 Final payment was distributed July 1994. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2010 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of th is reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 30, 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Commiijee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 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 April 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 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 QOM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the QOM 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 QOM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 07/08. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2010 (Continued) 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 April 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 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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\nAssistant 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 April 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 April 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 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 April 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 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 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 April 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 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 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. (Contini.led) 2. Actual as of April 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 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 April 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 April 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 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 April 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. 27 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 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\nthe ADE lmplementati~n Phase Working Group met~o r~view the hrJplementation Phase lciivities. fe,r the.previous ~uat:ter: Mr. Louis E~Jr,E?n, ADE lnternai- Auditor for Desegrtig~ti9n/,pd_c1ted the group~ on a11 : r~J:ev,int desegregation issues:' Mr. Jeremy t-as_it~r_, . AD~_ Genercil : q9uricil. for Le,ga! Serv(ces, talked ab9Ut the desegregation unitary statul he,arihgsfor the North Little Rock School .D1stri9t and the Pulaski County Special Scliool District (PCS,SD). He, al~o. talked ,ab9Lif a draft pf a' federat court m9tion th,~t could. b~ presented by th~ Little Rpck School District .that. woufd accuse the statE? of violating the desegregation agreement by approving charter schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the _creseg~egation ~ase-wer~ giscussed. Some 'articles talked .abouf the PCSSD lJ.nltar:y statys _heg1.ripg~ ~iscu~sing the condition of school facilities in the district. Mr. Doqg Eaton, Directo~ of Arkans~s Public School Acagemic Facilities 'an9 Transp~rtation, tplked c!bout s~h_ool fa_cilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation. Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010 at 1 :30 p.m. in mom 201-A at the ADE. 2 9 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 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 April 30, 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. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 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 April 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 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 April 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 April 30, 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-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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 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. 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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. 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 April 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 April 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 vis its 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 April 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 April 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 as~istance 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 April 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 April 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 for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 30, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 57  l VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Confe\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":"tws_oid16_33725","title":"John Fry, 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":["2010-04-01"],"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/278581229"],"dcterms_subject":["Oral history","Interviews","Memphis (Tenn.)","Stax Records","Music","Ardent Records"],"dcterms_title":["John Fry, 2010"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33725"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"gych_rogp_109","title":"Milton Jones, 19 March 2010.","collection_id":"gych_rogp","collection_title":"Reflections on Georgia Politics oral history collection, 2006-2010","dcterms_contributor":["Short, Bob, 1932-"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Jones, Milton, 1936","Short, Bob, 1932"],"dc_date":["2010-03-19"],"dcterms_description":["Milton Jones discusses his childhood in Columbus, Georgia, and his subsequent education at Emory at Oxford, Emory, and Emory Law. Jones recalls successfully running for legislature in 1962 at 25 years old. He recalls the Supreme Court ruling that abolished the county unit system and explains how the system worked. Jones reflects on Brown v. Board of Education, the Dixiecrat uprising in the 1950s, and the integration of the University of Georgia. Jones recalls an incident when the clock was turned off during a reapportionment session and comments on the General Assembly's tendency to reapportion based on racial and political lines. He recalls the circumstances surrounding the legislature's decision to elect its own speaker. Jones reads Representative Bob Flournoy's 1964 speech regarding the demise of the county unit system and comments on several other reapportionment situations. Jones discusses working with Jamie Mackey, Elliott Levitas, and Denmark Groover. He also discusses voting to deny Julian Bond his seat, and the 1966 gubernatorial race. Jones recalls serving on the University System of Georgia Board of Regents and comments on party politics in Georgia. He further discusses crossover voting and party registration in Georgia.","Milton Jones was born on August 13, 1936, in Columbus, Muscogee Co., Georgia. He graduated from Columbus High School in 1954 and then from Emory at Oxford in 1956. He earned a bachelor's degree in law in 1958 from Emory University and a law degree in 1959. He served in the United States Army Reserves from 1954-1962, retiring as a Sergeant 1st class. A Democrat, he was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives in 1963 and served until 1970. In 1974, Governor Jimmy Carter appointed him to the University System of Georgia Board of Regents where he served, including as chairman, until 1981.","Finding aid available in repository.","Interviewed by Bob Short."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Reflections on Georgia Politics Oral History Collection","http://sclfind.libs.uga.edu/sclfind/view?docId=ead/RBRL220ROGP.xml"],"dcterms_subject":["Georgia--General Assembly","University of Georgia","College integration--Georgia--Athens--History","Legislators--Georgia--Interviews","Apportionment (Election law)--Georgia","Political parties--Georgia","Apportionment (Election law)","College integration","Legislators","Political parties","Politics and government","Georgia--Politics and government","Georgia","Georgia--Athens"],"dcterms_title":["Milton Jones, 19 March 2010."],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.libs.uga.edu/russell/RBRL220ROGP-109/ohms"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Reflections on Georgia Politics Oral History Collection, ROGP 109, Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies, University of Georgia Libraries, Athens, Georgia, 30602-1641."],"dlg_local_right":["Resources may be used under the guidelines described by the U.S. Copyright Office in Section 107, Title 17, United States Code (Fair use). Parties interested in production or commercial use of the resources should contact the Russell Library for a fee schedule."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","interviews"],"dcterms_extent":["1 interview (99 min.) : sd., col."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Levitas, Elliott Harris, 1930-","Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","Jones, Milton, 1936-","Groover, Denmark, 1922-2001"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Milton Jones interviewed by Bob Short \r\n2010 March 19 \r\nAthens, GA \r\nReflections on Georgia Politics \r\nROGP-109 \r\nOriginal: video, 99 minutes \r\n \r\nsponsored by: \r\nRichard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies \r\nUniversity of Georgia Libraries \r\nand \r\nYoung Harris College \r\n \r\n BOB SHORT:  I'm Bob Short, this is Reflections on Georgia Politics sponsored by Young Harris College and the Richard B. Russell Library at the University of Georgia.  Our guest is Milton Jones, former member of the Georgia House of Representatives and former chair of the state Board of Regents.  Welcome Milton. \r\n \r\n MILTON JONES:  Thank you Bob. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  With your permission we'd like to divide our conversation into three parts.  First a little bit about you and your early life, then your service in the state legislature and on the board of regents, and finally your life after public service.  I know that you were born and raised in Columbus. \r\n \r\n JONES: Right. Well, I was.  Grew up there and went to school.  We were blessed with a fine public school system in Columbus in those days, at least the white kids.  I graduated from high school, Columbus High School, in 1954.  I was very fortunate.  I got to go to Emory at Oxford, a small two-year college down a couple miles north of Covington.   And then I went to big Emory in Atlanta for three quarters and then into law school.  And I went straight through law school and graduated in August of '59.   \r\n I was fortunate enough -- I couldn't have gone to Emory otherwise, but I picked up some scholarships and financial help, one of which was from the Ty Cobb educational foundation.  A lot of folks might not know it, but Ty Cobb started a foundation with the money he made in baseball and primarily off Coke-Cola stock and it educates, I don't know how may thousands of young men it's helped educate in the last 50, 60 years.  It does other things.  I believe it has a hospital up at Royston and other things, but I take my hat off and salute that gentleman again.   \r\n I married my high school sweetheart.  Went home and started practicing law, September 8, 1958, and it went on from there.  I had been interested in government, primarily in American history and government since I was in high school.  Had a great teacher --  I had many great teachers, I owe my life to them -- by the name of Mary Fort, who was the traditional stereotyped old maid schoolteacher in the '50's.  Her sister was one too.  She taught down in Thomasville Elementary School.  But Miss Mary as we called her, she taught American history and government at Columbus high school.  We figured it out at one time that out of the people she taught, over forty became lawyers.  I mean five or six guys -- Tommy Buck is one you would know for sure -- in my wife's class, the class behind me.  But she had a profound influence on a lot of our lives.  \r\n And of course, law back then was a little more admired profession than it is today.   A young lawyer getting home, I was interested in politics.  We had some local political issues that were arising in the early sixties.  I was involved and was on the winning side of one or two.  And, you know, scratching around trying to build a law practice, you know you got to build name recognition.  A seat came open, well, not didn't come open, but an opportunity came to run for the legislature in '62, and I ran.  When I started running I was 25, I was 26 by the time I was elected.  When I went to Atlanta, I was probably the youngest guy up there.   \r\n And that was in January of 1963, the year that Governor Sanders went in.  That summer that I was running was a very interesting summer, in that the United States Supreme Court, and I think it was in March of 1962, had ruled -- I believe the name of the case was Baker v. Carr.  It was a Tennessee case. But they established the one man one vote rule.  And the next month, the federal court in Atlanta -- Griffin Bell, I think wrote the opinion -- said that it applied to the Georgia legislature too.  Excuse me, he said that it applied to the county-unit system, and a few words may be in order about the county-unit system.   \r\n I'm sure a lot of people that listen to this, or that would be interested in listening to it, probably know about it, but for those who don't, there was a -- the county-unit system was like an electoral college, except it was for Georgia ruther than for federal elections.  And it was the way we elected all the state-wide offices in this state.   It also, in large measure, governed the apportionment of the legislature.  It was called, I think the technical title was the Neill Primary Act.  And I think it had started back probably in the late nineteenth century,  but in the early twentieth century I think it was given statutory form.  And back then of course, everyone was a Democrat.  That had been one of the legacies of the Civil War and Reconstruction.  The only Republicans in the county would be what we called the post office Republicans.  So they'd profess to be Republicans so the few times that a Republican got elected president they could be post master.   And then when the Democrats come back in, they'd go back to whatever they had been doing and hope for the next president to be a Republican.  \r\n  But anyway, the only game in town back then was the Democratic primary, because  \r\nthere just wasn't a Republican party.  And I always loved that term, that if you won the Democratic primary it was tantamount to a victory.  I love that word tantamount.  But anyway, the way it worked was the eight largest counties in the state of Georgia had six county-units.  The next 30 had four county-units, and the 121 smallest, there were 159 counties, had two county-units.  And if someone running for governor or lieutenant governor or insurance commissioner or whatever -- if he carried a county, he got all of that county's county-units. The same as if you carry a state today if you're running for president, you get all that state's electoral votes.  I think one or two states have now divided it up, but I don't know.  \r\n And you can see that this really discriminated against your larger urban counties.  Echols county, of course, was the smallest county down there on the Florida line in extreme south Georgia, I think it had 1800 votes.  Fulton county, which was the largest then -- may still be, but I'm not sure.  I think it had close to half a million people.  Well, if you're running for governor and you carried Fulton county with half a million people, you got six county-units.  If you were running for governor and you carried Echols county, you got two.  So you got a third as much votes for the governor's race if you carried Echols county as if you carried a county of a half a million people.   \r\n The apportionment entered into it because each county got a representative for every two county-units.  The ones that had the six county-units, they had three representatives. That would have been Fulton, Dekalb, Bibb, Richmond, Chatham, our county Muscogee.  The next thirty, which would have been in the neighborhood of Valdosta, LaGrange, Griffin, stuff like that.  They had four county-units, so they had two representatives.  And the 121 smallest counties including Echols with 1800 people, they had one representative.  And it was a highly stacked deck in favor of the rural interests in the state.  And that was what the game was at that time.   \r\n Well, after that ruling that spring, the governor's race which had already started -- Marvin Griffin, who had been governor from 19-- well, he was elected in '54 to '58, which means he served from '55 to '5.  Back then the governor could not succeed himself, so he was running for reelection in '62.  Well, not reelection, but he had been out four years since Ernest Vandiver was governor so he could run to be governor again.  Garland Byrd who was the lieutenant governor at the time, was running against Marvin.  Carl Sanders, who was a fine, young, up-and-coming senator from Richmond county, Augusta, he was running for lieutenant governor against Peter Zack Geer.   \r\n Well, that ruling came down and all of a sudden the county-unit system's out, it's popular vote all the way.  And Carl got out the lieutenant governor's race and got into the governor's race.  And shortly thereafter, Garland Byrd had a heart attack, so the race kind of devolved down to Carl Sanders against Marvin Griffin, but now it's on the popular vote rather than the county-unit system.  And I think he was the favorite from then on.  Peter Zack Geer was running against Carl, but then Carl was out of the race.  And then Lester Maddox was also running.  He owned the Pickrick restaurant there in Atlanta, and I think people know who Lester Maddox was.   \r\n But anyway, all of that happened in that summer that we were all running.  And of course, I'm sitting down here running a little, small state representative race, but it was of vital interest, because everyone wanted to know who you were voting for for governor, and all that, you know, and you'd have to try to soft shoe that.  But it was an interesting election.   \r\n Well, one week before that Democratic primary, the federal court ruled in another case that the Georgia General Assembly was malapportioned because it was apportioned based on that county-unit system.  I've just described how the House was apportioned, but the Senate had 54 senators and it was divided up -- Fulton county had one senator.  I don't believe I remember what the gentleman's name was.  And the other 158, they were divided up into senatorial districts.  Normally there were three counties to a senatorial district, and they'd rotate it.  One county would have a senator for two years, the next county would have a senator for two years, the next county would have a senator for two years.  So I mean it was just a constant fruit basket turnover.  \r\n Governor Vandiver -- I think you may have been there at that time -- called a special session immediately after the primary for the purposes of reapportioning the Senate on a population basis, and that all happened.  In 1962 we went from the county-unit system for the method of electing the state-wide offices, and then we had to go up there -- I didn't because I didn't take office until January, but they were kind to me.  I went up there just as an observer and sat around and watched it.  They reapportioned the state Senate there in October, and they had another special election after that because they had to reelect the new senators under reapportionment, and that of course is when Jimmy Carter was elected to the Senate and all the problems between him and Homer Moore down there, and the lawsuit.  But Jimmy eventually prevailed on that write-in on that second special election for the Senate.  It was an interesting year.   \r\n  \r\n SHORT:  That was an interesting decade -- the 60's.  The county-unit system was ruled unconstitutional, you had the reapportionment case, you had the strange election of 1966 when Bo Callaway defeated Lester Maddox, but the legislature elected Maddox.  And you were involved with all that.  What do you remember about those days? \r\n  \r\n JONES:  Well, it was historic times.  Because Carl was elected, and he was a very good governor.  I mean he was an aggressive guy.  Back then a lot had been going on.  In 1954, the year I graduated from high school, that was the year that, of course the Supreme Court of the United States decided Brown v. Board of Education.  Well, that caused significant unrest in the South.  You had the push on the national level, primarily in the Democratic party, for Civil Rights.  You had the Dixiecrat rebellion in the 1958 Democratic convention there, and Strom Thurmond, I think, was the nominee of the Dixiecrats, but Harry Truman won reelection anyway.   \r\n But there was a lot of trouble going on.  You  had James Meredith out there in the University of Mississippi.  Right before all of this started, the very end of Ernest Vandiver's administration, was when you had the integration of the University of Georgia. Hamilton Holmes and Charlayne Hunter and all that situation arose.  So there was a lot of turmoil going on.  And it's unfortunate, but we do have a strong racial  element in that period of history at that time.  \r\n We got through that session in 1963.  Governor Sanders, he had a right progressive program, most of it was adopted.  Then in 1964, we had to do something about congressional redistricting.  Back to the one man, one vote ruling that the Georgia congressional districts would not stand muster on the thing, so the federal court said, \"You've got to redistrict.\" And in the regular session of '64, one of the main things that occurred was that we went through a congressional redistricting in '64. And whenever you've got established political districts where you've got counties that have been together for decades, and you come in there and say, \"No, you're not going to be a district anymore, this guy over here is going to represent you,\" and they don't even know him except for his name  --  there was a lot of back and forth about that.   \r\n There was a representative from Clarke County, Athens, by the name of Randall Bedgood, you remember him.  He drew a plan up that most of us liked pretty well.  It didn't suit the governor's office too well, and I don't know why, there wasn't anything particularly wrong with their plan.  The long and the short of it was -- it boiled down to whether we were going to adopt the Bedgood plan or the other plan.  And that's when the clock on the wall episode occurred.   \r\n It was on the last night of the regular session in 1964 and Denny Groover, who was a great legislator, perhaps with the exception of Elliott Levitas, who you've interviewed, was by far and away the most effective legislators I had the pleasure of serving with.  Denny had been Marivin Griffin's floor leader in the '55-'59 period and I think he was from somewhere down in south Georgia at that time, but by the time of the '60s came along he moved up to Gray, right above Macon.  He was elected to the legislature up there.  He was very effective, he was a spellbinder.  Incidently he was a Marine fighter pilot with Boyington's Black Sheep Squadron in the Pacific during World War II.   \r\n But anyway, Denny was in favor of the Bedgood plan.  George T. Smith, who was the speaker -- we'll talk more about the speakership later, if ya'll don't get tired of listening to me by then -- they didn't have the votes to pass the plan they wanted, so they stopped the clock.  If I remember right it was 20 minutes til 12:00 on the last night of the session.  Well, we wanted the clock to go on and run so that we'd run out of time, we'd have to adjourn, and we knew if we came back in a special session -- which we had to do because we were under federal court order -- we thought we could get the Bedgood plan through.  Well, they unplugged the clock and time stopped.  And they continued to pick up a vote here and a vote there, and it was kind of remindful of what's going on in Washington today.   \r\n But the long and the short of it is Denny Groover went up in the balcony, not to pull the clock off the wall, Denny was trying to figure out how to get the clock to start running again.  He was fiddling around with the clock, he was hanging over the railing with one arm, one leg.  Everybody was aghast because we thought he was going to fall and hurt himself.  But somehow in all the scrambling and scratching he was doing up there, he pulled the clock off the wall.  The clock came falling down on the floor, it was quite a row.  But anyway, they got the votes.  About 2:00 they put the clock back running, or a clock back running and the Bedgood plan went down.  Well, that sowed some more seeds of dissension about the governor controlling the selection of the speaker, we can talk more about that later I said.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Let me ask you this question about reapportionment.  \r\n \r\n JONES:  Alright. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Is it fair to say that our legislative districts have been drawn primarily for party protection and racial reasons rather than binding common communities together. \r\n \r\n JONES:  I don't know.  I don't know how to answer that question. Because, see,  I haven't been up there since 1970.  And I was not involved on any of the reapportionment committees.  And so I can't say back then -- and I certainly have a clue since then.  I don't recall that being all that much of a factor, though that was the primary reason that we in Columbus wanted the Bedgood plan, because the senatorial district under the Bedgood plan that we would have, would have been centered kind of over there on the west central side of the state, with Columbus kind of in the middle of the thing.  And that is kind of the trade center of the area, and I think it probably was more of a geographic plan than others would have been.  But I don't know how to answer that, I can't say that Bob. \r\n \r\n  SHORT:  Okay, let's get back to the period we had the county-unit system that was declared unconstitutional, we had reapportionment, then we also had a constitutional revision situation when Governor Sanders appointed a commission and it made recommendations to the general assembly for a new constitution that we never got.   \r\n \r\n JONES:  Well, that was two months after the clock pulling episode in the regular session in '64.  Governor Sanders called a special session of the legislature.  I guess they'd enjoyed us so much they wanted us back in town, I don't know.  But we went up there to draw a new constitution.  And by now the House was in high dudgen, let's say.  Going back to the speakership, George L.Smith, a wonderful old lawyer from down in Emmanuel county, Swainsboro, had been speaker of the House under Ernest Vandiver, and he may have been speaker before then, I'm not sure.  I think Marvin Moate was Marvin Griffin's speaker of the house.   \r\n But anyway, he had been the speaker when Carl Sanders got out of the lieutenant governor's race and got into the governor's race in 1962.  He had been over in the Senate for about four years, but nobody in the House knew him.  Everybody knew George L. and most of the House members supported Marvin against Sanders.  I think they said it was something like 40 or 42 members of the Georgia House of 205 members supported Sanders.  So he's got a hostile crowd up there when he comes into office -- well, I'm not going to say they were hostile, but they weren't in good spirits about the thing. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  They didn't adjust to the county-unit system. \r\n \r\n JONES:   Well, it was terse, let's put it that way.  But the governor back then, he selected who he wanted to be the speaker, and he passed the word and the House went along with it, and that's it.  There's no way you can overestimate the power of the speaker of the House in Georgia government.  He appoints every committee chairman. He appoints every member of every committee.  When a bill is introduced, he decides solely what committee it's going to.  It can be a favorable committee, it can be an unfavorable committee.  If you get along with the speaker, you get on good committees, if you don't, you don't get on good committees.  If he tells the chairman of a committee, \"I don't want this bill to come out of committee,\" that bill does not come out of committee.   It doesn't make any difference.  It is an absolute power of what happens.  It's a negative power; he can't make things happen, but he can keep things from happening.   \r\n Anyway, George T., who is representing this crowd that had supported Carl, he was selected over George L., who had been everybody's buddy and had been speaker.  So that started this stuff about, \"You know, we really need to start selecting our own speaker, rather than the governor doing it.  And that started in '63 as soon as George T. replaced George L.  And it got worse.  Denny Groover was stirring the pot, and a lot of the other guys were too.  And in 1964 when that congressional redistricting situation happened and they stopped the clock, it really got hot then.  Incidentally that's when the Beatles came to town, that same month.  They came over here from England in February of 1964 if I remember correctly.  Anyway, we come back up there.   \r\n So, all the forces in the Georgia House, \"We're going to take our rights.  We're going to start selecting our own speaker.  And we're going to write it into the constitution.  The governor is not going to tell us who the speaker is going to be.\"  Well, we had the votes to do it. The 121 smallest counties, they formed the 121 club.  It was just a rural caucus.  You could be completely in sympathy with them,  but you couldn't go to the 121 club caucus.  But every one of them, they swore  that they were going to put that in there.  They selected a wonderful guy by the name of George Brooks.  You and I were talking about George a few minutes before we started this.  He was from somewhere over here around Athens, I've forgotten his county.  But he was the chairman of the 121 club.  There were a lot of people in the urban counties -- the three and two representative counties -- that felt the same way.  Our whole delegation, all three of us were in favor of it.  It's just a question of separation of powers between the legislative and the executive.  The governor ought not to be selecting the speaker of the House.  But there were a lot of votes.  Well, Governor Sanders, he was a very good governor, but he was a very effective governor.  He started working on that 121 and they kind of faded away.  And it did not get adopted.   \r\n \r\n SHORT: That was in '64? \r\n \r\n JONES:  That was in the special session in '64, whenever we were up there to draw this new constitution.  Well, while we're in Atlanta drawing a new constitution, the federal court ruled again.  We had thought -- you know the federal Congress, one house, the Senate is based on geography, the other house, the House of Representatives, is based on population.  And this is what that first '62 ruling said, was that one of them had to be -- you know.  But when we were in special session, I think it was May of 1964, give me some slack, I'm talking about stuff fifty years ago and I'm seventy-three years old.  I may be off a little on the dates and stuff like that.  They said, \"No, both of them have got to be.  You're going to have to reapportion the House.\"  And they did that when we were in special session.  And they said, \"Furthermore, you can forget about this constitution.  We are not going to let the people of the state of Georgia vote on a constitution that is draw by a malapportioned legislature.  So ya'll go home.\"  They adjourned us.  That was it.    Incidentally, and we can get to it later if you want to, and I'm afraid I'm talking too much.  One of the finest speeches I have ever heard -- well, I'm not going to say that -- the finest speech I have ever heard in my life in the context of a political moment, was made on the floor of the House of Representatives after the 121 club faded away.  Not all of them, but most of them did.  By a guy by the name of Bob Flournoy, he was a representative from Cobb county in Marietta, he later served with great distinction as a superior court judge up there.  He has a son who is a superior court judge up there now, if I understand correctly.  And Bob Flournoy, he was one of those urban legilators, he was one of the three from Cobb county.  He would have been in favor of this established legislative independence.  He read them the riot act.  I've kept a copy of his speech, all those years since 1964, what is that?  Forty-six years now.  Because it was just such a wonderful speech. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  What did he say? \r\n \r\n JONES:  This is five pages.  Do you want me to read this thing? \r\n \r\n SHORT:  I do. \r\n \r\n JONES:  I've kept this thing because of what I thought was the significance of it, and I apologize for the length of it, but it is interesting -- I think.  \"Remarks made by Representative Flournoy, House of Representatives, May 20 --\" that's my wife's birthday, incidentally, \"--1964.\"   \r\n This first paragraph is just kind of introductory remarks: \"Freshman legislator, but perhaps what I lack in experience and intelligence, I hope may make up in sincerity of purpose.  For sincerity is a quality I have determined is in rather scarce supply in the House of Representatives in Georgia.\"  This was on point of personal privileges at the beginning of the morning session.   \r\n \"I take the privilege of these brief moments to tell you of the shattering of a dream of mine.  A mirage that was broken on yesterday, and a new dream yet to come true.  I was born in an apartment house in the city of Atlanta.  It was the second story over a combination delicatessen candy store.  That's a polite word for a beer parlor.  It was at the corner of English Avenue and Chestnut Street, an area long since taken over as slums by negroes.  My parents were of Georgia stock, moved to Atlanta from rural Georgia.  They were poor, but honest and proud.  All of my life I have been taught and believed that rural people were the salt of the earth and that somehow rural Georgians are the bulwark of freedom and liberty and independence and integrity.   \r\n \"The proudest days of life were when my grandfather, known far and wide as Uncle Match Hitchcock, carried me every year on the fourth of July to the sacred harp singing at the Paulding county courthouse in Dallas.  Somehow, I felt, the hand of God had painted a picture in rural Georgia and here the very soul of our political institutions were found.  I studied very hard as a student, reading nearly everything I could get my hand on about Georgia, or history, or political institutions.   \r\n \"As a boy I had ruther listen to a political speech by Gene Talmadge, Ed Rivers, or Walter George, than to eat a meal.  As an older boy, I went off to college and I continued my alliance to the most sacred esteem in which I held the face of rural Georgia, her sons and her political leaders.  As president of the Demosthenian Literary Society at the University of Georgia, many a night I debated and argued for Georgia's county-unit system and it's system of government which gave greater weight to the soil that to cities.  For I truly believed that men that were close to the soil were somehow more honest, prouder, more independent, and less apt to be dictated to.  I believed with Thomas Jefferson that an agrarian society was the most fertile soil in which a democratic republic might grow and produce fruit of liberty.   \r\n \"On yesterday, this dream was largely shaken and destroyed.  For I realized that independent men might be found in the middle of streets of concrete as well as in the furrows of fields.  And that those men who were from the farms are no more independent than those who live in the shadow of the skyscraper.  On yesterday I saw the collapse of a long overdue fraud.  The representatives of rural Georgia don't represent farmers and merchants and independent little people. The representatives of rural Georgia are stooges who would sell their birthright for asphalt and gravel.  They are Judas Iscariot, who for thirty pieces out of the pork barrel would betray their heritage.   \r\n \"You may rightly ask me, 'Who do you think you are saying such things to us, 121 representatives from rural Georgia?  You apartment born city slicker?' And I'll answer you.  On yesterday I voted for your amendment respecting secret ballot regarding the speaker's election.  Why?  Because I wanted to help those of you who don't have the courage enough to assert your convictions in the open, in the public.  I'm not afraid to vote my convictions in the open because I voted this very amendment on the board.\"  Talking about the voting light board.  \"I voted for it to try to strengthen those of you who may out of fear be scared to vote your choice for speaker of the House.   \r\n \"But I voted for it for still another reason.  I voted for it because I felt sorry for you. Yes, you 121 representatives from the small counties of Georgia.  I felt sorry for you because you are the captives and victims of the years of ubiquitous fraud that you have perpetrated on your own people.  Yes, the people of rural Georgia.  You have told them that there was no need to make the county-unit system equitable, and because of it's inequity, it was destroyed.  You have told them there would be no integration of the races in Georgia.  You said, 'No, not one.'   \r\n \"And now you are telling the rural people of Georgia in this constitution that they can have a House based on geography, when there isn't a man in this House who believes it's present apportionment will last through June the 15th of this year.\"  Within the week, the federal courts had knocked it down.  \"And when you rural representatives had the once chance to strike a blow for your own independence, you buffed it.  You the great bulwark of the democratic republic, you the men upon whom legislative independence rests, you sirs are frauds.  I must say to the gentleman from Oglethorpe, Mr. Brooks, a man whose sincerity and integrity is beyond question, you know he must mean everything he does say because he does not have the syrupy drawl of Mr.--\" I'm not going to mention that name, \"or the quick wit of --\" another one, no need in mentioning names.  \"The commanding presence of,\" another one, \"or the parliamentary smoothness of,\" another Mr. Anonymous.   \"All he has is the strength of his own convictions, and that sirs means more to me than all the glib tongues of a thousand orators.  Mr. Brooks, sir, for you I felt so embarrassed, so humiliated.  \"This group of men we were led to believe who would stand fast like the Rock of Gibraltar, the shifted like shifting sand.  They said to you, \"Lead on, we will follow.\"  And you looked back and they flushed like a covey of quail.  Yes I voted for your motion, your own lieutenants, however, left you. I didn't attend your committee of 121, but I along with county representatives like Mr. Groover, Mr. Late, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Funk, Mr. Pickert, Mr. Dicus, Mr. Milton Jones.  We helped you muster your ragged little band.   \r\n \"Some may say, \"You're not fair Mr. Flournoy.  I really believed in my position and the way I voted.\"  Don't hand me that.  When a soldier takes to the field, he doesn't choose where to fight, he fights where the battle lines are drawn.  The battle lines were drawn yesterday.  You had to either fight there or not at all, and the staunch 121 melted away.  Please don't feel badly.  I'm not recriminating you, the battle is over.  What difference ultimately will it make whether the speaker is elected openly or by secret ballot?  Very little, if any.   \r\n \"The point is when the battle came, wherever is immaterial, you would not fight.  You were afraid.  The dye is now cast, this House will not write a constitution, it will merely ratify that which is spoon-fed to it, so the quicker the better so the taxpayers will lose as little as possible.  The three branches of government in Georgia, legislative, judicial, and executive are gone in so far as this constitution is being drawn.  Oh, we in the legislature may cross a 't' or dot an 'i' or change a word evidenced to testimony or vice versa.  But your infamous 121 less thirty odd have proved your mettle.  To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, if Georgia shall last for a thousand years, men shall say this was her poorest hour.   \r\n \"While 121 represent about 22 percent of Georgia's population, you didn't have the intestinal fortitude to even represent that 22 well, which brings us to the second point I wish to make.  It should now be obvious to all, and the events of the last two days have proved it beyond the doubt of even yourselves, the representatives of rural counties of Georgia don't deserve to be perpetuated in this House.  You don't represent your people, you don't even represent geography.  It should be now apparent that you represent the governor of Georgia and his bidding is your destiny.   \r\n \"I truly wish you could be justified on the grounds that only you rural representatives are independent, self-sufficient, and only you possess integrity sufficient to withstand the autocracy of a powerful executive.  But alas, you have failed.  And now it only remains for the federal judiciary to preach the funeral oration over a legislative system of rural control that only yesterday proved itself to be lacking in vitality, dead.  We of the urban areas didn't kill you, you killed yourself with 121 votes, far in excess of the majority of this House.  You didn't have the political, intestinal fortitude to put across a meager crumb of legislative independence for this House.   \r\n \"At the beginning of these remarks, I told of my unbroken dream of the great independence of the irreproachable combination: lawyer, farmer, statesman.  And I am disillusioned to find you just men after all.  I also told you of a new dream yet to come.  Mr. Cargroan yesterday told you of his dream  of rural and urban Georgia walking down the road together.  And he also mentioned the dreaming of Reverend Martin Luther King.   \r\n I think I too should be privileged to dream a little.  I have a dream of a new Georgia, politically.  I dream of one where relatively few of you 121 faces will return to the House of Representatives.  I dream of a House of Representatives with about 100 members in it, representing a maximum of 50 counties in Georgia.  I have a dream of a general assembly where it's members are paid about $10,000 a year, \" it's more than that now. \"Where they don't have to depend on anyone putting them on interim committees to make a living.  I have a dream of a House of Representatives and a Senate in Georgia that represents no interests except the interests of the people who elect them.  Where legislators are not bribed by highway funds, but where such funds are allocated basically as school funds, on some reasonable and equitable basis.  Where the legislators don't even know who the highway director is, much less have to make weekly trips to beg roads.  I dream of a Georgia where the governor presents his legislation on the basis of it's reasonableness, it's merit, and it's soundness.  Not on the basis of doing him a personal favor, paying a political debt, or sucking a political plum.   \r\n You say, 'How are you going to take politics out of politics?' I answer, we're not going to take politics out of politics, we're just going to change some of the rules so as to conform to a government where all have some rights and no minority can stampede and trample over the majority.  Or the majority deny basics to the minority.  Where neither the rural nor the urban can gleefully apply the lash.  This new House of which I dream may not be more independent than the present House, but it is a cinch it could not be less independent.  Yesterday proved that fact.  Not through the newspapers, not through the federal government, not through the urban masses, but by your own willingness to be masters of your own fate.  I salute you and bid you a fond farewell.\"  And he did not run for reelection.   \r\n  \r\n  SHORT:  Pretty courageous stuff. \r\n \r\n JONES:  Well, you can imagine how many folks took the floor on a point of personal privilege after him.  I mean it was like someone poured gasoline on them and set them  on fire.  He didn't care.  He went back to Cobb county, practiced law, became superior court judge.  It was very strong, but he said what happened, he told what happened.  And of course, like I said, the federal court ruled very shortly thereafter that we were malapportioned, that that constitution would not be submitted to the people, and we went home.   \r\n They also ruled that the House had to be reapportioned the same as the Senate had been, congressional redistricting.  It was too late to do it for the '64 elections, they were going to let the people elected in '64 come in in January and serve that session.  But there would have to be a special election in '65 to finish up the last of the two year term.  You had an election in '64, which was in effect for one year -- the '65 session -- then we had to run again in '65 after we had reapportioned the House in the regular session of '65 to serve the second year.  And then we got back on a two year basis.  But there were two one year session in there.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Let's move ahead to 1966.  A very, very strange election that started with Ellis Arnall and Ernest Vandiver as the two main candidates.  Jimmy Carter ran, Herman Talmadge ran briefly, and then withdrew.  What is your recollection of that election? \r\n \r\n Jones: Well, we skipped '65.  And I hope I'm -- if time's a factor, just tell me.  But '65 may have been the most interesting of all because -- well, it wasn't more interesting than '66, nothing could be more interesting than '66.  But '65 is when we reapportioned that House.  Now that was bloody.  That was one of the most emotionally traumatic things I've ever seen happen to a group of people.   \r\n That 121 that Flournoy was talking about, most of these guys had been up there for many years.  I mean if you got into the legislature, you'd stay generally.  They were small counties, everybody knows everybody in the county next to them, and things of that nature.  They were very close friends.  And let me say this about them.  Particularly after reading Flournoy's speech, I give the impression that they were bad folks.  They weren't bad folks.  I was amazed when I got to Atlanta -- I indicate how young I was -- I mean I walked around with my mouth hanging open because these guys were so great.  People I'd read about and heard  about all my life nearly.  And they took me under their arms, they treated me like a surrogate son.  They weren't a bunch of bad guys.  \r\n I think in one of your posings to Elliot you mentioned the fact that they were rural and segregationists and all that.  That's absolutely not true.  There were a lot of really good people in that legislature.  Jamie MacKay for example.  I mean, you couldn't find a finer man than Jamie MacKay.  There were a lot of good people in there.   \r\n But they were then faced with the fact that we're going to apportion the House on  population.  We had three representatives from Muscogee county.  We had to go out and find four other people to run for the legislature.  We literally were walking the street, asking people to run for the legislature.  I mean, you can think that's a joke, and it is somewhat of an exaggeration, but not really.  I mean we'd get together and sit down, \"Well what about so-and-so?\"  \"I don't know, I don't know.\"  \"What do you think about him?\"  And we were dividing up name and calling them, saying, \"Will you please run for the legislature?\"  We went from three to seven.   \r\n But in these rural counties, you might have four counties, each of whom had one representative.  They're going to now be in a district, and they're going to have one representative.  And these guys in large measure may have been very close friends, they may have served with each other ten, twelve years.  And three of them are going to stay at home and one of them's coming back up there.  How are they going to decide?  You flip coins?  Do you say to your buddy, \"You go, I'd rather you go than me go.\"  \"Are we all going to run against each other?\"  It was really, really bad, but we got through it.   \r\n Now that was one time, Bob, and I think you were working in Governor Sander's government at that time, when it probably helped for the governor to have a very direct hand in there with George T. as the speaker of the House.  I'm not sure with all the emotional conflict in it that the House could have done it themselves.  I think that probably Carl and George T. got it done when we might have had a hard time doing it ourselves.  But anyway, that was '65.  And so we have the special election in '65.  We come back up there in '66, you know, for the regular session in '66.  Before that governor's race you were talking about.  And now we've got all of these new folks in there.  You've got a lot of old folks who are still back home.  That was one of the overlays on that governor's race in 1966 that made it even more interesting.  You also had the Jullian Bond situation in 1966.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Yeah, I was going to ask you about that.  You were there. \r\n \r\n JONES:  I was there.  And probably one of the votes -- I can think of two votes I made in the eight years I was in the legislature I wish I could take back.  And that was one of them, because I was one of the ones who voted to deny Jullian his seat.  Jullian and I later became -- I'm not going to say close friends, but we were friends.  And he understood, but Jullian of course, he was a young college student.  I think he was still out at Moorehouse at the time.  He had come down here -- he had gone to Quaker schools up north, his daddy was a president of some college up there.  But he was one of the prime movers in SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and they were probably ahead of the rest of the county in their opposition to the Vietnam conflict.   \r\n But Jullian had gone further.  He had made statement that he sympathized with those people who burned the draft cards and went to Canada.  That was kind of the triggering effect.  And the South has always been a little more conservative about things like that.  And so this fire storm broke out, \"We're going to deny him his seat.\"  And he was denied his seat January when we went to Atlanta in '66 because of that.  Because of that statement that he sympathized with draft card burners.   \r\n Interestingly enough, one of the new members we had from Columbus was a wonderful guy by the name of Albert Thompson, who was an African-American lawyer down there.  And Albert voted not to seat him too.  Albert was born on Fort Benning military reservation, his daddy had  been in the army, he was a career army man.  And, you know, I'm not saying I was justified to do it because Albert voted to do it too.   \r\n In retrospect, I wish I hadn't cast that vote the way I did.  The federal court said we were within our power to do it.  A few months later, the Supreme Court of the United States, 9-zip said, \"No, you weren't in your power to do it.  The man was executing his first amendment rights of freedom of speech, and you put him back in there.\"  Well, we had had the new election in '66, Jullian had run for his old seat, he got elected.  He came up there January of '67, nobody opened their mouth.  Jullian served from then on, he was still up there when I left there.  But that was something that happened in '66. \r\n Alright, now let's go to the governor's race of '66.  As you mentioned, Ellis Arnall had gotten in that race.  And he was going to run against Ernie Vandiver, back to the fact that a governor couldn't succeed himself, Ernie had now been out four years while Carl was governor.  He was going to run for governor.  Lester Maddox, who had run a surprisingly strong race against Peter Zack Geer for lieutenant governor in '62, he was in the governor's race.  Bo Callaway, who had run for Congress for my congressional district over there, Harris county -- Callaway Gardens is the immediate county to the north of Columbus.  And he was the first Republican I think elected to Congress from Georgia, since Reconstruction.  That was in '64.  Everybody was talking about, \"Bo's going to run for governor, Bo's  going to run for governor as a Republican.\"  And he did.   \r\n So you've got those guys in the race.  Jimmy Carter, who had served four years in the Senate now, from '62 to '64, you might say '63 to '65.  He was running against Bo for Congress.  I was right close to Carter, I mean his senatorial district adjoined my House district.  We were elected at the same time, and in large measure I had run against a guy who was pretty close to Homer Moore, the guy he had run against.  So we were fairly close.  And he was running for Congress and I was carrying around Columbus, and the next thing I know, when Bo gets in the governor's race, Jimmy gets out of the congressional race and into the governor's race.  He followed Bo into the governor's race.  So it was an interesting time.   \r\n Vandiver had a heart attack.  You know Garland had the heart attack in '62, now Vandiver's having one in '64, so the race is now -- Callaway is unopposed for the Republicans -- so they knew whoever was running would have to run against Callaway.  This is two years after '64 when Goldwater had carried the state.  You'd had the Voting Rights Act, you'd had the Civil Rights Act, you'd had a number of things that had happened in there.  So, a Republican was going to be a very strong candidate.  Arnall had been a great governor of the state back in the '40's.  He was kind of the wunderkind, you might say.  He won the freight rate cases against the railroads, and now that the governor's race is on one man, one vote, and not the county-unit system, he's a very strong, viable candidate.  But he was running against Maddox, Carter's in there.  Jimmy Gray from down in Albany was in there.  And it's taken off.   \r\n The Democratic primary, they had the elecction and Jimmy came in a very close third, Lester ran second, and Arnall got the most votes.  I think that a lot of Republicans, now they'd deny it --they voted for Lester.  Because they thought Lester would be easier to beat than Arnall.  And so they have the run off a couple weeks later and Lester beat Arnall.  I don't know if it was with Republican help or not.  They deny it, but the boy who had run my campaign in 1962 had been a friend of mine in high school -- Bill Amos -- he had run Callaway's campaign for Congress in '64 and he was running Callaway's campaign for governor in '66.  I knew a little bit about what was going on and I think they did raid the primary.  But that's neither here nor there.  They ended up with Maddox as the Democratic nominee.  Callaway is now the Republican nominee, so they headed into the general election.   \r\n Well, there were a lot of Democrats in the state that were very unhappy about the thing because Callaway had gotten more votes.  He carried my county something like four-to-one.  It was a bad situation.  But Arnall allowed a write-in campaign to be waged on his behalf, and he got about 60,000 if I remember right -- 50,000 or 60,000 write-in votes.  And even though Callaway had more votes than Lester, he didn't have a majority.  And the Georgia constitution provided that in the event anybody running for state-wide office did not get a majority of the vote -- not a plurality, but a majority -- the legislature selected.  So we wake up the day after the general election, the legislature has got to select who the governor's going to be.  And it was a situation.  It wasn't as bad as the three governor mess in '46, I don't guess, but it was close to it.   \r\n \r\n SHORT: What do you remember about that?  That was another very historical time.   \r\n \r\n JONES:  I was ten years old, I don't remember much about it.  But I remember we made national headlines.  That was before television news, but we were all over the papers and everybody was laughing at us and everything else.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Yeah. \r\n \r\n JONES:  P.T. McCutcheon, who was Ellis Arnall's executive secretary, he had a son that was in law school with me, Tim McCutcheon, and I knew Mr. McCutcheon later.  He could tell some terrible tales about.  He was the guy, I think, that got hit by the pistol or something there, anyway. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  That was a very dark day in Georgia political history.  But getting back to '66, there was thought and a lot of media members and pundits thought that Jimmy Carter was coming along so strongly toward the end of that campaign that if it had lasted another week or two he probably would have won.  You were involved in it, what do you think? \r\n \r\n JONES:  I was involved in it, but not very closely.  George T. was running for Lieutenant governor against Peter Zach.  George T. had asked me to help him in his campaign while Jimmy was still in the congressional race.  I tried to figure out a way to go to Atlanta and do it full time, but just never could.  I mean, money was always a problem.  I was just a young lawyer and had a wife teaching school to support my political habits, you might say.  By then we had four kids under five years old on the ground and there wasn't any way I could take off and do it.  I was more active, I think, in George T.'s race in '66 than I was Jimmy's, but I kept trying to help how I could.   \r\n The night of the election, the Democratic primary, my wife and I, we were in the Dinkler, which was where Carter's headquarters were.  And when we went to bed, it was kind of like Wisconsin in '76 ten years later.  We were in the runoff.  As I recall, we were number two, we were in the runoff.  And we figured, if we're in the runoff, we're going to win this thing.  And at about 2:00 in the morning, I heard somebody out screaming in the hall, woke me up.  I went out and we were out of the runoff.  Some votes had come in from down in southeast Georgia, close to the coast, and they had gone heavily for Maddox.  And we were out of the runoff. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  That period of time between the general election and the day that Maddox was elected by the legislature gave you time to really become an independent House. \r\n \r\n JONES:  That's right.  This thing had been simmering since George T. replaced George L. in January of 1963.  It had gotten stoked up higher with the Bedgood plan on the last night of the regular session in '64.  But in '66, we had been thinking about, \"You know, there's a chance we're going to have a Republican governor.\"  A lot of folks thought Callaway was going to win that race.  And we're certainly not going to let a Republican governor tell a Democratic House who their speaker is going to be.   \r\n Robin Harris who was one of the greatest guys I ever served with.  He was from Dekalb county, a wonderful man.  He was chairman of the House judiciary committee.  And the House judiciary committee was kind of a hot bed of trouble makers.  We were all lawyers, you had Elliot on there, you had Reed on there, I was on there, Sam Nunn was on there.  I don't think Sam was there in '66.  But anyway, we were concerned about it.  And so we started thinking that this would be an ideal time to try to strike while there was not going to be as much executive possibility or possibility of executive interference in this thing.  And we wake up the day after the general election and no governor's going to tell anybody in the legislature what to do because they're coming to us, hat in hand about, \"Vote for me.\"   \r\n So, there was a meeting, and we met out at Robin's house there in Decatur, right off East Ponce de Leon.  And we decided we would have us an arrangements committee.  We were going to call a caucus of the House Democratic members.  There had been a lot of Republicans elected the year before this redistricting -- the House reapportionment.  And they properly had organized them a caucus.  And they'd elected a minority leader and stuff like that -- a minority whip.  And so we said, \"We're going to have us a Democratic caucus, they've got a Republican caucus, we're going to have us a Democratic caucus.  And we're going to have a meeting.\"  The arrangements committee sent out this letter.  We didn't sign it with anybody's name, we just said, \"The arrangements committee.\"  And anyway, we had that meeting.  I think that was really before the general election, if I remember right now.   \r\n But anyway, had it at Stone Mountain.  It was after the legislative day over here at Georgia when all the legislators came over to a Georgia football game and barbecue.  And, you know, that letter got out, \"We're going to have us a Democratic caucus and we're going to discuss the election of the speaker and legislative independence.\"  So everybody that wasn't on the arrangements committee, they're calling each other, \"Who's this arrangements committee?  You going?\"  Stuff like that.  We lay low as Brer Fox did -- Brer Rabbit, one.   So it was funny, but they all showed up.  Everybody showed up at Stone Mountain that morning.  Reed has written something about that -- I haven't seen it, but you talk to Reed about it.  Everybody was in favor of it.  They said, \"Yeah, this makes sense.\"  And so an elections committee was appointed.  That's right, that was before the general election.  The elections committee was appointed to make recommendations about what we were going to do.  It wasn't really an elections committee -- it was we were going to select the Democratic nominee for speaker which would be, \"tantamount to election,\" because there were a lot more Democrats than there were Republicans.  Anyway, we met in the House of Representatives on the Sunday after the Georgia-Auburn football game.  I think it was November the 13th if I remember right.   \r\n And Robin Harris ran for speaker, George L. ran for speaker.  A guy named Bill Styce, who was a wonderful lawyer from Harris county, he was from Pennsylvania and he had come down to Fort Benning during World War II and married a gal from Harris county and came back after the war.  Dick Richardson from Savannah.  There were four candidates for speaker if I remember right.  And George L., of course, was selected to be the Democratic nominee.  George Busbee, interestingly enough, was once of the Democrats in addition to me and several others, who voted for Callaway in January.  And there was a lot of concern about -- he was selected to be the Democratic floor leader for the House.  And that's when Lester Maddox appointed Tom Murphy to be the administration floor leader.  So, you had Tom Murphy who was Lester's administration floor leader, you had George Busbee who had voted for Callaway as a Democratic floor leader, and it was an interesting situation.  But the long and the short of it is the House then and ever since has elected it's speaker.  The governor no longer tells the House who the speaker is going to be.   \r\n Now, there again, looking back, I've had second thoughts about that.  You know, no good deed goes unpunished.  And now you've got all that power that we just talked about an hour or so ago now -- about appointing every committee member, every chairman, assigning every bill, what bill is going to be called, what bill is not going to be called, stuff like that -- is concentrated in one person who is selected by a very small geographic area in the state of Georgia.  You got the governor who's elected by the whole state, you've got the lieutenant governor and the Senate that's elected by the whole state, you got the speaker of the House that's elected by one district.  And if you've got a good speaker of the House, you've got a good situation.  If you've got one though who might not be quite so good, then you've got an intolerable situation.  Because with the power he's got, he can pave every square inch of the whole district.  Nobody's going to vote out their local representative because he's speaker of the House.  You might have a situation there in perpetuity.  But anyway, so far we've stumbled through and it's working I guess.   \r\n \r\n [Audio gap] \r\n \r\n SHORT:  We've got Maddox elected.  We've got that period of time between the election -- \r\n \r\n JONES:  Maddox is nominated \r\n   \r\n SHORT:  Nominated. Yes.  The period time between the general election in '66 and the convening of the legislature in '67. \r\n \r\n JONES:  You're right.  You're right. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Where the legislature -- \r\n \r\n JONES:  See, that was about two months.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  A lot of time.  It gave each of those candidates time to really do a lot of lobbying with the members of the General Assembly.  What do you remember about that?   \r\n \r\n JONES:  Are we running?  Well, as you had pointed out, Bob, it was two months.  I was kind of involved in the Callaway thing.  You know, it makes it sound like I'm Forrest Gump and I was involved in everything, and I don't mean it that way.  But Bill Amos, who was Callaway's AA when he was in Congress and managed his congressional race in '64 and gubernatorial race in '66, had been one of my closest friends in high school -- Columbus High School.  He was a year older than I was. And he had managed my campaign in '62.  In fact, the fact that we won that race is the reason Callaway wanted him to run his campaign in '64 and then carried him to Washington with him.   \r\n So, they wake up and here they are, they had the most votes, but they're going into a Democratic legislature that's going to have to pick them, and what are we going to do?  I was, I think, called fairly early on.  There was no way, in all respect to Governor Maddox, that I could support him.  I could never have supported the man.  When I was at Emory and at Emory Law School, he was running those full-page, on page 2 of the Atlanta Constitution or Journal ever Saturday, small type ads going on about everything in the world, and running the Pickrick and doing all those things that I just could not have supported.  And my county had gone heavily for Callaway.  I would have changed parties -- as much as I'm a yellow dog Democrat -- I would have changed parties nearly before I'd have done it -- and Charlie Weltner did, if you recall.  Charlie Weltner refused to run on the ticket with him as the nominee.   \r\n I knew I was going to be helping.  Ellis -- Lester -- I'll get it in a minute -- Elliot Levitas, who was the representative from Dekalb county and a close friend of mine, he was a law partner of Ellis Arnall who had gotten the 60,000 vote write-ins -- the 50,000 or 60,000 that denied Callaway the outright win.  He was interested in helping and he helped.  Busbee helped.  You know, later Democratic governor of the state of Georgia.  But my recollection is that George was involved with it.   \r\n We started calling folks, but it's kind of like we were preaching to the choir.  My close friends in the legislature were going to vote for Callaway.  You know, I was preaching to the choir.  But, we did.  We tried to call folks, and they were scratching around.  They were doing things.  I think that they mounted somewhat of a campaign with the business leaders of the state.  They had bank presidents calling legislators and stuff like that.  Because Callaway was a very popular guy.  Bear it in mind now, two years before Barry Goldwater carried this state heavily against Lyndon Johnson.  So they were not without resources, it was just marshaling them.   \r\n Bob Elliot, who was a long serving judge in federal court in Columbus, had been Herman Talmadge's floor leader during the two governor mess back in '46 and during his administration.  And by then -- I think Judge Elliot was appointed in '62 by Kennedy -- but I remembered that he had been Talmadge's floor leader and he had been the floor leader during that situation where they would try to resolve the two governor -- three governor, however many you want to call it -- mix up in '46.  I asked him, \"What did ya'll do?  And he referred me to the House journals, the Senate journals.  And you know what the House and Senate journal is, a voluminous book that deals in painful detail with every bill, every House, every resolution, everything that happens in the House and the Senate during the session.  And we got that thing and went back -- 'cause Bob Elliot is one of the smartest men that's ever lived.  And we figured out what he had done from a parliamentary standpoint, the motions he made.  And we knew it was an uphill battle, and we lost it eventually.  There wasn't any question we lost it, lost it badly.  The legislature was heavily Democratic, and they selected Maddox over Callaway.  But we got a lot more votes than they thought we were going to get.  And what we did -- Peter Zack Geer had been defeated by George T. Smith for lieutenant governor.   \r\n Well, in Georgia the way it operates, the legislature convenes on the second Monday in January.  And when there's been a governor's election, they are not inaugurated -- sworn in -- until Tuesday, the day after the legislature convenes.  So, on the second Monday in January of 1967, even though George L. is going to be the new speaker, George T. is still the speaker of the House.  And Peter Zack Geer, even though he's been defeated by George T. for lieutenant governor, he's still the lieutenant governor.  When you have a joint session, the lieutenant governor presides.  So, here you've got this situation.  Peter Zach, who's been defeated by George T., sitting up there besides George T., presiding over this session of the general assembly, the second Monday in January, 1967.  And we're going to select who the governor is.  A small group of us, we went to talk to Peter Zack Geer.  I kept quiet because I was too closely associated with George T., I guess. But we told him kind of what our legislative strategy was going to be.  I've heard Elliot's tape with you, and Elliot indicated that he thought P.Z. treated us kind of roughly.  My recollection is that P.Z. listened to what we had to say and I was very favorably impressed with the way he conducted the thing.  That's a 73 year-old man talking about something that happened close to 50 years ago.  I may be wrong, Elliot may be right, probably the truth is somewhere in the middle.  But I thought that Peter Zack Geer, he dealt the cards off the top of the deck with us that day.  When the day was over though, Lester Maddox was governor of the state of Georgia. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  That was only after an attempt -- I know representative Reed Harris introduced some sort of legislation to send it back to the people. \r\n \r\n JONES:  That was the whole idea, was to try to get it -- there wasn't any way they were going to vote Callaway governor.  But we were trying to get them to go back and have a rerun without any possibility of a write-in and whoever got the most votes.  That was the strategy that was adopted.  Because we knew we couldn't win directly, but maybe we could get it  indirectly.  We didn't get it either way.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Let's talk a minuted about the Supreme Court decision.  That case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court.  The question being, as I recall, \"Is the legislature legally empowered to elect a governor under those circumstances.\"  Or, \"Was that provision in our constitution constitutional.\" \r\n \r\n JONES:  Well, I don't remember that much about that, Bob, so I can't answer it.  But obviously it stood. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Yeah, 5-4 vote.  In fact, Justice Black ruled that the legislature had the power to elect the governor in the first place, going back to colonial days, I presume. \r\n \r\n JONES:  I was worrying about other things by then.  I wasn't involved in that lawsuit.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Well, let's move along.  Lester Maddox was elected.  That didn't play well with a lot of people in Georgia.  But at the end of his term he seemed to get a passing grade.   \r\n \r\n JONES:  I think that's true.  I think Lester surprised a lot of us.  I'm not going to say               -- I think that he didn't do any harm, any particular harm.  And one of the things he did that you've got to give the man credit for.  He made more appointments of blacks, of African-Americans, to positions of responsibility in the state of Georgia than I any governor had done before.  Lester did something else, though.  I think that one of the things about being a chief executive of a political situation -- be it president, or governor, or anything like that -- is to, let's say, \"show the flag.\"  To be accessible to the people.  You remember he to have the little people's day, where people could come and go through his office, or go through the mansion, or something like that.  And they could see the governor.  Lester would get out -- I think you were in his office.  I mean, he'd travel all over this state.  I mean, if you invited Lester to come somewhere, for a pig-picking or anything else, Lester was going, he was going to show up.  He was accessible to the people.  All of those hundreds of high school groups that come to the capital during the legislative session.  He was out there with every one of them having his picture taken.  And I think that is good.  The office of governor is so demanding that I think that good executives, they tend to just hole up in there and make all these big decisions and they become encapsulated.  But Lester didn't do that.  He was accessible to the people.  I think in large measure, though, you had a pretty good Senate running.  You had George L. in the House.  I think the legislature kept the state on a pretty even keel that four years when Lester rode his bicycle and got his picture taken.  But we got through it and it was alright. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  He was not an overpowering governor, was he? \r\n \r\n JONES:  I wouldn't say so.  I mean, I don't want to say anything ugly.  But you know, I don't think he did much harm.  One thing that I've never forgotten though, the departments, the various departments of state government, if they've got something they want enacted into law, the first thing they do, the carry it to the governor.  \"Governor, how about making this part of your administration package this year?\"  And you know, the governor can't take everything.  So he takes some, he doesn't take some.  But they've still got this bill they want introduced.  And so then they get out and try to find them a legislator to introduce the bill if the governor's not going to do it.  And I somehow got to where -- what we used to call the Highway Department -- now the DOT -- and Public Safety, they would use me quite a bit on some of their legislation that didn't make the A-team, let's say.  And one of them was -- the drivers' license folks wanted to implement eye exams every four or five years.  Now, we do that now.  Well, I said, \"That makes sense to me.  People who are blind shouldn't be driving.  So I introduced this bill to require over a certain age -- I'm over that age now, I might add -- that you had to have your eyes examined every five years, I think.  And we got it passed.  I mean, it's hard to argue with that thing.  Lester vetoed it.   I never will forget what he said.  He said, \"Well, I know some people that've got poor eyesight that are safer drivers than folks that've got good eyesight.\"  You can't argue with that, I'm sure that there are some out there that way.  But he was interesting. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Well, in 1970 you decided not to seek reelection.  Why? \r\n \r\n JONES:  Oh, a number of things.  I'd been up there eight years.  I never was very wealthy.  Didn't have any money to speak of.  We were doing alright -- had a law partner Lee Grogan, great guy from up in Cherokee county.  In '68 we had started growing our firm.  We had started picking up some folks.  I needed to spend more time there.  My children were 9, 8, 7, and 5.  I started having to think about financial concerns.  Because when you're in the legislature, particularly if you're an active legislator, it takes a lot of time.  And I needed to start doing that.  Carter was running for governor again.  He never stopped running after '66.  He just kept running for four years.  I wanted to try to help him.  I hadn't been able to do as much as I'd wanted to in '66 because I was tied up with George T.'s race a little bit.  So I wanted to help some more there.  So it was just a myriad of things.  And it's kind of one of those things.  You know, in the army, you either go up or get out.  And in politics it's pretty much the same.  I knew I wasn't going up, and there wasn't any sense in hanging around.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  You were close to President Carter.   \r\n \r\n JONES:  Well, somewhat.  We were both elected at the same time, as I indicated earlier -- '62.  His senatorial district included Chattahoochee county, which is the county immediately south of Muscogee county.  We were part of that freshman class, he was in the Senate, I was in the House.  Jeanette and Rosalynn got along fairly well, he and I got along fairly well.  He helped me with some legislation when it got to the Senate, and we became fairly close.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  He appointed you to the Board of Regents.   \r\n \r\n JONES:  Yeah, that was in '74. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  '74.  Tell us a little bit about the Board of Regents.  A lot of people don't understand what the group is and what it does.   \r\n \r\n JONES:  A lot of us regents aren't sure sometimes.  But, no, it was a governing board -- Dick Russell.  We're sitting here in the Russell library right now.  When he was governor of Georgia back in the early '30's, he reorganized state government.  Jimmy Ca \r\nrter, I think, was the next one that did it in 1971.  He put all of the state colleges under the university system.  And the Board of Regents when I was on it -- I don't know what the make-up is now, but we had 15 members.  I think it was one from each congressional district, and then you had five at large.  I don't even know how many congressmen we've got in Georgia now, but I know it's a lot more than it was back then.  But we had 15 people, and they are theoretically the ones -- the board -- who run the university system of Georgia.  Which includes your research institutions, such as the University of Georgia, Medical College of Georgia, Georgia Tech -- I don't know, Georgia State and Georgia Southern may be what they call research institutions now, but back in the '70's when I was on it, those were the three.  All of the, what we used to call four year colleges, which are now state universities, all of the junior colleges, which are now colleges.  But that's what it is.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Let's talk for a minute about party politics in Georgia.  We've seen a vast  change from the time that you were in the House of Representatives back in the '60's.  The Democratic party has lost a lot of ground.  Some people think that the state party is too urban, too dependent on minorities, too controlled by labor unions, and too liberal.  Do you agree with that? \r\n \r\n JONES:  Well, I can't address the state party.  I'm not that familiar with the state party.  But I think that you would hear those same criticisms from some circles, let's say, non-friendly circles, toward all Democrats, not just the state Democratic party in Georgia.  Obviously, there's been a sea change in politics in Georgia.  When do you want to start it?  I discussed back when I was getting into it, the courthouse Republicans.  Back then everybody was a Democrat.  That was in the '50' and '60's.  Then you started having all of these upheavals.  You had Brown v. Board of Education, you had the Civil Rights movements and pushes of Truman in the late '40's.  You had the Dixiecrat rebellion, I think it was in '48.  You had the other Civil Rights cases coming along.  You had the election of Kennedy in 1960.  You had more pushing, more federal court intervention in a lot of things in the South.  You had Kennedy's , in November of '63.  You had LBJ becoming president.  You had the Civil Rights Act, you had the Voting Rights Act.  You had the Goldwater/Johnson race in '68, where the South, Georgia went for Goldwater.  They'd also voted for Strom Thurmond if I recall correctly in '48, if I'm not mistaken.  I may be wrong on that.  And you've got things going.  Two years later in '66 you had Bo Callaway getting the most votes for governor. He didn't end up being the governor, but he had certainly had a plurality.  You had a growing presence of Republicans in the legislature.  And then you had the Nixon Southern strategy.  You had a lot of things that caused people in Georgia to reassess their situation as to whether they were Democrats or whether or not they were Republicans.  Now you can call it conservative versus liberal realignment, you can call it something else if you want to.  But I think that the things that you just said about, \"They're too close to this, they're too much that, and so forth,\" that's the same thing you hear on a national level as well as Georgia.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  You mentioned Republican cross-over voting in the Maddox-Callaway race.   \r\n \r\n JONES:  I can't prove that. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Well, do you think that we out to have party registration in Georgia? \r\n \r\n JONES:  No, I really don't.  Cross-over voting is always a problem.  There were a lot of things in the legislature that I just didn't worry about a lot.  And election law was one of them.  I guess it comes from the fact  that I was from Muscogee county, Columbus.  We've always had honest elections in Columbus.  We've never had the first hint of any voter fraud or anything else in Columbus.  And it was my experience that the guys in the legislature that were always worrying about election laws, and trying to get this tinkered with, they were from the counties where they had the problems.  We didn't have that problem, and I never worried too much about it.  \r\n \r\n SHORT:  So you weren't surprised in 2002 when Georgians elected a Republican governor. \r\n \r\n JONES:  No, no.  Callaway, all things considered, would have been the first one.  There was another guy from Columbus by the name of Ed Smith, who ran in 1962 for governor.  He was running for governor as a Republican.  He was killed in an automobile wreck there in Woodberry, Georgia.  He was out driving himself, been to a meeting in Atlanta, and he's in a car going home about 2:30 in the morning.  Trying to practice law the next morning and didn't have a driver.  Went to sleep and ran off the road there where 85 East and West separate in Woodberry, Georgia.  Killed himself.  You know, I think that J.R. Allen, who was from Columbus, who was a bright and rising star, but like a lot of others,  he'd started off a Democrat and he'd changed over.  I think J.R. Allen could have run for and been elected governor of the state of Georgia.  But there again, we had consolidated our city and county government in Columbus and he was out speaking around the state in favor of consolidation of city and county governments.  Had been to Rome one night, I think it was in '74, maybe '75   Flying home on a late plane, it went in, and J.R. was killed.  So, it was just a question of time, in my mind, before it happened.  Now we're sitting here, you've got a Republican governor, you've got a Republican controlled Senate, you've got a Republican controlled House.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  And the majority is increasing every year.  How long do you think it will take for the Democrats to get their House in order and regain control of the legislature?   \r\n \r\n JONES: Well, I'm not sure they ever will.  I mean, you're asking the question.  There's a lot of demographics in it.  And you know as well as I do, a lot of times luck enters into politics.  You know, being in the right time, at the right place, and stuff like that.  But,  unless there's a -- how long was the South solid Democrat? \r\n \r\n SHORT:  One hundred and thirty-seven years. \r\n \r\n JONES:  Well, we've got a few to go, haven't we? \r\n \r\n SHORT:  What's life been for Milton Jones after public service?   \r\n \r\n JONES:  Wonderful.  No, I did go home.  I helped Carter a little bit in that first session in 1971.  But I went home April 1st of 1970 and then he appointed me to the Board of Regents in '74 and I served 'til '81.  And that was my last involvement on any official basis in public service.  I practiced law forty years.  As soon as I was able to, I retired.  I've been retired 12 years, the best 12 years of my life.  And I have been a truly blessed individual.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Good.  Let me ask you this question.  What do you think is your most satisfying accomplishment as a state legislator? \r\n \r\n JONES:  Well, oh Lord, Bob.  In Georgia, there was a doctrine called the time-price differential.  And what that was was the appellate courts of this state had said that if I sell you a watch for $50 and you pay me $5 a month for ten months, that that is not a loan of money, that is a time-price.  And the usury laws control only interest on loans of money.  So in effect, anything that was sold on time in the state of Georgia could be charged a time-price differential unlimited, anything.  And when you look at all the automobiles that were sold in the state of Georgia, all the refrigerators that are sold in the state of Georgia, all the revolving charge accounts that were in the state of Georgia -- this was before credit cards, this was '65, '66, '67 -- you can see that there were abuses like you could not imagine.   \r\n There was one fellow they called the Bedspread Man in Columbus.  And he'd load up his car with those Chenille bedspreads they used to make up there in Dalton.  He'd go out through the poorer sections of town -- black.  And he'd sell bedspreads.  And he'd sell bedspreads to these ladies for $2 a week, stuff like that.  And he'd get two dollars, and he'd go back the next week and collect it.  And eventually they'd miss a payment.  Would never get them paid for.  He'd take the bedspread back, put it in his car, sell it down the street.  They call it the bedspread game.  But that was an abuse.   \r\n But a particularly flagrant situation arose in the mid-60's, '65 in particular, where these people were out making second mortgages to unsophisticated borrowers.  What they would do, is they would go by and they'd tell them, \"You need a new roof.  We're going to put some shingles on there.\"  Or, \"You need some siding on your house,\" or \"you've got termites, we need to go in and do your floor and your house is going to fall in if you don't.\"  And they'd get them to sign a contract, \"We're going to fix your house for $2,000.\"  But the contract -- they'd end up paying over $5,000.  They'd put on an origination fee, they'd put on exorbitant attorney fees. They didn't pay the lawyer, they called it that.  This kind of fee, a $10 notary fee, stuff like that.  And then they'd charge them 20 or 30 percent simple interest on the loan.  A typical example would be a $2,000 job, which was probably a jacked-up price to start with, and a $5,000 payback.  And I saw it kind of as a young lawyer, when people started coming in to me, \"I'm losing my house, I'm losing my house.  What can I do?\"  And I went to the legislative counsel's office -- Veron Slatondon, Harvey Finley, and some of those great guys.  They're the legislature's lawyers.  They found a bill that the state of Florida had introduced and passed and we copied that bill ver batim.  And we got it passed.  It was a terrible fight.  We got it through the House, had trouble, but we got it through the House.  And you talk about Carter, Jimmy Carter, he owned me lock, stock and barrel after that bill, because I had a fellow over there, a great guy, good friend of mine, he was handling that bill over in the Senate.  And you know about the rules committee and how you've got to not only clear the Senate committee, but you've got to clear the Senate Rules committee to get on the rules calendar.  And it's two days before the end of the session.  It was on the Senate rules calendar, but somebody -- I won't mention his name, he was defeated for reelection that following election -- he got it off the rules calendar.  He got it removed from the rules calendar.  And Jimmy just happened to be in the rules committee and saw it.  Even though he wasn't my floor manager, he came, he hunted me down and told me, he said, \"Your second mortgage act is off of the rules committee calendar.\"  And I went back over there and I acted badly, but we got it back on and we got the thing passed.  The following year, it had been very widely received, well-received.  Probably the first piece of consumer protection that had been passed in that century, to be honest with you.  That wasn't a high priority back then.  Like environmental measures weren't a high priority either back then too when Reed started on the marshes and stuff like that.  But the next year, we got passed the automobile sales finance act, and retail installment sales.  And I'm not real proud of those bills, because in order to get them passed, we had to give them, in my opinion, exorbitant rates of return, but at least there was a limit, if you follow what I'm saying.  If I had to say anything, those would be the things I'm proudest of, because we were able to kind of bust up that racket.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Your biggest disappointment. \r\n \r\n JONES:  Well, I don't know.  I think probably the way that thing worked out in 1967 about Governor Maddox ending up as governor and Robin Harris not being elected speaker of the House.  I think that if we'd had Callaway and we'd had Robin Harris as speaker of the House, the bar would have been set very high for future speakers.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  We haven't talked about the 1970 governor's race between Jimmy Carter and Carl Sanders.  What do you remember about that year? \r\n \r\n JONES:  Well, like I said, Jimmy never quit running for governor in '66.  I think he went home long enough for -- Amy was born a little later.  But he kept running.  And he travelled this state, I think day and night for four years and he really built up -- well, Jimmy was a personable guy.  It'd be hard not to like him if you got to know him and he made a lot of contact.  He was very active in Lions, if I remember.  He was just a governor, and he ran very long and very hard.  Brooks Pennington, of Pennington Green, had been very prominent in Jimmy's gubernatorial race in '66, along with Ford Spinks from down in Tifton.  They were two guys who had served in the Senate with him.  Brooks, of course, supported Governor Sanders again in '70 when he ran for reelection -- well, not reelection, but election for a second term.  But you had Hamilton Jordan closely involved in the race, you had Jody Powell, you know they were driving and doing things like that, handling press.  But you had people involved in that race like Charlie Kirbo and others in Atlanta, and it was a different race than the '66 race.  And it moved right along.  My law partner, Lee Grogan, he chaired Jimmy's campaign in Columbus that year.  I was fairly active in it. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Two schools of thought I've heard over the years about that campaign.  One was that Governor Carter ran sort of a tough, dirty campaign and the other school of thought is that everything's fair in love, war, and politics.  What is your reaction to that?   \r\n \r\n JONES:  Well, number one, I don't think it was a dirty campaign.  I would dispute that highly -- strongly.  I think Jimmy did move to the right a little bit and that caused some concern among some of us.  There were discussions about that.  But we understood and we stayed with the program, won the race.  And in his inaugural address, in his inaugural address, Jimmy Carter said, \"The time for racial segregation in Georgia is over.\" \r\n \r\n SHORT:  If you had your political life to live over again Milton, would you do anything differently? \r\n \r\n JONES:  Not run.   \r\n \r\n [Laughter] \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Did you ever think about running for a higher office? \r\n  \r\n JONES:  I think everybody thinks about running for higher office.   And there was speculation about me running for Controller General in '66 after that second mortgage situation.  Because the Atlanta newspapers were all over it and Baldy was drawing cartoons and I was the guy in the white hat and all that.  You know, you get back to it, I'm a young lawyer in my early '30's and I haven't got any money.  And you know, unfortunately, particularly in secondary races, the most folks who give you money are people you're going to end up regulating.  And then you find yourself in that situation, \"Well, if I do that, am I going to be able to do this?\"  Stuff like that.  And it just never was a real possibility to me.  If I had been older and I had been wealthy, maybe so, but I wasn't, and I didn't.  \r\n \r\n SHORT:  How would you like to be remembered? \r\n \r\n JONES:  I guess that presupposes that I want to be remembered.  I'm sure there's some folks that I'd just as soon forget about me.  But I don't know.  I'm glad I did what I did.  I'm really glad I did what I did.  I wouldn't take anything for the experience.  It was one of the most educational experiences I've ever had.  And while there was a lot of heartache and disappointment and a lot bad nights and stuff like that, overall it was a wonderfully positive thing.  I've met some of the finest people I've ever known in my life.  Those ole' boys, that country boy legislature when I went down there, despite what Bob said about them, and with some truth, they were wonderful people and I made friends that'll be my friends the day I die.  Most of them are already dead, 'cause they were quite a bit older than I was.  But people like Elliot Levitas, Robin Harris, Jimmy Carter, Sam Nunn, you know.  I wouldn't take anything for the experiences I had and the friendships I made.  That's not necessarily how -- that doesn't answer your question, but I'm proud of what I did.   \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Have we forgotten anything?  Is there something else you want to talk about with us? \r\n \r\n JONES:  I'm sure that I've already talked five times longer than you wanted to listen to me, so let's just call it now.  \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Milton Jones, thank you very much for being our guest. \r\n \r\n JONES:  Thank you.   "}],"pages":{"current_page":225,"next_page":226,"prev_page":224,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":2688,"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}}]}}