{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"suc_tomcrosbystr_48","title":"Lugene Gist oral history interview, 2007 January 6","collection_id":"suc_tomcrosbystr","collection_title":"Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School Oral History Collection, 2006-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Crosby, Tom, 1940-","South Caroliniana Library. Office of Oral History"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Newberry County, Whitmire, Greenbrier School","United States, South Carolina, Union County, 34.68928, -81.61942","United States, South Carolina, Union County, Union, Poplar Grove School, 34.63125, -81.54066"],"dcterms_creator":["Gist, Lugene, 1915-"],"dc_date":["2007-01-06"],"dcterms_description":["In this oral history interview, Lugene Gist discusses her educational experiences attending Greenbrier School and night school at Poplar Grove School (both in Union County), her father and other local men's physical efforts to build schools in the area, walking to school and May Day games played with her classmates, and recalling the names of some other local schools in Union County including Puppy Town (Tinker Creek), Oak Grove, and Red Point. Lugene Gist was born May 4, 1915 in Carlisle, South Carolina (Union County). Tom Crosby interviewed Lugene Gist in Santuck, South Carolina, on January 6, 2007. Interview covers Gist's education at the Greenbrier School(Town of Whitmire, S.C.) in the early 1920s and Poplar Grove School during the 1930s."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Tom Crosby oral history collection, 2006-2011","Gist, Lugene 06Jan2007 CROS 002"],"dcterms_subject":["Gist, Lugene, 1915---Interviews","African Americans--Social life and customs--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Union County--History--20th century","African Americans--Education--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Lugene Gist oral history interview, 2007 January 6"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/tomcrosbystr/id/48"],"dcterms_temporal":["1919/1929","1930/1938"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual Research Purposes Only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 audio disc (35 min., 58 sec.) : digital, stereo. ; 4 3/4 in.;1 audiocassette (35 min., 58 sec.) : stereo. ; 3 7/8 x 2 1/2 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"earch_eacr_741","title":"Aaron v. Cooper","collection_id":"earch_eacr","collection_title":"Encyclopedia of Arkansas History \u0026 Culture","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Foster, Lynn"],"dc_date":["2007"],"dcterms_description":["Entry describing the court case Aaron v. Cooper, a follow-up desegregation case that laid out a course of action for implementing desegregation in public schools.  This landmark case that thwarted attempts by Southern politicians, such as Orval Faubus, to stall desegregation. Includes photograph.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"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":null,"dcterms_subject":["Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka","African Americans--Education--United States","Segregation--Southern States","Segregation in education--Law and legislation--United States","United States. Supreme Court","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People","African Americans--Civil rights--United States","Civil rights movements--United States","School integration--United States","School integration--Massive resistance movement","Federal-city relations","Intervention (Federal government)","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Central High School (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Aaron v. Cooper"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Encyclopedia of Arkansas History \u0026 Culture"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?search=1\u0026entryID=741"],"dcterms_temporal":["1954/1961"],"dcterms_rights_holder":["copyright Encyclopedia of Arkansas History \u0026 Culture 2007"],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles","black-and-white photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Faubus, Orval Eugene, 1910-1994","Aaron, John--Trials, litigation, etc.","Cooper, William G.--Trials, litigation, etc."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_925","title":"Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level","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":["North Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2007/2008"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level"],"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/925"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n] ] NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT J ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 2007-2008 District Level FRANCICAL J. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs JAN 1 2010 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING North Little Rock Public Schools 3Analysiso f DisciplineA ctions 3SchooYl ear 2007-2008 3 District Level 3 Elementary 3Middle Schools 3High Schools 10 Year Comparison [ [ ] ] ] J ] In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Suso Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 1974 702 719 366 329 183 227 138 3 3 # Ref # Stu 2122 695 342 220 234 147 87 57 11 6 # Ref # Stu 148 -7 -377 -146 -95 -36 -140 -81 8 3 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 53.22% 1121 30.22% 441 11.89% 485 237 65.54% 281 25.62% 71 6.47% 164 51 66.73% 110 22.31% 38 7.71% 80 27 69.21% 67 20.43% 27 8.23% 44 14 33.33% 0 0.00% 3 33.33% 0 3 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 52.69% 1310 32.53% 446 11.08% 514 228 62.75% 137 25.14% 57 10.46% 83 40 59.09% 112 28.28% 32 8.08% 71 23 55.41% 46 29.30% 18 11.46% 26 12 78.57% 0 0.00% 3 21.43% 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 7.50% 189 16.86% 5 1.13% 29 -9 -52.43% -144 -51.25% -14 -19.72% -81 -11 -28.88% 2 1.82% -6 -15.79% -9 -4 -61.67% -21 -31.34% -9 -33.33% -18 -2 266.67% 0 0 0.00% 0 -3 NSF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 173 4.66% 3709 102 1526 26 2.37% 1097 11 592 16 3.25% 493 14 304 7 2.13% 328 7 203 3 33.33% 9 3 9 NSF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 149 3.70% 4027 88 1525 9 1.65% 545 6 349 18 4.55% 396 14 255 6 3.82% 157 3 98 0 0.00% 14 0 6 NSF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -24 -13.87% 318 -14 -1 -17 -65.38% -552 -5 -243 2 12.50% -97 0 -49 -1 -14.29% -171 -4 -105 -3 -100.00% 5 -3 -3 In School Susp Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion BM # Ref % # Stu 0 0 267 162 0 0 227 138 0 0 BM North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-5 From August to May 2006-2007 BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 75.00% 57 16.01% 31 8.71% 48 19 0 0 0 0 69.21% 67 20.43% 27 8.23% 44 14 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 209 66.14% 53 16.77% 49 15.51% 132 34 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 55.41% 46 29.30% 18 11.46% 57 26 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0 -58 -21.72% -4 -7.02% 18 58.06% -30 -14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 -140 -61.67% -21 -31.34% -9 -33.33% -81 -18 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 1 0.28% 356 1 230 0 0 0 0 7 2.13% 328 7 203 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0 0 5 1.58% 316 2 200 0 0 0 0 6 3.82% 157 3 98 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 4 ##### -40 1 -30 0 0 0 0 -1 -14.29% -171 -4 -105 0 0 0 0 [ # Ref # Stu In School Susp 1171 381 Home Suspension 231 102 ASAC 238 110 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 1 1 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 1330 373 Home Suspension 76 45 ASAC 159 90 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 159 -8 Home Suspension -155 -57 ASAC -79 -20 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion -1 -1 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 53.96% 696 32.07% 215 9.91% 262 114 63.46% 94 25.82% 17 4.67% 50 14 71.47% 75 22.52% 15 4.50% 54 11 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 0 1 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 55.12% 781 32.37% 247 10.24% 259 119 58.46% so 38.46% 3 2.31% 24 3 59.77% 68 25.56% 28 10.53% 38 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 13.58% 85 12.21% 32 14.88% -3 5 -67.10% -44 -46.81% -14 -82.35% -26 -11 -33.19% -7 -9.33% 13 86.67% -16 8 0 0 0 0 -100.00% 0 -1 -100.00% 0 -1 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 88 4.06% 2170 45 802 22 6.04% 364 7 173 5 1.50% 333 4 179 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 2 0 2 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 55 2.28% 2413 32 783 1 0.77% 130 1 73 11 4.14% 266 7 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -33 -37.50% 243 -13 -19 -21 -95.45% -234 -6 -100 6 ##### -67 3 -25 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -2 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 803 321 Home Susoension 221 102 ASAC 91 73 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 2 2 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 792 322 Home Suspension 57 43 ASAC 75 57 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 11 6 # Ref # Stu In School Susp -11 1 Home Susoension -164 -59 ASAC -16 -16 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 9 4 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 52.18% 425 27.62% 226 14.68% 223 123 58.62% 130 34.48% 23 6.10% 66 18 56.88% 35 21.88% 23 14.38% 26 16 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 28.57% 0 0.00% 2 28.57% 0 2 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 49.07% 529 32.78% 199 12.33% 255 109 57.58% 34 34.34% 5 5.05% 25 5 57.69% 44 33.85% 4 3.08% 33 4 0 0 0 0 78.57% 0 0.00% 3 21.43% 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu -1.37% 104 24.47% -27 -11.95% 32 -14 -74.21% -96 -73.85% -18 -78.26% -41 -13 -17.58% 9 25.71% -19 -82.61% 7 -12 0 0 0 0 450.00% 0 1 50.00% 0 -2 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 85 5.52% 1539 57 724 3 0.80% 377 3 189 11 6.88% 160 10 125 0 0.00% 0 0 0 3 42.86% 7 3 7 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 94 5.82% 1614 56 742 3 3.03% 99 3 76 7 5.38% 130 7 101 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 14 0 6 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 9 10.59% 75 -1 18 0 0.00% -278 0 -113 -4 -36.36% -30 -3 -24 0 0 0 0 -3 -100.00% 7 -3 -1 In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions AMBOY ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 5 55.56% 3 33.33% 1 11.11% 4 2 1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 75.00% 0 0.00% 4 25.00% 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 72.73% 2 18.18% 1 9.09% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 140.00% -3 -100.00% 3 300.00% 6 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 9 0 7 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 16 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 . I - I .. In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 0 0 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 4 4 0 0 8 7 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 -3 -1 0 0 8 7 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions BELWOOD ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 87.50% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 80.00% 0 0.00% 1 20.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 72.73% 2 18.18% 1 9.09% 2 1 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -42.86% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 11 0 10 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 10 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 8 7 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 43 27 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 1 1 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 33 18 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension -7 -6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class -10 -9 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 80.00% 2 20.00% 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 81.13% 9 16.98% 1 1.89% 8 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 25.00% 2 50.00% 1 25.00% 2 1 0 0 0 0 63.46% 19 36.54% 0 0.00% 11 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -87.50% 0 0.00% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 -23.26% 10 111.11% -1 -100.00% 3 -1 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 10 0 9 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 53 0 36 0 0.00% 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 52 0 29 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -6 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -7 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 10 6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 19 10 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 5 4 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 9 4 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 5 4 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 71.43% 1 7.14% 2 14.29% 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 45.24% 5 11.90% 14 33.33% 4 11 0 0 0 0 45.45% 2 18.18% 3 27.27% 2 2 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 90.00% 4 ##### 12 600.00% 3 9 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 1 7.14% 14 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 4 9.52% 42 1 26 0 0 0 0 1 9.09% 11 1 9 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 3 300.00% 28 0 16 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 9 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 56 30 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home 5usoension 29 19 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension -27 -11 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 72.73% 8 10.39% 13 16.88% 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 78.38% 7 18.92% 1 2.70% 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -48.21% -1 -12.50% -12 -92.31% 0 -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 77 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 37 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -40 0 -19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 13 9 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 3 3 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension -10 -6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions INDIAN HIL:LSE LEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 46.43% 9 32.14% 6 21.43% 6 5 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 42.86% 0 0.00% 4 57.14% 0 4 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -76.92% -9 -100.00% -2 -33.33% -6 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 28 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -21 0 -13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [ [ In School Suso Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 60.00% 2 40.00% 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 70.59% 4 23.53% 1 5.88% 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 9 300.00% 2 100.00% 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 5 0 5 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 17 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 47 26 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 105 63 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 43 22 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 3 3 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension -4 -4 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class -102 -60 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 90.38% 2 3.85% 3 5.77% 2 1 0 0 0 0 69.08% 31 20.39% 13 8.55% 15 6 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 79.63% 9 16.67% 2 3.70% 5 2 0 0 0 0 75.00% 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 1 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -8.51% 7 350.00% -1 -33.33% 3 1 0 0 0 0 -97.14% -30 -96.77% -13 -100.00% -14 -6 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 52 0 29 0 0 0 0 3 1.97% 152 3 87 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 54 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 -100.00% -148 -3 -83 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 52 30 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 52 31 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 3 3 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 0 1 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 3 3 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 72.22% 19 26.39% 1 1.39% 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 57.78% 21 23.33% 17 18.89% 8 8 0 0 0 0 60.00% 2 40.00% 0 0.00% 2 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0.00% 2 10.53% 16 1600.00% -8 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 72 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 90 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 12 8 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 45 26 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 ] 0 Home Susoension 10 9 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 27 22 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension -2 1 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class -18 -4 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 75.00% 3 18.75% 1 6.25% 3 1 0 0 0 0 70.31% 15 23.44% 3 4.69% 11 3 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 83.33% 1 8.33% 1 8.33% 1 1 0 0 0 0 43.55% 18 29.03% 12 19.35% 8 8 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -16.67% -2 -66.67% 0 0.00% -2 0 0 0 0 0 -40.00% 3 20.00% 9 300.00% -3 5 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 16 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 1.56% 64 1 41 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 12 0 11 0 0 0 0 5 8.06% 62 2 40 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -4 0 -1 0 0 0 0 4 400.00% -2 1 -1 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 6 6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 11 6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 [ 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 5 0 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions PARK HILL ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % tf Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 75.00% 2 25.00% 0 0.00% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 57.89% 4 21.05% 3 15.79% 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 83.33% 2 100.00% 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 8 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 1 5.26% 19 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . I # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 23 17 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 34 23 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 10 8 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension -13 -9 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class -34 -23 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 74.19% 5 16.13% 3 9.68% 5 1 0 0 0 0 58.62% 12 20.69% 9 15.52% 10 3 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -56.52% -5 -100.00% -3 -100.00% -5 -1 0 0 0 0 -100.00% -12 -100.00% -9 -100.00% -10 -3 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 31 0 23 0 0 0 0 3 5.17% 58 3 39 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 10 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -21 0 -15 0 0 0 0 -3 -100.00% -58 -3 -39 0 0 0 0 In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 0 0 25 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 96.15% 1 3.85% 0 0.00% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0 -22 -88.00% -1 -100.00% 0 -14 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 26 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -23 0 -15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 262 18 Home Susoension 1 1 ASAC 72 36 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 266 106 Home Susoension 0 0 ASAC 52 33 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 4 88 Home Suspension -1 -1 ASAC -20 -3 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 60.79% 138 26 71 22 50.00% 1 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 0 80.90% 15 16.85% 2 2.25% 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 52.16% 173 33.92% 59 11.57% 75 30 0 0 0 0 54.74% 25 26.32% 9 9.47% 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 1.53% 35 25.36% 33 126.92% 4 8 -100.00% -1 -100.00% 0 -1 0 -27.78% 10 66.67% 7 350.00% 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 5 431 4 115 0 0.00% 2 0 2 0 0.00% 89 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 12 2.35% 510 8 219 0 0 0 0 9 9.47% 95 5 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 7 140.00% 79 4 104 0 -2 0 -2 9 6 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 343 93 Home Susoension 3 3 ASAC 92 27 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 [ # Ref # Stu In School Susp 249 70 Home Susoension 1 1 ASAC 32 17 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp -94 -23 Home Susoension -2 -2 ASAC -60 -10 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 51.81% 156 116 49 56 42.86% 3 42.86% 0 0.00% 3 0 70.23% 26 19.85% 10 7.63% 17 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 49.40% 113 22.42% 117 23.21% 42 64 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 0 1 60.38% 11 20.75% 9 16.98% 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu -27.41% -43 -27.56% 1 0.86% -7 8 -66.67% -3 -100.00% 1 -3 1 -65.22% -15 -57.69% -1 -10.00% -9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 47 662 23 221 1 14.29% 7 1 7 3 2.29% 131 3 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 25 4.96% 504 16 192 0 0.00% 2 0 2 1 1.89% 53 1 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -22 -46.81% -158 -7 -29 -1 -100.00% -5 -1 -5 -2 -66.67% -78 -2 -19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions RIDGEROAD MIDDLE CHARTER SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 401 50.44% 294 65 122 111 33 105 58.99% 49 27.53% 14 7.87% 50 29 12 31 62.00% 18 36.00% 1 2.00% 18 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 0 1 2007-2008 BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 550 59.14% 318 34.19% 50 5.38% 128 95 17 29 52.73% 25 45.45% 0 0.00% 18 14 0 21 55.26% 16 42.11% 1 2.63% 17 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 149 37.16% 24 8.16% -15 -23.08% 6 -16 -16 -76 -72.38% -24 -48.98% -14 -100.00% -32 -15 -12 -10 -32.26% -2 -11.11% 0 0.00% -1 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -100.00% 0 -1 -100.00% -1 0 -1 NBF Total # Ref % # Re.f # Stu # Stu 35 795 17 283 10 5.62% 178 5 96 0 0.00% 50 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 2 0 2 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 12 1.29% 930 5 245 1 1.82% 55 1 33 0 0.00% 38 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -23 -65.71% 135 -12 -38 -9 -90.00% -123 -4 -63 0 -12 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -2 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 165 58 Home Susoension 120 48 ASAC 44 31 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 265 69 Home Susoension 46 26 ASAC 54 23 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 100 11 Home Suspension -74 -22 ASAC 10 -8 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 58.30% 108 8 37 4 68.18% 42 23.86% 3 1.70% 19 3 68.75% 16 25.00% 2 3.13% 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 56.50% 177 37.74% 21 4.48% 47 8 63.01% 25 34.25% 2 2.74% 10 2 67.50% 16 20.00% 9 11.25% 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 60.61% 69 63.89% 13 162.50% 10 4 -61.67% -17 -40.48% -1 -33.33% -9 -1 22.73% 0 0.00% 7 350.00% -6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 2 283 2 101 11 6.25% 176 1 71 2 3.13% 64 1 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 6 1.28% 469 3 127 0 0.00% 73 0 38 1 1.25% 80 1 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 4 200.00% 186 1 26 -11 -100.00% -103 -1 -33 -1 -50.00% 16 0 -12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 504 180 23 22 54 40 0 0 2 2 # Ref # Stu 494 181 17 13 39 31 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions NLRHS EAST CAMPUS HIGH SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 49.12% 300 165 144 87 36.51% 28 44.44% 9 14.29% 23 9 47.37% 33 28.95% 16 14.04% 24 11 0 0 0 0 33.33% 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 0 1 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 46.08% 358 33.40% 150 13.99% 147 79 54.84% 9 29.03% 3 9.68% 7 3 56.52% 21 30.43% 4 5.80% 18 4 0 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu -10 -1.98% 58 19.33% -15 -9.09% 1 3 -8 -6 -26.09% -19 -67.86% -6 -66.67% -9 -16 -6 -15 -27.78% -12 -36.36% -12 -75.00% -9 -6 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 200.00% 0 -1 -100.00% 4 0 -1 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 57 1026 35 446 3 4.76% 63 3 57 11 9.65% 114 10 85 0 0 0 0 3 50.00% 6 3 6 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 70 6.53% 1072 40 447 2 6.45% 31 2 25 5 7.25% 69 5 58 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 6 0 6 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 13 22.81% 46 5 1 -1 -33.33% -32 -1 -32 -6 -54.55% -45 -5 -27 0 0 0 0 -3 -100.00% 0 -3 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 299 141 Home Susoension 25 23 ASAC 30 26 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 298 141 Home Susoension 40 30 ASAC 36 26 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 5 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp -1 0 Home Susoension 15 7 ASAC 6 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 5 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions NLRHS WEST CAMPUS HIGH SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 58.40% 125 61 79 36 69.44% 7 19.44% 4 11.11% 7 4 78.95% 1 2.63% 7 18.42% 1 5 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 1 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 54.98% 171 31.55% 49 9.04% 108 30 58.82% 25 36.76% 2 2.94% 18 2 59.02% 23 37.70% 0 0.00% 15 0 0 0 0 0 62.50% 0 0.00% 3 37.50% 0 0 COM PARIS.ON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu -0.33% 46 36.80% -12 -19.67% 29 -6 60.00% 18 257.14% -2 -50.00% 11 -2 20.00% 22 2200.00% -7 -100.00% 14 -5 0 0 0 0 0 2 200.00% 0 -1 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 27 512 21 277 0 0.00% 36 0 34 0 0.00% 38 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 0 1 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 24 4.43% 542 16 295 1 1.47% 68 1 51 2 3.28% 61 2 43 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 8 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -3 -11.11% 30 -5 18 1 32 1 17 2 23 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 -1 2 2 1 1 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level In School Suspensions 500-' c::::::::::? 000- / ..t=. 500- ,,- c:::::::\n? c::: 000- ,,- - 500- ,,- '--- ~ 0 I\n~ I\n,___ I\n,___ ,\nu r 1L BM BF NBM NBF D 06-07 1974 1121 441 173 D 07-08 2122 1310 446 149  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Home Suspensions 800-\" .:::\n700- ,,,- 600- ,,,- 500- ,,,- 400- ,,,- .!...=.\n, 300- ,,- ~ 200- v- - ~ 100- v- - .- 0 - - LJ ~ - BM BF NBM NBF C 06-07 719 281 71 26 D 07-08 342 137 57 9 06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level ASAC 350- ~ 300- ,,.. ... 250- ,,- '=7 200- ,,- 150- ,,- .I ~ 100- ,,- - 50- ,,- - .---::a ~,, I - Cl. 0 - - .,.- -L__J I BM BF NBM NBF E 06-07 329 110 38 16 D 07-08 234 112 32 18 06-07 007-08 -1  I : I . , ~ I J'  I  ~  ] . J North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Intervention Class 250-/ ~ 200- v\u0026gt;-- 150- /- 100- /- _7 ~1 50- /- - ~ 0 L,~ L\n~ ~lnL-I 0-, BM BF NBM NSF 006-07 227 67 27 7 007-08 87 46 18 6  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Expulsion 12-/ ~ 10-\" 8-/ ~ 6_/ 4_,, c=. - / ,, :::jj 2- 1/,- - 0 ~ .... , 1.. ....__ , ~ BM BF NBM NBF IC 06-07 3 0 3 3  07-08 11 0 3 0 06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 In School Suspensions 1 _/ 0.9_/ o.a-v 0.1-v 0.6_v 0.5-' 0.4_/ 0.3-' 0.2_/ 0.1-v 0 ,, I I I I I I I 7 / ~ ~ I BM BF NBM NBF  06-07 0 0 0 0 D 07-08 0 0 0 0 I 06-07 007-08 [ IJ IJ j] IJ IJ ] J l J l J l J J [ ] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Home Suspension 300-\" ,::\n250- v- _:::::::::? 200- ,,- 150- ,,- 100- ,,- ~ 50- ,,- ~ ,c__,\n1 tiCZ. I ' _r-\"71 0 - ~ ~ BM BF NBM NBF C 06-07 267 57 31 1 D 07-08 209 53 49 5 - 06-07 D 07-08 J J J J J J J J [ J [ I J [ I J J J J J ] j J ] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 ASAC 1-  0.9-v 0.8-v 0.7-\" 0.6-  o.s-  0.4-  0.3-/ 0.2-  0.1-  0 BM BF NBM NBF Cl 06-07 0 0 0 0  07-08 0 0 0 0 06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Intervention Class 250-/ :::j 200- vf--- 150- /f- 100- ,,- ..::::::::7 50- - ~1 ,,- !.__7 0 - ~ rrn_~_ _. ~ ~ I 71_ BM BF NBM NBF ID 06-07 227 67 27 7 D 07-08 87 46 18 6 06-07  07-08 ] J . ] ]  ] IJ , r ] - ] IJ _J ] ~ l J -I J 1 j ] ] . ] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Expulsion 1 _/ 0.9-/ o.a-  o. 7 _,, 0.6_v o.s- 0.4---- 0.3-  0.2-  0.1-v 0 \" I I I I I I I I I I , I BM BF NBM NBF 006-07 0 0 0 0 007-08 0 0 0 0  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools In School Suspensions 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM  06-07 1171 D 07-08 1330 - . - . BF NBM 696 215 781 247 NBF 88 55  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Home Suspension __..,......,.,... .... ...___-~-~ - -----=--------~-~- ._. ~J ---------- ' 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM  06-07 231  07-08 76 BF NBM 94 17 50 3 NBF 22 1  06-07  07-08 : l J  J IJ IJ : I J IJ J ] J ] ] J LJ J J J ] J IT 1 250 200 150 100 50 0  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools ASAC BM BF NBM NBF 238 75 15 5 159 68 28 11  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Intervention Class .... - 1 _/ 0.9_v o.a-v 0.7_v 0.6-V 0.5-/ 0.4-  0.3-/ 0.2-  0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF  06-07 0 0 0 0 D 07-08 0 0 0 0  06-07  07-08 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0  06-07 D 07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0  06-07  07-08 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0  06-07 D 07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools In School Suspensions - - . BM BF NBM NBF 803 425 226 85 792 529 199 94  06-07  07-08 250 [] 200 ] 150 ]] 100 50 ] 0  06-07 D 07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Home Suspension ... . .,,\n\u0026gt;-\n,....--...,---- -. \n. \"'-----'-'- ~-~~---~--..::. :...-,-..  06-07  07-08 BM BF NBM NBF 221 130 23 3 57 34 5 3 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools ASAC --.  ' ::.. ... - ... BM BF NBM NBF  06-07 91 35 23 11 D 07-08 75 44 4 7 --  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Intervention Class 1 _/ 0.9_v 0.8-V 0.7-v 0.6-\" 0.5-'/ 0.4-v 0.3Y 0.2-v 0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF  06-07 0 0 0 0 D 07-08 0 0 0 0  06-07  07-08 12 10 8 6 4 2 0  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 2 0 2 3 11 0 3 0  06-07  07-08 : l J : I J : ] I l J J \"] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison In School Suspension ., .. ..,. 2500~-----------~ 1500 1000 500 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 1443 718 458 138  99-00 1468 662 401 139  00-01 1092 556 267 69 D 01-02 1276 574 354 107  02-03 1903 1050 512 172 D 03-04 1961 980 394 220  04-05 1560 860 390 172 D 05-06 1843 1189 471 158  06-07 1974 1121 441 173  07-08 2122 1310 446 149  98-99  99-00  00-01 D 01-02  02-03 D 03-04  04-05 D 05-06  06-07  07-08 [J J :J J :J] r ] - ] ] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Home Suspension 1200 1000 800 600- 4001 200- 0- ) lb. t--...i. BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 566 141 125 22  99-00 406 113 102 18 D 00-01 385 92 64 7  01-02 692 234 92 21 D 02-03 522 193 63 13 ll!!I0 3-04 469 157 66 18  04-05 753 325 111 43 D 05-06 1166 565 208 54  06-07 719 281 71 26  n7.na ~,t? 1~7 57 9  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03 03-04  04-05 D 05-06  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison ASAC 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 359 148 88 22  99-00 351 129 90 27  00-01 325 136 56 12 D 01-02 210 83 52 11  02-03 244 86 83 25 D 03-04 316 155 51 16 04-05 3 1 0 0  05-06 40 15 9 5 D 06-07 329 110 38 16  07-08 234 112 32 18  98-99  99-00  00-01 D 01-02  02-03 D 03-04 04-05  05-06 D 06-07  07-08 - ] I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Intervention Class 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16  00-01 162 55 40 21 D 01-02 342 164 67 29  02-03 252 97 52 11  03-04 195 70 18 11  04-05 110 30 11 1  05-06 84 38 13 3 D 06-07 227 67 27 7  07-08 87 46 18 6  98-99  99-00  00-01 D 01-02  02-03 D 03-04  04-05  05-06 D 06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Expulsion 12- 10- ,, 8 6- I--- 4 2-I i I- 0- J 11 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0  00-01 3 0 5 3  01-02 1 0 2 1  02-03 2 0 2 0  03-04 2 0 2 0  04-05 11 0 9 1  05-06 4 2 5 2  06-07 3 0 3 3 I -- nn .... n st n  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03  03-04 04-05  05-06  06-07  07-08\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\u003eNorth Little Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_37","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":["2007-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/37"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .EducatiWn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org January 30, 2007 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 RECEIVED 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 FEB 2 - 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of January 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson, Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for January 2007. Respectfully Submitted, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501 -682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on January 30, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 t.d~ RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB 2 - 2007 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 January 31, 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued} B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 Calculated for FY 06/07, 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 January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 06/07 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 January 31, 2007 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD - $1,948,253.16 In September 2006, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $4,200,321.00 NLRSD - $975,891.96 PCSSD - $3,062,606.93 In September 2006, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget: The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $1,413,384.34 NLRSD - $333,217.73 PCSSD - $1,074,447.23 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 January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 (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. 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 January 31, 2007 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (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 January 31, 2007 (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. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. Q. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 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. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 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. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 11. 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 January 31, 2007 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (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. 14 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 January 31, 2007 (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. 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 January 31, 2007 (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. 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 January 31, 2007 (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. 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 January 31, 2007 (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 l,.ead 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\nupdated 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. 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 January 31, 2007 (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. 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 January 31, 2007 (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. 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 January 31, 2007 (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 feasability 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. 21 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 January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 22 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 January 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the- items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. - In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (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. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (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. 26 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 January 31, 2007 (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. 27 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 January 31, 2007 (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. 28 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 January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 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 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 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. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the 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. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, 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 January 31, 2007 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (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. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (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 Novembe.r 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. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (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. 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 January 31, 2007 (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. 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 January 31, 2007 (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. 39 . e 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 January 31, 2007 (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. 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 January 31, 2007 (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.  1,l~lt1~~ ~1.v.i ~\nr:r. 41 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 January 31, 2007 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. 42 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 January 31, 2007 (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. 43 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 January 31, 2007 (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 . 44 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 January 31, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 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 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 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 oncompensatory 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 January 31, 2007 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 January 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the AD E's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching - strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued} On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACT AAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate 'in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT MP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End -of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary Sc~ool was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Specic!I Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and  provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing , and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special . education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001 . The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning_. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementat\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_863","title":"\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2007-01/2007-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","School boards","School employees","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/863"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n BOARD oF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED JAN1 7 2007 OfflCEOF DESEGREGOANTIITOONR ING ass North Little Rock School District Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:00 P.M. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. CALL TO ORDER, Trent Cox, President II. INVOCATION, Marshalluna Land, NLRHS Senior, daughter of III. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Trent Cox, President Scott Teague, Vice President Marty Moore, Secretary Dorothy Williams, Disbursing Officer John Riley, Parliamentarian Darrell Montgomery, Member Margo Tenner, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Special Recognition - S. Brazear 1. New National Board Certified Teachers Ms. Eldra Land a. Takecia Cox - Ridgeroad Middle Charter b. Kay Ewart - NLRHS West Campus c. Melissa Herring - Crestwood Elementary d. Kathy Holland- NLRHS West Campus e. Angie Hutson - NLRHS West Campus f. Jennifer Kimbrell - Crestwood Elementary g. Kendra Leirer - NLRHS East Campus - VI. Page 2 - Board Agenda January 18, 2007 DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:00 P.M. (Regular)-Page A - 1 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. B. C. D. E. F, G. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report- G. Tucker Consider Revisions to Board Policies 4.22 Weapons and Dangerous Instruments and 4.43 Bullying - Page B - 1 - B. Acklin Consider Revisions to Board Policies 3.6 Certified Personnel Employee Training\n3.6 - CL Classified Personnel Employee Training\n5.4 Professional Development and 5 .15 Grading - Page C - 1 - A. 0 lsen Consider Elementary Textbook Committee's Recommendation - Page D - 1 - K. Lowe Consider Approval of Secondary Textbook Adoption Committee - Page E - 1 - R. Dickey Consider Crestwood Elementary Bid Proposal - Page F - 1 - J. Massey H. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 3. Consider bid items - Page S - 1 4. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS None X. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Board Workshop - Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:00 A.M. B. Regular Board Meeting-Thursday, February 15, 2007 5 P.M. XI. XII. XIII. STUDENT EXPULSION Page 3 - Board Agenda January 18, 2007 SUPERINTENDENT'S ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES December 14, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in regular session on Thursday, December 14, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. Lynne Looney, NLRSD Teacher, addressed the Board to express her concerns about the hiring of administrators in the district. President Trent Cox called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Rebecca Galloway, Park Hill Elementary School fifth grader, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Trent Cox, President Scott Teague, Vice President Marty Moore, Secretary Dorothy Williams, Disbursing Officer John Riley, Parliamentarian Darrell Montgomery, Member Absent Margo Tenner, Member Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nDr. Angela Olsen, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Superintendent's Honor Roll: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, introduced Dr. Macy Purtle, NLRHS West Campus media specialist, as a new member. Dr. Purtle was nominated by Anita Cameron, NLRHS West Campus Principal for her work with students and staff, her leadership in beginning several book clubs and her work with the remediation classes. John Riley presented Dr. Purtle with a plaque thanking her for her dedication to our district. Lisa Gray, Argenta Academy paraprofessional, nominated by A-1 Charles Jones, Argenta Academy principal, for her dedication to the Argenta students. Ms. Gray worked off contract this summer helping register students and is a great asset - for her work as Argenta's parent coordinator. Darrell Montgomery presented Ms. Gray with a plaque in appreciation for her work at Argenta Academy. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the minutes of the November 16, 2006 (Regular) meeting as printed. Scott Teague seconded the IJ?Otion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner - absent) OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report Margie Snider, Certified Personnel Policies Committee Chair, stated the certified personnel had voted and approved the changes to Board Policy CA-Personnel Policies Committee and the teacher and administrator salary schedule revisions. Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker, Classified Personnel Policies Committee Chair, stated the classified personnel had voted and approved all of the classified salary schedule revisions. Mrs. Tucker stated the committee proposed to add Board Policy CEB Personal Leave as a classified policy adding CL to the title with the following revisions: adding the words \"or building administrator\" in the first sentence of the second paragraph after the word \"principal\"\ninserting the following sentence as the fifth sentence of the paragraph: \"Part time employee(s) personal leave will be prorated according to the number of hours worked per day\"\nand to delete the sentence \"This policy does not apply to twelve month Administrative personnel.\" from the end of the policy. MOTION John Riley moved to return policy CFEB - CL to the Classified Personnel Policies Committee for modifications of the revisions. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner- absent) A-2 Consent Agenda Mr. Kirspel requested approval of the consent agenda as printed on pages O - 1 through T- 17. MOTION John Riley moved for the Board to enter into executive session. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner- absent) The Board entered into an executive session at 5:23 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 5.35 p.m. MOTION Darrell Montgomery moved to accept the consent agenda as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner - absent) INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Jerry Massey, Plant Services Director, updated the Board on the proposed construction projects of Lakewood Middle School and Crestwood Elementary. He stated the Lakewood Middle School bids would be ready and in order for the February Board meeting. Mr. Massey explained that bids for Crestwood Elementary addition would be opened on January 9, 2007 and he would bring a recommendation at the January Board meeting. He stated an appeal has been filed for additional monies due to the work that needs be done on the slope of the ground at Crestwood Elementary. The Board agreed to set a Board Workshop on Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 9 a.m. at the J.W. Nutt Company on Crestwood Road. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Marty Moore moved to adjourn the meeting. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner - absent) President Cox declared the meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. A-3 Trent Cox, President Marty Moore, Secretary A-4 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 4.22-WEAPONS AND DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS No student shall possess a weapon, display what appears to be a weapon, or threaten to use a weapon while in school, on or about school property, before or after school, in attendance at school or any school sponsored activity, en route to or from school or any school sponsored activity, off the school grounds at any school bus stop, or at any school sponsored activity or event. Military personnel, such as ROTC cadets, acting in the course of their official duties are excepted. A weapon is defined as any knife, gun, pistol, revolver, shotgun, BB gun, rifle, pellet gun, raz.or, ice pick, dirk, box cutter, nun chucks, pepper spray or other noxious spray, explosive, or any other instrument or substance capable of causing bodily harm. Possession means having a weapon, as defined in this policy, on the student's body or in an area under his/her control. If, prior to any questioning or search by any school personnel, a student discovers that he/she has accidentally brought a weapon to school including a weapon that is in a vehicle on school grounds, and the student informs the principal or a staff person immediately, the student will not be considered to be in possession of a weapon. The weapon shall be confiscated and held in the office until such time as the student's parent/legal guardian shall pick up the weapon from the school's office. Repeated offenses are unacceptable and shall be grounds for disciplinary action against the student as otherwise provided for in this policy. Students found to be in possession on the school campus of a fireann shall be recommended for expulsion for a period of not less than one year. The School Board shall have the discretion to modify such expulsion recommendation for a student on a case-by-case basis. By using the case by case exception, the School Board will be able to discipline students with disabilities in accordance with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Parents or legal guardians of students expelled under this policy shall be given a copy of the current laws regarding the possibility of parental responsibility for allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property. Parents or legal guardians shall sign a statementa cknowledgingt hat they have read and understands aid laws prior to readmitting the student. Parents or legal guardians of a student enrolling from another school after the expiration of an expulsion period for a weapons policy violation shall also be given a copy of the current laws regarding the possibility of parental responsibility for allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property.T he parentso r legal guardianss hall sign a statementa cknowledgingth at they have read and understand said laws prior to the student being enrolled in school. A report will be given to the North Little Rock Police Department and criminal charges may be filed following an investigation. Legal References: AC.A. 6-18-502 (c) (2)(A)(B) AC.A. 6-18-507 (e) (1)(2) AC.A.  6 17 113 AC.A.  5-27-206 20 uses 8921 Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 12/18/03 B-1 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 4.22-WEAPONS AND DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS No student shall possess a weapon, display what appears to be a weapon, or threaten to use a weapon while in school, on or about school property, before or after school, in attendance at school or any school sponsored activity, en route to or from school or any school sponsored activity, off the school grounds at any school bus stop, or at any school sponsored activity or event. A weapon is defined as any knife, gun, pistol, revolver, shotgun, BB gun, rifle, pellet gun, razor, ice pick, dirk, box cutter, nun chucks, pepper spray or other noxious spray, explosive, or any other instrument or substance capable of causing bodily harm. Possession means having a weapon, as defined in this policy, on the student's body or in an area under his/her control. If, prior to any questioning or search by any school personnel, a student discovers that he/she has accidentallyb rought a weapon to school includinga weapon that is in a vehicle on school grounds, and the student informs the principal or a staff person immediately, the student will not be considered to be in possession of a weapon. The weapon shall be confiscated and held in the office until such time as the student's parent/legal guardian shall pick up the weapon from the school's office. Repeated offenses are unacceptable and shall be grounds for disciplinary action against the student as otherwise provided for in this policy. Students found to be in possession on the school campus of a firearm shall be recommended for expulsion for a period of not less than one year. The School Board shall have the discretion to modify such expulsion recommendationf or a student on a case-by-caseb asis. Parents or legal guardians of students expelled under this policy shall be given a copy of the current laws regarding the possibility of - parental responsibilityf or allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property. Parents or legal guardians shall sign a statementa cknowledgingt hat they have read and understands aid laws prior to readmitting the student. Parents or legal guardians of a student enrolling from another school after the expiration of an expulsion period for a weapons policy violation shall also be given a copy of the current laws regarding the. possibilityo f parental responsibilityf or allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property.T he parentso r legal guardianss hall sign a statementa cknowledgingth at they have read and understand said laws prior to the student being enrolled in school. A report will be given to the North Little Rock Police Department and criminal charges may be filed following an investigation. Legal References: A.CA 6-18-502 (c) (2)(A)(B) AC.A. 6-18-507 (e) (1)(2) AC.A. 6-17-113 20 uses  8921 Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 12/18/03 B-2 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADD~TIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 4.43-BULL YING Respect for the dignity of others is a cornerstone of civil society. Bullying creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, robs a person of their dignity, detracts from the safe environment necessary to promote student learning, and will not be tolerated by the Board of Directors. Students who bully another person shall be held accountable for their actions whether it occurs on the school grounds\noff school grounds at a school sponsored or approved function, activity, or event\nor going to or from school or a school activity in a school vehicle or school bus\nor at designated school bus stops. Definition: Bullying is any pattern of behavior by a student, or a group of students, that is intended to harass, intimidate, ridicule, humiliate, or instill fear in another child or group of children. Bullying behavior can be a threat of, or actual, physical harm or it can be verbal abuse of the child. Bullying also includes unacceptable behavior identified in this policy which is electronically transmitted. Bullying is a series of recurring actions committed over a period of time directed toward one student, or successive, separate actions directed against multiple students. Examples of \"bullying\" may include but are not limited to a pattern of behavior involving one or more of the following: I. Sarcastic \"compliments\" about another student's personal appearance\n2. Pointed questions intended to embarrass or humiliate\n3. Mocking, taunting or belittling\n4. Non-verbal threats and/or intimidation such as \"fronting\" or \"chesting\" a person\n5. Demeaning humor relating to a student's race, gender, ethnicity or personal characteristics\n6. Blackmail, extortion, demands for protection money or other involuntary donations or loans\n7. Blocking access to school property or facilities\n8. Deliberate physical contact or injury to person or property\n9. Stealing or hiding books or belongings\nand/or 10. Threats of harm to student(s), possessions, or others. B-3 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 Students are encouraged to report behavior they consider to be bullying, including a single action which if allowed to continue would constitute bullying, to their teacher or the building principal. The report may be made anonymously. Teachers and other school employees who have witnessed, or are reliably informed that, a student has been a victim of behavior they consider to be bullying, including a single action which if allowed to continue would constitute bullying, shall report the incident(s) to the principal. Parents or legal guardians may submit to the principal written reports of incidents they feel constitute bullying, or if allowed to continue wottld constitute bullying. The principal shall be responsible for investigating the incident( s) to determine if disciplinary action is warranted. The person or persons r@rting behavior they consider to be bullying shall not be subject to retaliation or reprisal in any form. Students found to be in violation of this policy shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. In determining the appropriate disciplinary action, consideration may be given to other violations of the student handbook which may have simultaneously occurred. Notice of what constitutes bullying, the District's prohibition against bullying, and the consequences for students who bully shall be conspicuously posted in every classroom, cafeteria, restroom, gymnasium, auditorium, and school bus. Parents, students, school volunteers, and employees shall be given copies of the notice. Copies of this policy shall be available upon request. Legal Reference: Act 681 of2003 A.C.A.  6-18-514 Last Revised: 12/18/03 B-4 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 4.43-BULL YING Respect for the dignity of others is a cornerstone of civil society. Bullying creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, robs a person of their dignity, detracts from the safe environment necessary to promote student learning, and will not be tolerated by the Board of Directors. Students who bully another person shall be held accountable for their actions whether it occurs on the school grounds\noff school grounds at a school sponsored or approved function, activity, or event\nor going to or from school or a school activity. Definition: Bullying is any pattern of behavior by a student, or a group of students, that is intended to harass, intimidate, ridicule, humiliate, or instill fear in another child or group of children. Bullying behavior can be a threat of, or actual, physical harm or it can be verbal abuse of the child. Bullying is a series of recurring actions committed over a period of time directed toward one student, or successive, separate actions directed against multiple students. Examples of \"bullying\" may include but are not limited to a pattern of behavior involving one or more of the following: 1. Sarcastic \"compliments\" about another student's personal appearance\n2. Pointed questions intended to embarrass or humiliate\n3. Mocking, taunting or belittling\n4. Non-verbal threats and/or intimidation such as \"fronting\" or \"chesting\" a person\n5. Demeaning humor relating to a student's race, gender, ethnicity or personal characteristics\n6. Blackmail, extortion, demands for protection money or other involuntary donations or loans\n7. Blocking access to school property or facilities\n8. Deliberate physical contact or injury to person or property\n9. Stealing or hiding books or belongings\nand/or 10. Threats of harm to student(s), possessions, or others. B-5 Students are encouraged to report behavior they consider to be bullying, including a single action which if allowed to continue would constitute bullying, to their teacher or the building principal. 4 report may be made anonymously. Teachers and other school employees who have witnessed, or are reliably informed that, a student has been a victim of behavior they consider to be bullying, including a single action which if allowed to continue would constitute bullying, shall report the incident(s) to the principal. Parents or legal guardians may submit to the principal written reports of incidents they feel constitute bullying, or if allowed to continue would constitute bullying. The principal shall be responsible for investigating the incident(s) to determine if disciplinary action is warranted. Students found to be in violation of this policy shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. In determining the appropriate disciplinary action, consideration may be given to other violations of the student handbook which may have simultaneously occurred. Notice of what constitutes bullying, the District's prohibition against bullying, and the consequences for students who bully shall be conspicuously posted in every classroom, cafeteria, restroom, gymnasium, auditorium, and school bus. Parents, students, school volunteers, and employees shall be given copies of the notice. Legal Reference: Act 681 of2003 Last Revised: 12/18/03 B-6 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 3.6- CERI'IF'IEDP ERSONNELE MPLOYEET RAINING The district administration and the building principal have the authority to require attendance at specific professional development activities in conjunction with state law and ADE Rules Governing Professional Development. PD PLAN The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its certified employees. The district's plan shall, in part, align district resources to address the professional development activities identified in each school's ACSIP. Each certified employee shall receive a minimum of sixty (60) hours of professional development annually which must be approved b( the district and :fulfilled between July 1 !lfid Me 30 or Jlllle 1 and May 31, to be determiRed annually. Professional development hours earned in excess of sixty ( 60) in the designated year cannot be carried over to the next year. The goal of all professional development activities shall be improved student achievement and academic performance that results in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state criterion-referenced assessments. The district's professional development plan shall demonstrate scientifically research-based best practice, and shall be based on student achievement data and in alignment with the ADE Rules Governing Professional Development and current Arkansas code. Teachers and administrators shall be involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the plan for their own professional development. The results of the evaluation made by the participants in each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to - revise the school improvement plan. PD FLEX Flexible professional development hours (flex hours) are those hours which an employee is allowed to substitute professional development activities, different than those offered by the district, but which still meet criteria of either the employee's Individual Improvement Plan or the school's ACSIP, or both. The district shall determine on an annual basis how many, if any, flex hours of professional development it will allow to be substituted for district scheduled professional development offerings. The determination may be made at an individual building, a grade, or by subject basis. Employees must receive advance approval from the building principal or district designee for activities they wish to have qualify for flex professional development hours. To the fullest extent possible, professional development activities are to be scheduled and attended such that teachers do not miss their regular teaching assignments. Six (6) approved flex hours credited toward fulfilling the sixty (60) hour requirement shall equal one contract day. Hours of professional development earned by an employee in excess of sixty (60) or not pre-approved by the building principal shall not be credited toward fulfilling the required number of contract days for that employee. Hours earned that count toward the required sixty (60) also count toward the required number of contract days for that employee. C-1 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 PD MAKEUP Teachers and administrators who, for any reason, miss part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approved by the building principal or district designee. PD CREDIT To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentation is to be submitted to the building principal or district designee. REQUIRED PD SESSIONS Teachers and administrators are required to obtain sixty (60) hours of approved professional development annually over a five-year period as part oflicensure renewal requirements. At least six (6) of the sixty (60) annual hours shall be in the area of educational technology. Teachers are required to receive at least two hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies. Teachers who provide instruction in Arkansas history shall receive at least two (2) hours of professional development in Arkansas history as part of the sixty (60) hours required annually. Teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management and health and physical activity annually. Administrators are required to receive at least three hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies and the importance of administrative leadership in setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation. Each administrator's professional development is required to also include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership, and fiscal management ADDIDONALPDOPPORTUNITIES Each hour of approved training received by certified personnel related to teaching an advance placement class for a subject covered by the College Board or Educational Testing Service, shall receive up to thirty (30) hours of credit which may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional development required annually. Certified personnel may be entitled to up to twelve (12) hours of professional development for time spent planning and preparing curriculum or developing other instructional materials in their instructional classroom, office or media center prior to the first day of student/teacher interaction provided the time is spent in accordance with the state law and current ADE rules that deal with professional development. C-2 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 Certified personnel are eligible to receive fifteen (15) professional development hours for a college course 1hat meets the criteria identified in law and the applicable ADE rules. Upon ADE approval, the district shall determine if the hours earned apply toward the required sixty (60). A maximum of thirty (30) hours may be applied toward the sixty ( 60) hours of professional development required annually. PD DOCUMENTATION Employees who do not receive or furnish documentation of the required annual professional development jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employee to receive sixty (60) hours of professional development in any given year may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. APPROVED PD ACTMTIES AND AREAS Approved professional development activities may include conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, district/school programs, and approved college/university course work. Professional development activities should be consistent with the objectives developed by the National Staff Development Council Standards. Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content (K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. Nete!r.-1 The Rules Goerrnng Professional DeelOJ3men4t .02 require the district to ehoose the option it will follow and \"doeument'' its ehoice. The documentation may be noted by the selection chosen for this policy aad also iH the district's ''plea\" for professional deelopment required b~ A.C.A.  6 17 704(e)(l). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy 5.4- PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules Governing Professional Development A.CA. 6-15-404(f)(2) AC.A. 6-17-703 AC.A. 6-17-704 A.CA. 6-17-705 A.CA. 6-15-1004(c) AC.A. 6-15-1703 A.CA. 6-20-2303(14) Date Adopted: March 21, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-3 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 3.6-- CERTIFIED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAINING The district administrationa nd the buildingp rincipalh ave the authorityt o require attendancea t specific professionald evelopmenta ctivitiesi n conjunctionw ith state law and ADE Rules GoverningP rofessional Development. PD PLAN The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its certified employees.T he district'sp lan shall,i n part, align districtr esourcest o addresst he professionald evelopment activitiesi dentifiedi n each school's ACSIP.E ach pertifiede mployees hall receivea minimumo f sixty (6 0) hours of professional development annually which must be approved by the district and fulfilled between July 1 and June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be determined annually. 1 Professional development hours earnedi n excesso f sixty (60) in the designatedy ear cannotb e carriedo ver to the next year. The goal of all professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hallb e improveds tudenta chievementa nd academicp erformancet hat results in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state criterion-referenced assessments. The district's professional developmentp lan shall demonstrates cientificallyr esearch-basedb est practice, and shall be based on studenta chievementd ata and in alignmentw ith the ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopmenta nd current Arkansas code. Teachersa nd administrators hallb e involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professional development. The results of the evaluation made by the participants in each program shall be used to continuouslyi mprove the district's professionald evelopmento fferingsa nd to reviset he schooli mprovemenpt lan. PD FLEX Flexible professional development hours (flex hours) are those hours which an employee is allowed to substitute professional development activities, different than those offered by the district, but which still meet criteria of either the employee's Individual Improvement Plan or the school's ACSIP, or both. The districts hall determineo n an annualb asis how many, if any, flex hours of professionald evelopmenti t will allow to be substitutedf or districts cheduledp rofessionald evelopmento fferings.T he determinationm ay be made at an individualb uilding,a grade,o r by subjectb asis. Employeesm ust receivea dvancea pproval from the buildingp rincipalo r districtd esigneef or activitiest hey wish to have qualifyf or flex professional developmenth ours. To the fulleste xtentp ossible,p rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitiesa re to be scheduled and attendeds uch that teachersd o not miss their regulart eachinga ssignments.S ix (6 ) approvedf lex hours credited toward fulfilling the sixty (60) hour requirement shall equal one contract day. Hours of professionald evelopmente arned by an employee in excess of sixty (60) or not pre-approved~ byt he building principal shall not be credited toward fulfilling the required number of contract days for that employee. Hours earned that count toward the required sixty (60) also count toward the required number of contract days for that employee. PD MAKEUP Teachers and administrators who, for any reason, miss part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, must make up the required hours in comparable activitiesw hich are to be pre-approvedb y the buildingp rincipalo r districtd esignee. C-4 CURRENT BOARD POLICY PD CREDIT To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentation is to be submitted to the building principal or district designee. REQUIRED PD SESSIONS Teachers and administrators are required to obtain sixty (60) hours of approved professional development annually over a five-year period as part oflicensure renewal requirements. At least six (6) of the sixty (60) annual hours shall be in the area of educational technology. Teachers are required to receive at least two hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies. Teachers who provide instruction in Arkansas history shall receive at least two (2) hours of professional development in Arkansas history as part of the sixty (60) hours required annually. Teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management and health and physical activity annually. Administrators are required to receive at least three hours annually of their sixty ( 60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies and the importance of administrative leadership in setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation. Each administrator's professional development is required to also include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership, and fiscal management. ADDITIONAL PD OPPORTUNITIES Each hour of approved training received by certified personnel related to teaching an advance placement class for a subject covered by the College Board or Educational Testing Service, shall receive up to thirty (30) hours of credit which may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional development required annually. Certified personnel may be entitled to up to twelve (12) hours of professional development for time spent planning and preparing curriculum or developing other instructional materials in their instructional classroom, office or media center prior to the first day of student/teacher interaction provided the time is spent in accordance with the state law and current ADE rules that deal with professional development Certified personnel are eligible to receive fifteen (15) professional development hours for a college course that meets the criteria identified in law and the applicable ADE rules. Upon ADE approval, the district shall determine if the hours earned apply toward the required sixty (60). A maximum of thirty (30) hours may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional development required annually. C-5 CURRENT BOARD POLICY PD DOCUMENTATION Employees who do not receive or furnish documentation of the required annual professional development - jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employee to receive sixty (60) hours of professional development in any given year may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. APPROVED PD ACTMTIES AND AREAS Approved professional development activities may include conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, district1/schoolp rograms, and approved college/university course work. Professional development activities should be consistent with the objectives developed by the National Staff Development Council Standards. Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content (K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. Notes: 1 The Rules Governing Professional Development 4.02 require the district to choose the option it will follow and \"document'' its choice. The documentation may be noted by the selection chosen for this policy and also in the distrjct's ''plan\" for professional development required by A.C.A.  6-17-704(c)(l). - Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy 5.4- STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules Governing Professional Development A.C.A.  6-15-404()(2) A.C.A.  6-17-703 A.CA. 6-17-704 A.C.A.  6-17-705 A.C.A.  6-15-1004(c) A.C.A.  6-15-1703 A.C.A.  6-20-2303(14) Date Adopted: March 21, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-6 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 3.6 CL- CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAINING All employeess hall attenda ll districtp rofessionald evelopments essionsa s directedb y a supervisor. The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its classified employees. The district's plan shall, in part, align district resources to address the professional development activities identified in each school's ACSIP. Each classified employee shall participate in professional development annually designed by the district as it pertains to each department's needs. The professional development is to be fulfilled between July 1 and June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be detennined ar.IR-Jal1l y. The district's plan shall be in alignment with the ADE Rules Governing Professional Development and current Arkansas code. Representativeso f each departments hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professionald evelopmentT. he resultso f the evaluationm ade by the participantsi n each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to revise the schooli mprovementp lan. Classifiede mployeesa re not eligiblef or flexiblep rofessionald evelopmenth ours (flex hours) The dis1rict administrationa nd the departmentd irectorsh ave the authorityt o requirea ttendancea t specificp rofessional development activities. If a classified employee, for any reason, misses part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, they must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approvedb y the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. To receive credit for his/herp rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitye ach employeei s responsiblef or obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentationi s to be submittedt o the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. The chief financiala nd informations erviceso fficer and the administratived irectoro f finance, audit, and purchasing are required to obtain 4 hours of professional development in fiscal management annually. Other classified employees who manage substantial budgets are required to obtain training in fiscal management as well with the exception of a time requirement. All classified employees inclusive of substitute teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management annually. Employeesw ho do not receive or furnishd ocumentationo f the requireda nnualp rofessionald evelopment jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employeet o attendr equiredp rofessionald evelopmenti n any given year shall be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. C-7 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 Approved professional development activities may include conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning,m entoring,p eer coaching,s tudy groups,d istancel earning,i nternships,d istrict/schoopl rograms, and approved college/universityco urse work Professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hould be consistent with the objectivesd evelopedb y the NationalS taffD evelopmenCt ouncilS tandards. Professional development activities shall relate to' the following areas: content\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmentaslt ages\nc ognitiver esearch\na nd buildinga collaborativele arningc ommunity. Netw.-1- The Rules GoverningP ffifessionaDl eo\nelopmen4t .02 require the districtt o choose the option it will followa nd \"doeument''i ts ehoiee.T he doeumootatiOmB ay be noted by the selectione hosen fur this policy and also in the district's ''plan\" for professionald e,,,elopmenrte quiredb y AC.A.  6 17 704(e)(l). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy5 .4- ProfessionaDl evelopment ArkansasS tateB oard ofEducation:S tandardso f Accreditation1 5.04 ADE RulesG overningP rofessionaDl evelopment Date Adopted: December 15, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-8 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 3.6 CL- PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT All employeess hall attenda ll districtp rofessionald evelopments essionsa s directedb y a supervisor. The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its classified employees. The district's plan shall, in part, align district resources to address the professional development activities identified in each school's ACSIP. Each classified employee shall participate in professional development annually designed by the district as it pertains to each department's needs. The professional development is to be fulfilled between July 1 and June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be determined annually: The district's plan shall be in alignment with the ADE Rules Governing Professional Development and current Arkansas code. Representativeso f each departments hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professionald evelopment.T he results of the evaluationm ade by the participantsi n each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to reviset he schooli mprovemenpt lan. Classified employees are not eligible for flexible professional development hours (flex hours) The district administrationa nd the departmentd irectorsh ave the authorityt o requirea ttendancea t specificp rofessional development activities. If a classified employee, for any reason, misses part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, they must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approvedb y the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentationi s to be submittedt o the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. The chief financiala nd informations erviceso fficer and the administratived irector of finance, audit, and purchasing are required to obtain 4 hours of professional development in fiscal management annually. Other classified employees who manage substantial budgets are required to obtain training in fiscal management as well with the exception of a time requirement. All classified employees inclusive of substitute teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management annually. Employeesw ho do not receive or furnish documentationo f the requireda nnual professionald evelopment jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employee to attend required professional development in any given year shall be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. Approved professionald evelopmenta ctivitiesm ay include conferences,w orkshops,i nstitutes,i ndividual learning,m entoring,p eer coaching,s tudy groups, distancel earning,i nternships,d istrict/schoolp rograms, and approved college/universityc ourse work. Professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hould be consistent with the objectives developed by the National Staff Development Council Standards. C-9 CURRENT BOARD POLICY Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content\nadvocacy/leadershipA\nsystemic change process\nsupervision\nmentoring,'coaching\ne ducational technology\nprinciples of W learning,'developmentsatla ges\nc ognitiver esearch\na nd buildinga collaborativel earningc ommunity. Notes: 1 The Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopment4 .02 require the district to choose the option it will follow and \"document''i ts choice.T he documentationm ay be noted by the selectionc hosen for this policy and also in the district's' 'plan\" for professionald evelopmentr equiredb y A.CA.  6-17-704(cX1). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy 5.4--STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopment Date Adopted: December 15, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-10 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 3.6 CL- CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAJNING All employeess hall attenda ll districtp rofessionald evelopments essionsa s directedb y a supervisor. The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its classified employees.T he district'sp lan shall,i n part, align districtr esourcest o addresst he professionald evelopment activities identified in each school's ACSIP. Each classified employee shall participate in professional development annually designed by the district as it pertains to each department's needs. The professional development is to be fulfilled between July 1 and June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be determined annually.1 The district's plan shall be in alignment with the ADE Rules Governing Professional Development and current Arkansas code. Representativeso f each departments hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professionald evelopmentT he resultso f the evaluationm ade by the participantsi n each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to reviset he schooli mprovemenpt lan. Classifiede mployeesa re not eligiblef or flexiblep rofessionald evelopmenth ours (flex hours) The district administrationa nd the departmentd irectorsh ave the authorityt o requirea ttendancea t specificp rofessional development activities. If a classified employee, for any reason, misses part or all of any scheduled professional development activityt hey were requiredt o attend,t hey must make up the requiredh ours in comparablea ctivitiesw hich are to be pre-approvedb y the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. To receivec redit for his/herp rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitye ach employeei s responsiblef or obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Docwnentationi s to be submittedt o the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. The chief :financiaal nd informations erviceso fficera nd the administratived irectoro f finance,a udit, and purchasing are required to obtain 4 hours of professional development in fiscal management annually. Other classified employees who manage substantial budgets are required to obtain training in fiscal management as well with the exception of a time requirement All classified employees inclusive of substitute teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management annually. Employeesw ho do not receiveo r furnishd ocumentationo f the requireda nnualp rofessionald evelopment jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employeet o attend requiredp rofessionald evelopmenti n any given year shall be groundsf or disciplinary action up to and including termination. Approvedp rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitiesm ay include conferences,w orkshops,i nstitutes,i ndividual learning,m entoring,p eer coaching,s tudy groups,d istancel earning,i nternshipsd, istrict/schoopl rograms, and approvedc ollege/universityco urse work. Professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hould be consistent with the objectivesd evelopedb y the NationalS taffD evelopmentC ouncilS tandards. C-9 CURRENT BOARD POLICY Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content\nadvocacy/leadership\nA systemic change process\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of W learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. Notes: 1 The Rules Governing Professional Development 4.02 require the district to choose the option it will follow and \"document'' its choice. The documentation may be noted by the selection chosen for this policy and also in the district's \"plan\" for professional development required by A.CA.  6-l 7-704(c)(l). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy 5.4-- STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules Governing Professional Development Date Adopted: December 15, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-10 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 5.4-- PROFESSIONALD EVELOPMENT The district administrationa nd the buildingp rincipalh ave the authorityt o require attendance at specific professionald evelopmenta ctivitiesi n conjunctionw ith state law and ADE Rules GoverningP rofessional Development. PD PLAN The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its certified employees.T he district'sp lan shall,i n part, align districtr esourcest o addresst he professionald evelopment activitiesi dentifiedi n each school's ACSIP.E ach certifiede mployees hall receivea minimumo f sixty (60) hours of professionald evelopmenta nnuallyw hich must be approvedb r the district and :fulfilledb etween My 1 aad June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be determined annually. Professional development hours earned in excesso f sixty (60) in the designatedy ear cannotb e carried over to the next year. The goal of all professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hallb e improveds tudenta chievementa nd academicp erformancet hat results in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state criterion-referenced assessments. The district's professional developmentp lan shall demonstrates cientificallyr esearch-basedb est practice, and shall be based on studenta chievementd ata and in alignmentw ith the ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopmenta nd current Arkansas code. Teachersa nd administratorss hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professional development. The results of the evaluation made by the participants in each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to revise the schooli mprovemenpt lan. PD FLEX Flexible professional development hours (flex hours) are those hours which an employee is allowed to substitute professional development activities, different than those offered by the district, but which still meet criteria of either the employee's Individual Improvement Plan or the school's ACSIP, or both. The districts hall determineo n an annualb asis how many, if any, flex hours of professionald evelopmenti t will allow to be substituted for district scheduled professional development offerings. The determination may be made at an individual building, a grade, or by subject basis. Employees most receive advance approval from the buildingp rincipalo r districtd esigneef or activitiest hey wish to have qualifyf or flex professional development hours. To the fullest extent possible, professional development activities are to be scheduled and attendeds uch that teachersd o not miss their regulart eachinga ssignments.S ix (6 ) approvedf lex hours credited toward fulfilling the sixty (60) hour requirement shall equal one contract day. Hours of professional development earned by an employee in excess of sixty (60) or not pre-approved by the building principal shall not be credited toward fulfilling the required number of contract days for that employee. Hours earned that count toward the required sixty (60) also count toward the required number of contract days for that employee. C-11 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 PD MAKEUP Teachers and administrators who, for any reason, miss part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approved by the building principal or district designee. PD CREDIT To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentation is to be submitted to the building principal or district designee. REQUIRED PD SESSIONS Teachers and administrators are required to obtain sixty (60) hours of approved professional development annually over a five-year period as part oflicensure renewal requirements. At least six (6) of the sixty (60) annual hours shall be in the area of educational technology. Teachers are required to receive at least two hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies. Teachers who provide instruction in Arkansas history shall receive at least two (2) hours of professional A development in Arkansas history as part of the sixty ( 60) hours required annually. W Teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management and health and physical activity annually. ' Administrators are required to receive at least three hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies and the importance of administrative leadership in setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation. Each administrator's professional development is required to also include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership, and fiscal management. ADDIDONAL PD OPPORTUNITIES Each hour of approved training received by certified personnel related to teaching an advance placement class for a subject covered by the College Board or Educational Testing Service, shall receive up to thirty (30) hours of credit which may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional development required annually. Certified personnel may be entitled to up to twelve (12) hours of professional development for time spent planning and preparing curriculum or developing other instructional materials in their instructional classroom, office or media center prior to the first day of student/teacher interaction provided the time is spent in accordance with the state law and current ADE rules that deal with professional development. C-12 . . . PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 Certified personnel are eligible to receive fifteen (15) professional development hours for a college course that meets the criteria identified in law and the applicable ADE rules. Upon ADE approval, the district shall determine if the hours earned apply toward the required sixty (60). A maximum of thirty (30) hours may be applied toward the sixty ( 60) hours of professional development required annually. PD DOCUMENTATION Employees who do not receive or furnish documentation of the required annual professional development jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employee to receive sixty (60) hours of professional development in any given year may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. APPROVED PD ACTMTIES AND AREAS Approved professional development activities may include conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, district/school programs, and approved college/university course work Professional development activities should be consistent with the objectives developed by the National Staff Development Council Standards. Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content (K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. Nete\u0026amp;.--T-1h e Rules Govemmg Professional Development 4.02 reqtJiret he distriet to ehoose the option it will follow and \"doeument'' its ehoiee. The doeU1Hentatiomn ay be noted by the selection ehosen for this policy and also in the district's ''plan\" for pFOfessiona:d1e velopment required by A.C.A.  6 17 704(e)(l). Cross-Reference: Policy 3.6 - CERTIFIED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAINING Policy 3.6 - CL CLASSISIFED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAINING Legal References: Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules Governing Professional Development A.CA. 6-15-404(f)(2) A.CA 6-17-703 A.CA 6-17-704 A.CA 6-17-705 A.CA 6-15-1004(c) A.CA 6-15-1703 A.CA 6-20-2303(14) Date Adopted: June 26, 1986 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-13 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 5.4-PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The district administrationa nd the buildingp rincipalh ave the authorityt o require attendancea t specific professionald evelopmenta ctivitiesi n conjunctionw ith state law and ADE Rules GoverningP rofessional Development PD PLAN The District shall develop and implement a plan, for the professional development of its certified employees.T he district'sp lan shall,i n part, alignd istrictr esourcest o addresst he professionald evelopment activitiesi dentifiedi n each school's ACSIP.E ach certifiede mployees hall receivea minimumo f sixty (60) hours of professional development annually which must be approved by the district and fulfilled between July I and June 30 or June I and May 31, to be determined annually.1 Professional development hours earnedi n excesso f sixty (60) in the designatedy ear cannotb e carriedo ver to the next year. The goal of all professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hall be improveds tudenta chievementa nd academicp erformancet hat results in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state criterion-referenceda ssessments. The district's professional development plan shall demonstrates cientificallyr esearch-basedb est practice, and shall be based on studenta chievementd ata and in alignmentw ith the ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopmenta nd current Arkansas code. Teachersa nd administrators hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professional development. The results of the evaluation made by the participants in each A program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to W revise the schooli mprovemenpt lan. PD FLEX Flexible professional development hours (flex hours) are those hours which an employee is allowed to substitute professional development activities, different than those offered by the district, but which still meet criteria of either the employee's Individual Improvement Plan or the school's ACSIP, or both. The districts hall determineo n an annualb asis how many,i f any, flex hours of professionald evelopmenti t will allow to be substitutedf or districts cheduledp rofessionald evelopmento fferings.T he determinationm ay be made at an individualb uilding,a grade,o r by subjectb asis. Employeesm ust receivea dvancea pproval from the building principal or district designee for activities they wish to have qualified for flex professionald evelopmenth ours. To the fulleste xtent possible,p rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitiesa re to be scheduled and attended such that teachers do not miss their regular teaching assignments. Six (6) approvedf lex hours creditedt owardf ulfillingt he sixty (60) hour requirements hall equal one contractd ay. Hours of professionald evelopmente arnedb y an employeei n excess of sixty (6 0) or not pre-approvedb y the building principal shall not be credited toward fulfilling the required number of contract days for that employee. Hours earned that count toward the required sixty (60) also count toward the required number of contract days for that employee. C-14 CURRENT BOARD POLICY POMA.KEUP Teachers and administrators who, for any reason, miss part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approved by the building principal or district designee. PD CREDIT To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentation is to be submitted to the building principal or district designee. REQUIRED PD SESSIONS Teachers and administrators are required to obtain sixty (60) hours of approved professional development annually over a five-year period as part oflicensure renewal requirements. At least six (6) of the sixty (60) annual hours shall be in the area of educational technology. Teachers are required to receive at least two hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies. Teachers who provide instruction in Arkansas history shall receive at least two (2) hours of professional development in Arkansas history as part of the sixty ( 60) hours required annually. Teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management and health and physical activity annually. Administrators are required to receive at least three hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies and the importance of administrative leadership in setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation. Each administrator's professional development is required to also include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership, and fiscal management ADDIDONAL PD OPPORTUNITIES Each hour of approved training received by certified personnel related to teaching an advance placement class for a subject covered by the College Board or Educational Testing Service, shall receive up to thirty (30) hours of credit which may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional-development required annually. Certified personnel may be entitled to up to twelve (12) hours of professional development for time spent planning and preparing curriculum or developing other instructional materials in their instructional classroom, office or media center prior to the first day of student/teacher interaction provided the time is spent in accordance with the state law and current ADE rules that deal with professional development. C-15 CURRENT BOARD POLICY Certifiedp ersonnela re eligiblet o receivef ifteen( 15) professionald evelopmenth ours for a collegec ourse that meets the criteria identified in law and the applicable ADE rules. Upon ADE approval, the district - shall detennine if the hours earned apply toward the required sixty (60). A maxirrnnn of thirty (30) hours may be appliedt owardt he sixty( 6 0) hourso f professionald evelopmentr equireda nnually. PD DOCUMENTATION Employeesw ho do not receiveo r furnishd ocmnentationo f the requireda nnualp rofessionald evelopment jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employeet o receive sixty (60) hours of professionald evelopmenti n any given year may be groundsf or disciplinarya ctionu p to and includingt ermination. ' APPROVED PD ACTMTIES AND AREAS Approvedp rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitiesm ay include conferences,w orkshops,i nstitutes,i ndividual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, district/school programs, and approved college/university coursew ork. Professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess houldb e consistentw ith the objectivesd evelopedb y the NationalS taffD evelopmentC ouncilS tandards. Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content (K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\ns ystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculmn alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmentaslt ages\nc ognitiver esearch\na nd buildinga collaborativele arningc ommunity. Notes: 1 The Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopment4 .02 requiret he districtt o choose the option it A will follow and \"docmnent''i ts choice.T he docmnentationm ay be noted by the selectionc hosen  for this policy and also in the district's\" plan\" for professionald evelopmentr equiredb y A.CA  6-l 7-704(c)(l ). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy3 .6---CERTIFIEDP ERSONNELE MPLOYEET RAINING Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopment A.CA 6-15-404(f)(2) A.CA. 6-17-703 A.CA. 6-17-704 A.CA. 6-17-705 A.CA. 6-15-1004(c) A.CA. 6-15-1703 A.CA. 6-20-2303(14) Date Adopted: June 26, 1986 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-16 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY . ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 5.15--GRADING Parents or guardians shall be kept informed concerning the progress of their student Parent-teacher conferences are encouraged and may be requested by parents, guardians, or teachers. If the progress of a student is unsatisfactory in a subject, the teacher shall attempt to schedule a parent-teacher conference. In the conference, the teacher shall explain the reasons for difficulties and shall develop, cooperatively with the parents, a plan for remediation which may enhance the probability of the student succeeding. The school shall also send timely progress reports midway of each quarter and issue grades for each nine-week grading period to keep parents/guardians informed of their student's progress. The evaluation of each student's performance on a regular basis serves to give the parents/guardians, students, and the school necessary information to help effect academic improvement Students' grades shall reflect only the extent to which a student has achieved the expressed educational objectives of the course. Students in grades Kl-6 will be graded each nine weeks. Students in grades 7-8 will receive four nine weeks grades and two semester averages. Students in grades 9-12 will receive four quarterly grades, semester exam grades, and two semester averages. For students in grades 9-12, the two quarterly grades shall equal 80% of the semester average, and the semester test shall equal 20% of the semester average. Semester test must be taken before credit in a course is awarded. The grading scale for all schools in the district shall be as follows. A=l00-90 B=89-80 C=79-70 D=69-60 F = 59 and below For the purpose of determining grade point averages, the numeric value of each letter grade shall be A=4points B= 3 points C=2 points D= 1 point F=0 points Grade point average is computed for each student at the secondary level based on all letter grades the student has received for each semester's work using the above four point scale carried to two decimal places. A semester grade point average is computed on the grades from the two nine weeks' grading periods and the semester test grade. C-17 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 The grade point values for AP and approved honor courses shall be one point greater than for regular courses with the exception that an F shall still be worth O points. A checklistw ill be used in kindergartena t the end of each nine weeks. An I (introducing)D, (develwing), P (proficient),o r N (needs improvement}w ill be given'i n kindergarteni n the areas of reading, writing, socials kills/workh abits,s ocials tudies,s cience/healthm. ath. art, physicale ducation,a nd music. An S (satisfactory) or N (needs improvement) is given in grades 1-5 for handwriting, art, music, and physical education. Legal References: Date Adopted: Last Revised: AC.A. 6-15-902 StateB oard of Education:S tandardso f Accreditation1 2.02 Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Regulations Governing Uniform Grading Scales for Public Secondary Schools February 27, 1996 November 16, 2006 C-18 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 5.15-GRADING Parents or guardians shall be kept informed concerning the progress of their student Parent-teacher conferences are encouraged and may be requested by parents, guardians, or teachers. If the progress of a student is unsatisfactoryin a subject,t he teachers hall attemptt o schedulea parent-teacherc onference.I n the conference,t he teachers hall explaint he reasons for difficultiesa nd shall develop,c ooperativelyw ith the parents, a plan for remediation which may enhance the probability of the student succeeding. The school shall also send timely progress reports midway of each quarter and issue grades for each nine-week gradingp eriodt o keep parents/guardianisn formedo f their student'sp rogress. The evaluation of each student's performance on a regular basis serves to give the parents/guardians, students, and the school necessary information to help effect academic improvement. Students' grades shall reflect only the extent to which a student has achieved the expressed educational objectives of the course. Students in grades K-6 will be graded each nine weeks. Students in grades 7-8 will receive four nine weeks grades and two semester averages. Students in grades 9-12 will receive four quarterly grades, semester exam grades, and two semester averages. For students in grades 9-12, the two quarterly grades shall equal 80% of the semester average, and the semester test shall equal 20% of the semester average. Semester test must be taken before credit in a course is awarded. The grading scale for all schools in the district shall be as follows. A=l00-90 B= 89-80 C=79-70 D= 69-60 F = 59 and below For the purposeo f determiningg radep ointa verages,t he numericv alueo f each letterg rade shall be A=4points B = 3 points C=2 points D= 1 point F= 0 points Grade point average is computed for each student at the secondary level based on all letter grades the student has received for each semester's work using the above four point scale carried to two decimal places. A semester-grade point average is computed on the grades from the two nine weeks' grading periods and the semester test grade. C-19 CURRENT BOARD POLICY The grade point values for AP and approved honor courses shall be one point greater than for regular A courses with the exception that an F shall still be worth O points. W Legal References: A.CA. 6-15-902 State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 12.02 Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Regulations Governing Unifonn Grading Scales for Public Secondary Schools Date Adopted: February27, 1996 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-20 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO: Ken Kirspel, Superintendent of Schools FROM: Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education SUBJECT: Recommendation ofK-5 Science/Health Adoption Date: January 11, 2007 The K-5 Elementary Science Adoption Committee recommends the following for Science and Health for the beginning of the 2007-08 school year: Grades K-5 K-5 Title and/or Series Science - See learning in a whole new light Kids For Health Publisher Scott Foresman Kids For Health The committee's recommendation of the above materials was based on the following criteria:  Framework alignment  Direct, guided and full inquiries  Efficient lab set ups  Variety of writing prompts  ESL components at the end of each lesson for all learners  Literacy and math integrated with science  Comprehensive assessments. D-1 -TO: FROM: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KEN KIRSPEL, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS RHONDA DICKEY, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION SUBJECT: SECONDARY SCIENCE/HEAL TH TEXTBOOK ADOPTION COMMITTEE DATE: JANUARY 11, 2007 ' Recommendation for the Secondary Science/Health Adoption Committee 2006-2007 Name Subject School Joyce Lofton Physical Science East Cynthia Kirby Biology (Chair) East Karen White Parent East David Wallace Health (Chair) East Rebecca Priester Chemistry West Steve Boutwell Zoology West AbbraBest Anatomy \u0026amp; Physiology West Glen Amis Physics (Chair) West Gwen Wiggins Principles of Technology West Janet Garrison Special Education West Stacy Cochran Biology/Environ. Science Argenta John Talley Physical Science Argenta Cathy Alexander Science Poplar Street MaryBalest Health Poplar Street Sharla Smith Parent Poplar Street Amber Gereaux Science (Chair) Lakewood Cassandra Peck Science (Chair) Ridgeroad Brock Moore Health Ridgeroad Jennifer Conner Science (Chair) Rose City Rellia Dillinger Special Education Administration Paulette Blevins Instr. Science Specialist Administration Rhonda Dickey Admin. Dir. of Sec. Ed. Administration Angela Olsen Assistant Superintendent Administration Curriculum \u0026amp; Instruction E-1 Class North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street P.O. Box 687  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115-0687 501.771.8000  www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us MEMO TO: Ken Kirspel, Superintendent FROM: Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services SUBJECT: Crestwood Elementary Bid Recommendation DATE: January 10, 2007 Attached is the bid tabulation. The lowest responsive bid has yet to be determined. A recommendation will be made at the Board Meeting on January 18, 2007. Below is a budget summary of the Construction Funds based on the Flynco bid which is the most expensive recommendat,ion expected. Construction funds Available June 27, 2006 Transitional Projects District Share (Roofing) Crestwood Addition Bid $2,862,000.00 Fees $ 243,270.00 District $ 60,000.00 State Facilities Contribution Lakewood Middle Addition Estimated State Facilities Contribution Balance $7,415,000.00 - $3,149,503.54 - $3,165,270.00 + $ 792,084.00 - $2,157,565.00 + 597,730.00 $ 332,475.46 \"World Class Schools for World Class Students\" An Equal Opportunity Employer F-1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BID SUMMARY MEDIA CENTER AND CLASSROOM ADDITION CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Bell Construction Flynco, Inc. G.A.G. Builders Hydco, Inc. J and D Construction CBM Construction CWR Construction DAYCO F-2 $2,950,484.00 $2,862,000.00 $2,940,000.00 $3,139,960.00 $3,067,000.00 $2,863,000.00 $2,898,000.00 $2,447,000.00 I North Llttle Rock School District Local Revenue Current Taxes Pullback Delinquent Taxes Excess Commissions Land Redemption Penalties \u0026amp; Interest on Taxes Tuition-Summer School/Day Care Interest on Investments Soft Drink Sales Misc Rev From Local Total Local Revenue Revenue From Intermediate Source !Severance Tax Revenue from State Sources-Unrestricted State Equalization Aid Student Growth Funding 0th Unrestr Grants-in-Aid Revenue from State Sources-Restricted ReQular Education Special Education Early Childhood M-to-M Non-Instr Pgms Misc State .. tal Revenu e State TOTAL REVE Building Fun Capital Outla Food Service Federal TOTAL REVE NUE OPERATIONS d y s NUE DECEMBER2 006 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual YT-OActual $12,510,000.00 $7,203,785.40 $10,977,197.18 $6,250,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,471,000.00 $230,692.00 $978,717.05 $310,000.00 .. $0.00 $0.00 $185,000.00 $17,489.63 $104,262.72 $62,000.00 $13,059.98 $27,928.84 $105,000.00 $3,063.53 $22,700.67 $900,000.00 $91,471.76 $551,332.82 $79,000.00 $0.00 $22,767.51 $84,460.00 $8,044.55 $93,506.11 $21,956,460.00 $7,567,606.85 $12,778,412.90 $10,100.00! $0.00! $4,806.57! $35,477,276.00 $3,225,207.00 $16,126,034.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,100.00 $534,639.00 $0.00 $458,020.51 $4,903,623.00 $236,247.00 $1,372,686.00 $2,213,250.00 $0.00 $1,146,732.49 $6,980,000.00 $0.00 $2,315,724.81 $381,715.00 $13,323.80 $202,530.80 $52,500.00 $9,785.00 $55,991.22 $50,545,003.00 $3,484,562.80 $21,679,819.83 $72,511,563.00 $11,052,169.65 $34,463,039.30 $233,000.00 $28,548.49 $204,045.31 $1,550,000.00 $567,414.13 $912,499.24 $3,669,000.00 $323,813.38 $1,479,361.09 $7,181,864.00 $342,804.85 $1,305,334.53 $85,145,427.00 $12,314,750.50 $38,364,279.47 0-1 %YTD Budget Balance Actual/Bud $1,532,802.82 87.75% $6,250,000.00 0.00% $492,282.95 66.53% $310,000.00 0.00% $80,737.28 56.36% $34,071.16 45.05% $82,299.33 21.62% $348,667.18 61.26% $56,232.49 28.82% -$9,046.11 110.71% $9,178,047.10 58.20% $5,293.43! 47.59%! $19,351,242.00 45.45% $0.00 -$100.00 105.00% $76,618.49 85.67% $3,530,937.00 27.99% $1,066,517.51 51.81% $4,664,275.19 33.18% $179,184.20 53.06% -$3,491.22 106.65% $28,865, 183.17 42.89% $38,048,523.70 47.53% $28,954.69 87.57o/e $637,500.76 58.87% $2,189,638.91 40.32/o $5,876,529.47 18.18% $46,781,147.53 45.06% Expenditure Category CERTIFIED SALARIES CERTIFIED BENEFITS CLASSIFIED SALARIES CLASSIFIED BENEFITS TOTAL SALARIES \u0026amp; BENEFITS Purchased-Prof fr ech Services Purchased Prooerty Services Other Purchased Services Supplies and Materials Property Other Objects Debt Service Total Other Expenditures OPERATING FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND BUILDING FUND FEDERAL FUND FOOD SERVICE FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES North Llttle Rock School District DECEMBER20 06 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-0 Actual $37,526,650.00 . $3,716,755.25 $14,886,428.60 $9,846,135.00 768,346.10 $3,104,411.61 $9,779,440.00 $1,279,505.59 $4,987,489.90 $3,975,887.00 $340,739.86 $1,455,859.42 $61,128,112.00 $6,105,346.80 $24,434,189.53 $1,421,058.00 $52,222.82 $337,383.35 $980,780.60 $49,526.94 $405,069.49 $2,600,000.00 $708,134.66 $1,292,845.13 $4,250,000.00 $314,932.33 $2,150,607.01 $2,208,614.00 $5,175.06 $2,024,320.23 $700,000.00 $5,940.50 $736,524.47 $1,110,370.00 $0.00 $218.32 $13,270,822.60 $1,135,932.31 $6,946,968.00 $74,398,934.60 $7,241,279.11 $31,381,157.53 $1,791,824.00 $46,143.31 $694,557.23 $5,530,900.00 $519,880.63 $3,257,190.87 $7,751,725.93 $694,503.65 $2,496,056.37 $3,212,423.00 $413,974.20 $1,685,165.76 $92,685,807.53 $8,915,780.90 $39,514,127.76 0-2 %Yid Budget Balance ActuaL'Bud $22,640,221.40 39.67% $6,741,723.39 50.65% $4,791,950.10 14.89% $2,520,027.58 36.62% $36,693,922.47 39.97o/, $1,083,674.65 23.74% $575,711.11 41.30% $1,307,154.87 49.72% $2,099,392.99 50.60% $184,293.77 91.66% -$36,524.47 105.22% $1,110,151.68 0.02% $6,323,854.60 52.35% $43,017,777.07 42.18% $1,097,266.77 38.76o/, $2,273,709.13 58.89% $5,255,669.56 32.20% $1,527,257.24 52.46% $53,171,679.77 42.63% Function Category 11 XX ReQular ProQrams-Elem/Sec 12XX Special Education 13XX Workforce Education 15XX Compensatory Education 19XX Other Instructional 21XX Suooort Services-Students 22XX Suport Services-Instruction 23XX Suooort Services-Administration 24XX Suooort Services-Sch Admin 25XX Suooort Services-Business 26XX M \u0026amp; 0 Plant Services 27XX Pupil Transportation 28XX Suooort Services-Central 29XX Other Suooort Services 31XX Food Services 33XX Community Service Operations 34XX Other Non-Instr Services 43XX Site Improvement Services 5XX Ed Spec Dev Services 6XX BldQ Aca/Constr Services 47XX Building Improvements 51XX LEA Indebtedness 53XX Payment to other LEA 55XX Indirect CosUAdmin Chan:1es GRAND TOTAL North Llttle Rock School District FUNCTION  DECEMBER 2006 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-0 Actual $28,584,257.10 $2,563,843.17 $10,914,309.88 $9,561,331.69 $857,901.90 $3,189,824.47 $1,564,621.37 $162,959.27 $631,053.94 $4,340,644.20 $456,909.70 $1,301,857.80 $3,826,038.74 $357,150.51 $1,492,520.78 $6,055,139.19 $601,474.29 $2,499,096.44 $5,365,715.06 $449,204.37 $2,097,916.42 $1,210,728.13 $91,052.28 $443, 151.96 $4,039,640.57 $408,056.34 $1,914,914.70 $1,428,158.93 $100,494.49 $679,211.48 $6,524,519.03 $607,995.53 $3,141,368.45 $3,547,667.77 $453,732.71 $1,891,532.52 $945,077.33 $96,461.10 $519,437.85 $436,103.89 $65,034.79 $211,163.17 $3,997,597.66 $488,053.62 $1,955,129.38 $47,274.41 $2,576.81 $11,729.56 $123,406.25 $13,259.34 $63,388.26 $938,867.80 $0.00 $490,381.42 $470.21 $0.00 $0.00 $12,225.33 $9,405.41 $9,405.41 $6,402,208.35 $525,609.64 $4,779,077.85 $1,923,825.10 $1,345.25 $674,395.64 $1,692,738.14 $603,260.38 $603,260.38 $117,551.26 $0.00 $0.00 $92,685,807.53 $8,915,780.90 $39,514,127.76 0-3 % Ytd Budget Balance ActuaUBud $17,669,947.22 38.18% $6,371,507.22 33.36% $933,567.43 40.33% $3,038,786.40 29.99% $2,333,517.96 39.01% $3,556,042.75 41.27% $3,267,798.64 39.10% $767,576.17 36.60% $2,124,725.87 47.40% $748,947.45 47.56% $3,383, 150.58 48.15% $1,656,135.25 53.32% $425,639.48 54.96% $224,940.72 48.42% $2,042,468.28 48.91% $35,544.85 24.81% $60,017.99 51.37% $448,486.38 52.23% $470.21 0.00% $2,819.92 76.93% $1,623,130.50 74.65% $1,249,429.46 35.05% $1,089,477.76 35.64% $117,551.26 0.00% $53,171,679.77 42.63% North Uttle Rock school District SOURCEO F FUNDS DECEMBER2 006 Current Month %Ytd Source of Funds Category Budget Actual Y-T -0 Actual Budget Balance Actual/Bud 000 Non-cateaorical $67,861,196.61 $6,935,038.27 $28,764,946.93 $39,096,249.68 42.39% 213 Intensive School Improvement $1,128.49 $609.90 $609.90 $518.59 54.05% 223 Prof Development Act 59 $419,005.01 $9,434.87 $114,102.56 $304,902.45 27.23% 225 Technoloov Grant $1,626.91 $0.00 $0.00 $1,626.91 0.00% 227 CPEP $78,552.45 $0.00 $9,800.54 $68,751.91 12.48% 245 Pathwise Mentoring $85,953.48 $34,886.77 $36,934.87 $49,018.61 42.97% 250 Act 591 Residential $48,901.32 $0.00 $0.00 $48,901.32 0.00% 260 Early Childhood Sp Ed $982,979.62 $82,925.51 $360,125.71 $622,853.91 36.64% 271 GIT Advance Placement $4,523.03 $0.00 $0.00 $4,523.03 0.00% 275 Alternative LeaminQ Environment $1,283,801.76 $111,313.32 $450,272.88 $833,528.88 35.07% 276 English Lang Learners $36,309.23 $517.\n21 $12,808.61 $23,500.62 35.28% 281 NSLA $2,303,528.84 $233,368.00 $874,898.15 $1,428,630.69 37.98% 365 ABC Preschool $2,409,866.65 $205,459.72 $763,922.77 $1,645,943.88 31.70% 381 Smart Start Literacy $74,838.77 $7,198.39 $39,840.05 $34,998.72 53.23% 392 General Facility Funding $571,534.22 $74,063.14 $313,045.25 $258,488.97 54.77% 398 OHS Preschool Improvement $940.41 $0.00 $0.00 $940.41 0.00% 401 Academic Fae lmmed Repair $2,111,549.76 $2,687.94 $1,995,775.57 $115,774.19 94.52% 403 Academic Fae Transitional Pgm $4,878,659.39 $516,880.63 $3,150,489.84 $1,728,169.55 64.58% 404 Academic Fae Partnership Pgm $322,654.70 $3,000.00 $106,701.03 $215,953.67 33.07% 406 lmprv Lit Thru Libraries $4,123.22 $0.00 $4,358.47 -$235.25 105.71% 430 ROTC $119,009.84 $11,970.02 $54,437.77 $64,572.07 45.74% 441 Title IV-B 21st Century $193,747.24 $12,309.11 $68,387.66 $125,359.58 35.30% 467 Hurricane Relief-Homeless $0.00 $0.00 $40.22 -$40.22 501 Title 1-Reo Comp Ed $4,106,564.85 $378,750.97 $1,077,697.90 $3,028,866.95 26.24% 520 Title V-A Innovative Program $9,404.10 $0.00 $0.00 $9,404.10 0.00% 523 Title I Readino First $294,198.13 $16,686.65 $104,635.19 $189,562.94 35.57% 530 Homeless-Stewart McKinney $34,795.17 $534.60 $7,798.46 $26,996.71 22.41% 535 Title V-B Charter Schools $47,678.79 $3,852.66 $24,715.80 $22,962.99 51.84% 565 Teacher Quality Enhancement $67,652.16 $6,547.40 $25,314.67 $42,337.49 37.42% 570 Carf Perkins Vocational $202,278.45 $18,010.35 $26,859.39 $175,419.06 13.26% 702 Title VI-B PL 94-142 $1,798,865.29 $132,965.75 $520,855.28 $1,278,010.01 26.95% 710 Sp Ed Preschool Sec 619 $879,728.52 $77,590.03 $357,016.86 $522,711.66 40.56% 750 Medicaid $169,627.41 $7,656.57 $56,711.51 $112,915.90 33.43% 751 Medicaid Sp Ed Preschool $79,934.86 $5,278.84 $20,930.34 $59,004.52 26.18% 754 Javits - GIT Grant $9,404.10 $24.82 $9,526.00 -$121.90 101.30% 756 Title II-A Improve Teaching $889,854.57 $13,982.20 $96,790.65 $793,063.92 10.88% 761 Title Ill Eno Lang Acqui $17,658.08 $130.00 $3,305.00 $14,353.08 18.72% 781 Title IV-A Drug Ed $56,080.41 $5,255.46 $16,037.36 $40,043.05 28.60% 785 Comprehensive Sch Health $14,952.53 $0.00 $11,217.47 $3,735.06 75.02% 796 Workforce Investment Act $25,861.28 $2,958.22 $9,420.37 $16,440.91 36.43% 995 Soft Drink Acct $186,837.85 $3,893.58 $23,796.73 $163,041.12 12.74% GRAND TOTAL $92,685,807.53 $8,915,780.90 $39,514,127.76 $53,171,679.77 42.63/4 0-4 $80,000,000.00 $70,000,000.00 $60,000,000.00 .$50,000,000.00 $40,000,000:00 $30,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $0.00  Budget El Expenses NLRSD Actual to Budget Comparison As of December, 2006 Operating Building Capital Outlay Federal Food Service $74,398,934.60 $5,530,900.00 $1,791,824.00 $7,751,725.93 $3,212,423.00 $31,381,157.53 $3,257,190.87 $694,557.23 $2,496,056.37 $1,685,165.76 Funds 0-5  Budget Ill Expenses Corinne Burkhardt Kelli Hogue Carolyn Rasner Griffin, Kyle Smedley, Telicia NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Board Agenda - January 18, 2007 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS NLRHS- West Campus, Special Education Teacher, Effective 12/20/06 NLRHS -East Campus, Math Teacher, Effective 1/10/07 NLRHS - East Campus, Special Education Teacher, Effective 12/14/06 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL Tri-District Early Childhood Program, Speech Language Pathologist, Effective 12/15/06, Category IV, Step 18, 190 days Boone Park Elementary, Pre-Kindergarten Teacher, Effective 1/16/07, Category I, Step 0, 190 days NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS NAME: Kyle Mark Griffin PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Tri-District Early Childhood Program, Speech Language Pathologist EDUCATION: B.A. - University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little. Rock, AR 8/80 LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: M.S. - University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 5/84 Standard Five Year- Speech Language Pathology (#532) 12/31/07 RECOMMENDATION 21 years experience as a teacher / speech pathologist in Arkansas - Thelma Jasper, Tri-District Early Childhood Program Coordinator Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel P-1 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) NAME: Telicia Lynn Smedley PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Boone Park Elementary, Pre-Kindergarten Teacher EDUCATION: B.A. - University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 12/06 LICENSURE: Initial Three Year, Early Childhood Education, P-4 STUDENT TEACHING: Boone Park Elementary, NLR, AR 10/06-12/06 Indian Hills Elementary. NLR, AR 01/05 - 05/05 RECOMMENDATION: Jody Edrington, Coordinator of Early Childhood Programs Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Belinda Brown Tonja Chestnut Kay Edwards Allegra Friels Cora Hair Sharee Jefferson De Wayne Johnson Shirley Lee Deatra Martin Cenita Mason Trinette McCuien Bobbie Moffett CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS NLRHS West Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 9-01-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-08-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective I 0-31-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective I 0-09-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8/18/06 Poplar Street Middle School - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 11-26-06 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School - Child Nutrition A~sistant Effective 12-12-06 Poplar Street Middle School - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 9-24-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8-18-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-20-06 NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8/18/06 NLRHS West Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8/18/06 P-2 Marnell Nelson Felicia Phillips Heather Phillips Contonia Russell Arlisha Smith Bruce Strong Vilesia Tatum Angela Thomas Kandis Thrower Sheila Arnold Jonda Eskridge Melissa Hadley Cenita Mason Sherri Pettit Vicktonya Reeves CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS - CONTINUED NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8-18-06 NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-01-06 Food Services department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 11-1 7-06 Pike View Elementary-Teacher's Aide/Pre-Kindergarten Effective O 1-03-07 Belwood Elementary - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8/22/06 North Heights Elementary - Lead Custodian Effective 12-15-06 Lynch Drive Elementary - Lunch Period Aide Effective O 1-03-07 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 10-18-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 10-01-06 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES From NLRHS West Campus-Secretary To NLRHS West Campus-Office Secretary From Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant To NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant From NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant To Ridgeroad Middle Charter School - Child Nutrition Assistant From Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant To NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant From Administration - Adm. Dir. Finance/ Audit/Purchasing, Secretary To Administration - Asst. Supt. of Curriculum/Instruction, Secretary From Food Services Department -Child Nutrition Assistant To NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant P-3 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES - CONTINUED Diane Roberts From Pike View Elementary - Child Nutrition Assistant To Food Services Department-Child Nutrition Assistant Billie Stewart Erin Engelkes Renee Lynn Gray Mary Sydney Hess Ronda Jackson Tina King From Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant To Lynch Drive Elementary- Child Nutrition Assistant NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL Seventh Street Elementary - Early Morning Aide Effective 12-08-06, Category 260, Step 19, 178 days Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 01-04-07, Category 901, Step 21, 181 days Poplar Street Middle School - Secretary Effective 12-07-06, Category 230, Step 51,205 days Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 01-04-07, Category 902, Step 23, 181 days Lynch Drive Elementary-Lunch Period Aide Effective 12-14-06, Category 260, Step 19, 178 days Sherrell Layton Food Services Department-Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-20-06, Category 901, Step 18, 181 days Zera Shannen Mays ---- Tri-District Early Childhood - Office Secretary Effective 12-15-06, Category 225, Step 51, 252 days Ella Webster-Mason ---- Food Services Department- Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-11-06, Category 901, Step 18, 181 days Joy Ploszay Amboy Elementary - Early Morning Aide Effective O 1-05-07, Category 266, Step 26, 178 day\\ Mary Watson Transportation Department - Bus Driver Effective 01-03-07, Category 507, Step 51, 190 days P-4 January 8, 2007 To: Barry Kincl Cc: Jerry Massey, Marsha Satterfield, Lee Tackett From: Amanda Coombe, North Little Rock High School Speech and Drama Teachers, and Cast/Crew Party Liasons RE: 2007 Cast and Crew Party for Peter Pan On behalf of the parent volunteers who are organizing the Peter Pan Cast and Crew party on Sunday, March 4, 2007 following the matinee performance, I respectfully request official access and appropriate supervision for decorating the cafeteria at East Campus as well as heat/air for the event. The following dates and times will be necessary: FRIDAY, MARCH 2- after the last lunch shift, from 3:30-6:30pm. We will decorate the ceiling first, so if the cafeteria workers stand the tables up to mop, they can leave them up for decorating. SATURDAY, MARCH 3- From 8:15am-5:30pm SUNDAY, MARCH 4- from 12:30pm until after the party and clean up, approximately 10:00pm. In addition, please DO NOT WAX THE FLOORS FRIDAY AFTERNOON. According to parents this delayed the opening of the cafeteria for parents in times past. We also request the use of rolling scaffolding and two tall ladders on Friday to work on ceilings and other decorations. It would also be helpful if we had a copy of the table set up. We will do our best to put tables back where they belong. It is an honor and a privilege to use this beautiful facility! This event is a large undertaking and we are thankful for your support. We also thank you for time and consideration of this request. Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns. Amanda Coombe School: 771-8127 Home: 772-6907 S-1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO . . 00 0 A T \u0026amp; T 84.00 63030 A-ONE LAMINATION, INC. 150.36 62883 A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES 1,424.64 63170 A'TEST CONSULTANTSIN C 599.00 62908 A'TEST CONSULTANTSIN C 232.00 63416 AAA AUDIO METRICS/MEDICAL 55.00 62719 AAEA 241.32 63191 AASBO 60.00 63251 AASBO 115.00 63517 ABILITATIONS 555.23 62874 ACCESS SCHOOLS 3,125.00 62673 ACE GLASS COMPANY, INC. 536.44 62651 ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC 12,948.68 63492 ADRIAN CHILLIEST 60.00 63369 ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. 1,321.37 63008 AEA 1,213.68 63499 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 2,277.00 62594 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 60.00 62624 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 2,277.00 63185 - AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 60.00 63239 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 2,277.00 63512 AETNA LIFE \u0026amp; CASUALTY 1,622.14 62652 AHA PROCESS INCORPOARTED 6,449.09 63139 AIR DISTRIBUTORS CO INC 3,327.54 63583 ALAN CROWNOVER 238.45 62946 ALARMCOIN CORPORATED 2,886.38 63403 ALARMTECS YSTEMS 295. 00 63015 ALEXANDRAPR ITCHETT 43.68 62969 ALICIA YARBROUGH 45.79 63155 ALIGN .00 62584 V ALIGN .00 62598 V ALIGN .00 62615 V ALIGN .00 62625 V ALIGN .00 62648 V ALIGN .00 62934 V ALIGN .00 i2938 V ALIGN .00 3175 V ALIGN .00 63189 V ALIGN .00 63209 V ALIGN .00 63230 V ALIGN .00 63241 V ALIGN .00 63245 V ALIGN .00 63250 V ALIGN .00 63449 V ALIGN .00 63452 V - ALIGN .00 63457 V ALIGN .00 63495 V ALIGN .00 63502 V T- 1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. ALIGN .00 63516 V ALIGN .00 63678 V ALIGN .00 63693 V ALIGN .00 63697 V ALIGN .00 63702 V ALIGN .00 63721 V ALIGN .00 63726 V ALISHA HERRING 146.72 63147 ALL AMERICAN INC. 3,882.27 63253 ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORP 4,300.56 63252 ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. 414.20 62947 ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING 1,080.00 62882 ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING 825.00 63119 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 5,383.14 63046 AMANDAST UCKEY 181. 00 63136 AMANDAW ARE 23.17 63624 AMBER DAVIS GEREAUX 56.94 62970 AMERICA DIRECT INC 193.48 63368 AMERICANA SSOC OF TEACHERS 50.00 62917 AMERICAN FUNDS SERVICE CO 2,291.50 62591 AMERICAN FUNDS SERVICE CO 2,506.50 63182 AMERICANF UNDS SERVICE CO 2,431.50 63509 - AMERICANL EGACYP UBLISHING INC 260. 70 62966 AMERICANL IBRARYA SSOCIATION 330.00 62656 AMERICANM AT \u0026amp; SPECIALTY 587.78 63547 AMERICANS PEECH-LANGUAGE- 2,035.00 63102 AMERICANS PEECH-LANGUAGE- 3,945.00 63386 AMERICANS TAMP \u0026amp; MARKING 998.82 63360 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 11,720.00 62593 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 400.00 62623 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 11,720.00 63184 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 400.00 63238 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 10,645.00 63511 AMY VOLLMAN 86.58 62859 AMY WOODSMALL 639.60 63351 ANDREA HAIN 32.64  63151 ANDRIA SMITH 51. 91 63131 ANGELA HIBBS 12 .11 63473 ANGELA RAINEY 20.00 62821 ANITA CAMERON 281. 00 62657 ANITA CAMERON 49. 28 62941 ANTHONYC ANTRELL 20.00 62776 ANTHONYC ANTRELL 974.00 63425 ANTHONYC ANTRELL 20.00 63593 ANTHONYC ONNORS 90.00 62829 ANTHONYL WEBB 80.00 63632 AOS LASER SERVICE, INC. 377.55 62658 - AOS LASER SERVICE, INC. 377.55 63520 ARA CONFERENCE 75.00 62926 T- 2 - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE 2,224.82 62689 ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE 143.57 62975 ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE 3,116.71 63278 ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE 127.18 63537 ARES SPORTSWEAR 156.79 62927 ARKANSASA GENCYF OR FEDERAL 720.00 63272 ARKANSASA RT CENTER 45.50 63584 ARKANSASA SSOCIATION OF 180.00 62943 ARKANSASB AG \u0026amp; EQUIPMENTC O 290.25 63672 ARKANSASB USINESS PUBLISHING 1,700.00 63391 ARKANSASB USINESS PUBLISHING 855.00 63591 ARKANSASC OUNCILO F TEACHERS 650.00 62783 ARKANSASD EMOCRAGT AZETTE 416.00 62688 ARKANSASD EPT OF HEALTH 275.00 63379 ARKANSASR EADINGA SSOCIATION 1,010.00 63322 ARKANSASS KATIUM 300.00 63144 ARKANSASS OUNDA ND SERVICE 2,000.00 63422 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREMENT 354,373.13 62935 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREMENT 16,846.29 62936 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREMENT 908.34 62937 - ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREMENT 1,226.00 63501 ARMATURE XCHANGE 158.05 62990 ARMATURE XCHANGE 63.22 63292 ASCO HARDWARCEO MPANY,I NC. 474.83 62653 ASCO HARDWARCEO MPANY,I NC. 1,412.40 62939 ASCO HARDWARCEO MPANY,I NC. 193.21 63518 ASHLEY ALLEN INGALLS 25.00 62838 ASHLEY HANAN 159.97 63150 ASHLEY WILLIAMS 3.00 63462 ASHLEY-WOODSO\u0026amp;N ASSOC. 4,550.00 62756 ASHLEY-WOODSO\u0026amp;N ASSOC. 6,762.38 63034 ASHLEY-WOODSO\u0026amp;N ASSOC. 2,673.45 63580 ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; 255.50 63525 BACKGROUNIDN FORMATIONS YSTEMS 200.00 63259 BAM INSTITUTIONAL SALES 616.18 63143 BAM INSTITUTIONAL SALES 1,073.80 63418 BANK \u0026amp; BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 1,080.39 63540 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 468,889.50 62586 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 47,639.30 62617 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 478,997.64 63177 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 54,369.74 63232 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 39,607.10 63243 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 7,427.20 63247 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 19,615.25 63451 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 3,995.03 63454 - BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 479,077.27 63504 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 236.00 63695 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 54.60 63699 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 48,129.77 63723 T- 3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANNER SIGN \u0026amp; BARRICADE INC BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARRY KINCL BARRY KINCL BARRY L FISHER BARRY STURGES BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BECKY WITCHER BENE KEITH BENTON LADY PANTHERS SOFTBALL BEST COMPUTERS UPPLIES BETTY MORELAND BILL DUVALL BILL DUVALL BILL LEFEAR BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S OFFICE FURNITURE BLIND AMBITION INC BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, L.P. BLUE HILL WRECKERS ERVICE BLUE HILL WRECKERS ERVICE BOB BELL \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBY ACKLIN BOBBY TRAFFANSTEDT BOILER INSPECTION DIVISION BOILER INSPECTION DIVISION T- 4 AMOUNT 1,284,822.52 181,539.74 1,293,179.13 208,924.46 , 196,688.55 39,999.49 101,352.40 20,468.57 1,322,987.40 1,646.90 527.06 191,561.44 322.51 353.98 1,764.70 307.45 10.00 149.41 20.00 90.00 19.79 677.71 258.16 380.32 376.32 100.00 164.00 9.36 100.70 22.58 81. 43 238.99 107.35 47 .. 75 694.06 3,718.69 709.96 114. 45 1,466.05 49.42 60.00 130.51 40.00 20.00 20.00 153.59 29.56 17.00 143.00 CHK. NO. 62585 62616 63176 63231 63242 63246 63450 63453 63503 63694 63698 63722 63114 62670 63266 63526 62660 63260 62846 63630 62667 62952 63524 63053 62676 62822 63402 63460 62954 63458 63111 62708 62992 63552 62655 63634 62841 64955 63267 62807 62810 62869 63067 63356 63609 63047 63040 62956 63268 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT BOONE PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BRANDYN ESSELRODT BRAYE VALENTINE BRENDA BUTLER BRENDA WATSON BRENDA WILLOUGHBY BRIAN A BOYD BRIAN NICHOLS BRIAN R GLENN BRICKER PHYSICAL THERAPY LLC BROCK MOORE BROMLEYP ARTS \u0026amp; SERVICE BRYAN HUTSON BRYAN HUTSON BRYAN HUTSON BUCKEYE BUSINESS PRODUCTS INC. BUREAU OF EDUCATION \u0026amp; RESEARCH BUREAU OF EDUCATION \u0026amp; RESEARCH BYE-MO'R, INC. BYE-MO'R, INC. BYE-MO'R, INC. C.T.A. CABOT FLORISTS CABOT FLORISTS CALLOWAHYO USE, INC. CANDICE YOUNG CAPITAL ONE BANK SIGNET BANK CAPITAL ONE BANK SIGNET BANK CAPITAL ONE BANK SIGNET BANK CAPITOL SERVICE COMPANY CAREY SMITH CARLE ROY CARLEX CARLTON-BATESC O. CAROL HOLIMAN CAROL MCADAMS CARQUESTO F NL R # 4112 CARSON DELLOSA PUBLISHING CO CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CEDRIC BLACK CENTERPOINT ENERGY CENTERPOINT ENERGY CENTRALL AUNDRYE QUIPMENTI NC CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. CERTIFIED LABORATORIES T- 5 AMOUNT 20. 71 935.68 91. 42 32.00 72.15 3. 72 7.02 80.00 361. 26 70.00 1,875.00 79. 51 55 .15 20.00 20.00 20.00 400.76 185.00 185.00 605. 72 13.57 238.83 10,514.84 40.28 82.74 45.70 142.74 10.00 10.00 10.00 486.55 80.00 90.00 92.75 154.46 858.20 25.00 58.27 8.93 12,476.38 2,404.90 2,795.37 35.92 62. 79 25,435.65 143.07 991. 34 35,118.48 1,090.00 CHK. NO. 62885 62957 62924 63336 63411 63482 63138 63370 62602 62843 63340 63432 62958 62848 63080 63619 63172 62778 63043 62930 63445 63675 63496 62960 63270 62680 63629 62644 63227 63719 62894 63628 63373 62873 62679 62733 63254 62951 63106 62913 63417 63661 63093 63264 63522 63405 63112 63645 62962 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. CHARLENEL OPEZ-MONTAGUE 26.77 63481 CHEMSEARCH 664.56 63038 CHERYL HALL 48.75 63092 CHERYL PENNINGTON 149.76 63016 CHILDCRAFTE DUCATIONC ORP 1,186.12 62963 CHILDRENS LIBRARY RESOURCES 15.66 63158 CINDY QUARRY 11. 62 63494 CINTAS 128.18 62631 CINTAS 38.26 63194 CINTAS 128.18 63214 CINTAS 86.40 63291 CINTAS 128.18 63707 CITY OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK 4,878.75 63077 CLARENCEE MARTIN 25.00 62802 CLARKE XTERMINATINcGo , INC. 218.00 62736 CLARKE XTERMINATINCGO , INC. 817.50 63020 CLARKE XTERMINATINcGo , INC. 54.50 63314 CLARKE XTERMINATINcGo , INC. 54.50 63568 CLASSROOMD IRECT 328.93 62898 CLASSROOMD IRECT 2,449.69 63132 CLEAR MOUNTAIN 177. 61 62884 CLEARM OUNTAIN 43.24 63392 - COBB AND SUSKIE LTD. 14,081.25 63352 COCA-COLAE NTERPRISES 4,417.92 62858 COCA-COLAU SA 443.25 63289 CODEMICRO 612.45 63616 COMCABLES 1,362.03 62692 COMCABLES 100.75 63280 COMCASTC ABLEVISION 100.00 62949 COMMUNICATIOPNL US+ 108.80 63635 COMMUNITPYR ODUCTSL LC 495.00 63149 CONNEYS AFETY PRODUCTS 69.39 63528 CONNIE FOX 6.74 63461 CONSECOL IFE INSURANCE 173.98 63487 CONSOLIDATEDEL ECTRICALD ISTRI 1,044.86 63545 CORNELIUS BURTON 50.00 62824 CORPORATE XPRESS 1,974.44 62866. CORPORATE XPRESS 3,729.42 63099 CORPORATE XPRESS 8,843.13 63381 CORPORATE XPRESS 525.35 63639 COURTNEYPH AUP 1,509.41 63424 COUSINS VIDEO 74.55 63161 COUSINS VIDEO 825.75 63669 CPI 1,199.00 63543 CREWS MOBILE HOME SERVICE 1,368.00 63573 CROWB URLINGAMCEO 31. 37 63382 CROWB URLINGAMCEO 13.06 63640 CROW-BURLINGAMCOE . 7.76 62967 CRYSTAL EVANS 93.21 63110. T- 6 - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. CRYSTAL PRODUCTIONS 55.00 63276 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 158.99 62601 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 127.02 62636 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 91.14 63195 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 129.33 63219 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 127.30 63711 CURRICULUMA SSOCIATES INC 2,268.00 62968 CWI, PLC 1,500.00 62998 CYNTHIA WOODS 8.70 63483 DAMARIS PURTLE 29.28 63051 DANA BIBLES 6.10 63468 DANA MCCOY 59.24 62925 DANIEL J FLOYD 25.00 62850 DANIEL J FLOYD 25.00 63082 DANIEL J FLOYD 25.00 63621 DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN 20.00 62628 DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN 20.00 63212 DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN 20.00 63705 DARLA EARLES 183.62 63000 DARRAGHC OMPANY 72.86 63532 - DATAMAOXF ARKANSAS 220.80 62650 DATEK, INC. 421. 7 4 63169 DAVID D. COOP 209.55 62626 DAVID D. COOP 3,350.00 63190 DAVID D. COOP 209.55 63210 DAVID D. COOP 209.55 63703 DAVID W EDWARDS 179.57 62600 DAVID W EDWARDS 179.57 63193 DAVID W EDWARDS 179.87 63680 DAVID W WYMER 70.00 63073 DAVID WALLACE 27.30 62895 DAVID WHITE 50.00 62788 DAWNEC ARROLL 52.22 63126 DEANN ROACH 22.50 63154 DEBBIE DAVENPORT - 13.34 63163 DEBBIE ROZZELL 14.16 62751 DEBBIE ROZZELL 17.35 63575 DEBORAHC OKER 10.54 62909 DEBORAHL UTZ 589.60 63269 DELI PARTNER'S 212.80 63595 DELTA DENTAL 56,930.16 63486 DELTA EDUCATION 143.00 63303 DEMCO 271. 68 62684 DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT 280,862.04 63727 DERRICK GREENWOOD 60.00 63359 DEVELOPMENTATLH ERAPIES 393.75 63536 DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX 3,548.00 63730 DIAMONDIN TERNATIONALT RUCKS 1,917.63 62742 DIAMONDIN TERNATIONALT RUCKS 164.64 63024 T- 7 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT DIAMONDIN TERNATIONALT RUCKS DIAMONDIN TERNATIONALT RUCKS DIANE R SMITH DIEDRA GASKALLA DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY DISCOUNT TROPHIES, INC. DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DORIE SUMMONS DOROTHYF ARRIS DR ANGELA OLSEN DR ANGELA OLSEN DR ANGELA OLSEN DSANJA T BOYLAND DUSTY VANNATTER DUSTY VANNATTER DUSTY VANNATTER DWIGHT L RENDELL EAST CAMPUSA CTIVITY FUND EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS ECOLAB, INC. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDUCATIONT ECHNOLOGSYE RVICES EDUCATORSB OOKD EPOSITORYO F EDUCATORSB OOKD EPOSITORYO F EDUCATORSO UTLET ELECTRONIC VIDEO SYSTEMS ELGIN SCHOOL SUPPLY ELGIN SCHOOL SUPPLY ELGIN SCHOOL SUPPLY EMPLOYEEB ENEFITS DIVISION ENERGY EDUCATION INC ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAPLR OTECTIONA SSOC ENVIRONMENTATLE CHNOLOGIES,I N EQUIPMENT CONCEPTS \u0026amp; DESIGNS ERIC ARMIN INC. ERIC D BROWN ERIC WALDORF ERIC WALDORF ETA/CUISENAIRE ETA/CUISENAIRE T- 8 AMOUNT 2,576.90 294.08 398.59 110.33 26. 92 91.38 154.73 94.80 158.01 232.39 83.89 330.42 38.26 38.38 75.00 160.00 160.00 150.00 60.00 262.40 150.00 300.00 1,404.47 37.58 30.65 919.08 478.26 510.00 535.41 7,948.01 54.99 81. 75 290.37 684.33 84.78 409,432.76 10,100.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 370,449.90 250.00 6,856.21 1,661.09 90.00 35.10 23.40 796.07 3,000.55 CHK. NO. 63318 63570 62630 63118 63104 62972 62637 63220 63712 62876 63409 62767 63039 63589 63087 63049 63342 63594 63042 63393 63124 63653 63533 62685 62973 63275 63534 63354 62686 62974 63658 62959 62842 63078 63618 63491 63255 62642 63225 63717 63130 63443 62893 63257 63071 62942 63256 62690 62977 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT ETA/CUISENAIRE ETA/CUISENAIRE EV MASTER FABER AND BRAND LLC FABER AND BRAND LLC FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY FARRELL-CALHOUPNA INT CO FCCLA LOCKBOXO PERATION FERRELLGAS FIRE MOUNTAIN FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLINN SCIENTIFIC COMPANY FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FRANKLIN IND FRED H HOKES FRED H HOKES FREE SPIRIT PUBLISHING FREY SCIENTIFIC CO. GARY STEPHENS GARY STEPHENS GARY STEPHENS GARY STEPHENS GARY YIELDING GATEWAYC OMPANIESI NC GENOA LLC GEORGE TAYLOR GLADYS MCDONALD GLASS DOCTOR GLORIA SMITH GOODMADNI STRIBUTION INC GRADY W JONES CO INC GRAINGER GRAINGER GREEK 4 LIFE GRETCHENL AUIPPA HAND IN HAND DAY CARE HAROLD D STARK HARPER SHEET METAL WORKS INC. HASLER INC HELPING HAND CHILDRENS HERAL ENTERPRISES, INC. HIGHSMITH INC HOBBY LOBBY HOLIDAY INN SELECT EXPRESS HOLLY POWELL T- 9 AMOUNT 904.97 390.17 13,989.00 99.95 86.96 381. 21 381. 21 132.21 168.00 23.50 200.50 653.09 6,775.16 626. 64 276.36 2,823.41 5,112.93 76.00 70.00 70.00 58.70 194.80 100.00 50.00 25.00 25.00 30.00 2,988.74 4,424.26 23.87 12.72 139.75 57.84 34.23 316.10 4,543.03 347.73 194.57 130.00 1,500.00 69.42 258.62 588.60 797. 50 30.91 405.29 131.77 541. 92 260.36 CHK. NO. 63279 63539 63599 62634 63217 63198 63683 63281 63433 63585 62994 62694 62979 63541 63265 62693 62978 63701 62789 63052 62691 63542 62877 63113 63390 63646 63263 63088 63084 62984 63062 63057 63441 63548 62872 62766 63334 63355 63420 62965 63439 62986 63410 62901 63285 63550 63549 63436 63479 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT HOME DEPOT/GECF HONEYBAKEHDA MC OMPANY HONEYBAKEHDA MC OMPANY HORIZONS OFTWAREIN TERNATIONAL HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHANP LLC HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHANP LLC HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHANP LLC HOUGHTOMN IFFLIN COMPANY HOUGHTOMN IFFLIN COMPANY HOWARDR OSS HOWARDR OSS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HOM'S HARDWAR\u0026amp;E RENTAL HOM'S HARDWAR\u0026amp;E RENTAL HOM'S HARDWAR\u0026amp;E RENTAL IDEAL BREAD ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT IN DYER NEED ENTERPRISES INDEPENDENTM USIC SERVICE, INC INDIAN HILLS ELEM ACTIVITY INFORMATIONV AULTINGS ERVICES ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE IPARADIGMS, LLC. ISSAC HENRY J \u0026amp; B MUSIC SALES, INC. J \u0026amp; B SUPPLY COMPANY J L HEIN SERVICE INC J L HEIN SERVICE INC JS PRINTING JACK T CARTER COMPANY JACQUELINE SUMLER T-10 AMOUNT 132.45 453.77 534.91 47.25 502.69 502.69 502.69 47.20 2,244.27 60.00 60.00 7,737.82 35.69 507.38 7.74 920.11 7.45 161.20 425.00 425.00 425.00 128.55 1,409.20 158.24 151. 90 2,981.02 547.50 2,981.02 547.50 2,981.02 1,074.00 34,518.02 17,760.23 12,700.96 50.00 136.00 50.00 136.00 50.00 136.00 640.00 70.00 97.40 118. 80 21,996.00 27,445.00 320.00 146.00 39.98 CHK. NO. 63341 62903 63412 62761 62610 63205 63689 62702 62987 63005 63304 62915 63142 63664 62703 63287 63551 62704 62608 63202 63687 62663 63089 62887 62982 62592 62622 63183 63237 63510 63006 62891 63128 63400 62603 62607 63196 63201 63681 63686 63271 62812 63335 63094 63423 63665 62777 62989 63164 . - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. JACQUES MUMFORD 50.00 62793 JALEN KING 50.00 62827 JAMES W. WOODARDJ,R 126.13 63165 JAMIE EUBANKS 1,190.00 63141 JAMIE EUBANKS 2,310.00 63663 JAN KUCALA 16.77 63065 JANET E. THOMASP .T. 653.34 63041 JANET FOSTER 187.50 63090 JARIUS L. COPELAND 25.00 63625 JEFFERY TURNER 90.00 62771 JEFFREY SAND COMPANY 39.88 62707 JENNIFER FRANCE 678.79 62701 JENNIFER SKINNER 4.76 63469 JERRY MASSEY 483.96 63091 JERRY MASSEY 420.00 63636 JESSICA MOSER 155.94 62798 JILL MILLS 31.20 63288 JIMMY MAXWELL 29.42 63600 JO-ANN GOLDMANT, RUSTEE 281. 37 62633 JO-ANN GOLDMANT, RUSTEE 281.37 63216 - JO-ANN GOLDMANT, RUSTEE 281.37 63709 JOHN DAVID HENRY 25.00 62819 JOHN SCHWULST 30.00 62664 JOHN SCHWULST 60.00 62944 JOHN SCHWULST 42.50 63262 JOHN W RICE 25.00 62816 JOHNNIE F HENRY 25.00 62801 JOHNSTONES UPPLY 42.40 62868 JOSH E MCHUGHEAS TTORNEY 50.35 62611 JOSH E MCHUGHEAS TTORNEY 50.35 63206 JOSH E MCHUGHEAS TTORNEY 50.35 63690 JOYCE BRADLEYB ABIN 430.53 62643 JOYCE BRADLEYB ABIN 6,239.04 63204 JOYCE BRADLEYB ABIN 430.53 63226 JOYCE BRADLEYB ABIN 430.53 - 63718 JOYCE J NICHOLS 45.00 62815 JOYCE J NICHOLS 20.00 63069 JOYCE J NICHOLS 20.00 63611 JOYE WILLIAMS 31. 90 63475 JUAN RIDGEWAY 50.00 62782 JUDITH QUATTLEBAUM 56.09 63168 JUDITH QUATTLEBAUM 51.09 63673 JULIE SOBKOVIAK 180.00 63313 JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT 500.00 62825 JUST FOR KIDS 450.00 63427 KANSASP AYMENTC ENTER 46.15 62632 - KANSASP AYMENTC ENTER 46.15 63215 KANSASP AYMENTC ENTER 46.15 63708 KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING co 868. 79 62709 T-11 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING co 1,222.28 63553 KAREN POWELL 74.61 63108 KATHLEANK ING 30.00 63364 KATHRYNH ALE 223.36 63666 KATHY HELLER 20.00 63478 KATYG EARHARTH UNT 34.87 62666 KAY EWART 113.26 62945 KAYE COLEMAN 33.68 62795 KAYE LOWE 65.56 62961 KAYLORS INCORPORATED 305.63 62993 KAYLORS INCORPORATED 190.68 63294 KEATHLEYP ATTERSONE LECTRIC 38.56 62649 KEITH FAULKNER 41.57 62645 KEITH FAULKNER 127.13 63228 KEITH L KELLEY 50.00 62840 KEITH PHIFER 30.00 63317 KELLEYS UPHOLSTERY 5,143.72 63388 KELLIE SHEFFIELD 80.00 62865 KELLfE SHEFFIELD 20.00 63380 KENNETHA . KIRSPEL 576.28 62928 KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. 3,741.00 63674 KESSLERS TEAMS PORTS 788.84 63346 - KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS 864.30 63598 KEVIN DANAHER 236.34 62914 KEVIN DANAHER 25.72 63140 KEVIN MARTIN 134.94 63435 KIDS KORNER 856.36 63576 KIM ISGRIG 21.06 63100 KIM PEARSON 66.47 62897 KIM REYNOLDS 62.91 62683 KIMBERLY JANE RUBLE 80.00 63371 KIMMIE CLEVELAND 80.00 63627 KKPT-THE POINT RADIO STATION 3,230.00 63019 KNOWBUDDRYE SOURCES 517.82 62905 KNOWLEDGIEN DUSTRIES INC 1,406.93 62698 KONE INC 497.80 63596 KREBS BROS. SUPPLY co. f INC. 1,506.00 62710 KREBS BROS. SUPPLY co. f INC. 37,715.10 62995 KREBS BROS. SUPPLY co., INC. 130.26 63554 KRISTEN MADDOX 38.22 62896 KRISTIE RATLIFF 17.24 63134 KRISTIE RATLIFF 25.55 63413 KROGERC OMPANY/CAMRPO BINSON 137.97 62711 KROGERC OMPANY/CAMRPO BINSON 150.00 62996 KROGERC OMPANY/INDIANH ILLS 148.17 62712 KROGERC OMPANY/INDIANH ILLS 100 .38 63296 KROGERC OMPANY/INDIANH ILLS 122.67 63555 - KROGERC OMPANY/PERSHING 246.63 62785 KYNYAC OLEMAN 35.00 63076 T-12 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT LAKESHOREL EARNINGM ATERIALS LAKESHOREL EARNINGM ATERIALS LAKESHOREL EARNINGM ATERIALS LAKEWOOEDL EM ACTIVITY FUND LAKEWOOMD IDDLE SCHOOL LAMONICAM ITCHELL LARA HUMPHRIES LASONYA J TURNER LASONYA J TURNER LAURA JENNINGS LAURA WINTERS LAUREN WALKER LAVONE REDUS LEARNING TODAY INC LEE TACKETT LEON DOREY LGSA LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LINDA B HARPER LINDA P.\" STEWART LINDSEY MAC MILLEN LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LINDY THOMPSON LISA GRAY LISA GRAY LISA GRAY LITTLE CAESAR'S GENERAL OFFICE LITTLE CAESARS PIZZA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. LONGS ELECTRONICS LONNIE EDWARDS LORRI JOSHUA-BEASLEY LOUIS STINSON LOUIS STINSON LOUIS STINSON T-13 AMOUNT 489.19 282.83 843.88 210.32 400.00 6.13 18. 72 30.00 30.00 155.81 80.26 82.56 11. 34 800.00 543.06 500.00 245.00 65.85 6,681.37 2,840.66 5,732.87 3,882.58 134.17 428.18 7.50 7,875.40 45.00 22.50 3,054.89 25.00 125.00 264.44 212.80 238.01 196.52 20.00 20.00 20.00 140.00 112. 00 603,260.38 268.59 3,910.02 258.78 75.00 30.00 45.00 20.00 20.00 CHK. NO. 62740 63023 63569 63649 63556 59688 V 63152 63366 63623 62940 63017 62779 63464 63566 63148 63429 62820 62999 62587 62618 63178 63233 63244 63248 63455 63505 63696 63700 63724 62837 62861 63470 62714 63557 62780 62814 63068 63610 62863 62871 63298 62723 63306 62716 63064 63631 62803 63061 63605 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT LOWE'S LOWE'S LOWE'S LRP PUBLICATIONS DEPT. 170-F LRP PUBLICATIONS DEPT. 170-F LUCI A STEPHENS LUCI A STEPHENS LUCI A STEPHENS LYNCH DRIVE ELEM ACTIVITY LYNN HARRISON M \u0026amp; M ENTERPRISES MB ELECTRONICS M J COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINES UBSCRIPTIONS MAINSTAGET HEATRICALS UPPLY MAISHA NICOLE JONES MAISHA NICOLE JONES MAJOICE THOMAS MALA ROGERS MALA ROGERS MALA ROGERS MARCIVE, INC MARCIVE, INC MARDELC ORPORATEO FFICE MARENEMIN C MARGARETE STINSON MARGARETE STINSON MARGARETE STINSON MARGARENT ORTON MARI INC. MARIA TOUCHSTONE MARIA TOUCHSTONE MARIA TOUCHSTONE MARIE PIERCE MARIJO VALENTINE MARILYN JOHNSON MARILYN JOHNSON MARSHAS ATTERFIELD MARTHAF EWELL MARTHAN ORTON MARVAS IMS MARY A. WILES MARYC AROLYNE AST MARYC AROLYNE AST MARYC AROLYNE AST MASON ELECTRIC MATTHEWBI NFORD MCCLUREL ANDSCAPING MCKINZIE L RILEY T-14 AMOUNT 443.44 247.03 5,096.97 239.00 257.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 73.64 1,068.23 525.00 34.26 1,384.30 460. 72 42.25 50.00 30.00 52 .26 195.00 63.57 32.52 15.60 7.02 96.98 286.00 45.00 20.00 20.00 26. 46 61.00 28.36 91. 77 22.50 152.34 50.00 22.74 13.38 170.04 9.67 3,587.50 30.00 204.67 41. 87 41. 50 32.95 130.80 10.65 4,700.00 190.00 CHK. NO. 62933 63174 63447 63097 63638 62847 63079 63363 63394 62700 63448 63660 63444 63274 62823 62808 63066 63125 62718 63004 63302 62720 63558 62661 63617 62665 62950 63523 63474 63637 62900 63133 63407 62772 63367 63002 63301 63095 63010 63159 62811 63018 63167 63440 63671 62717 63472 63419 62784 4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT MCKINZIE L RILEY MCM MEADOWPA RKE LEMA CTIVITY FUND MELISSA FARRAR MELISSA WALLS MELISSA WALLS MEMS MET LIFE METAL MART METRO FOODS MICHAEL BLYTHE MICHELLE KEATON MID-SOUTH APPLIANCE PARTS CO. MINDY CARROLL MIRANDAW ALTONS MITCHS TIRE SERVICE MOLLY LEOPARD MOUNTV ERNON-ENOLQAU IZ BOWL MR SOCK MRS CLARKS FOOD MUSIC IS ELEMENTARY MYERS SUPPLY, INC N.L.R. WINTEMPS UPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMPS UPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMPS UPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMPS UPPLY NAEIR NAEIR NANCY STEWART NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NASC/NASSP NASCO NASCO NASDSE NATIONALG EOGRAPHICS CHOOL NATIONALH OMEC ENTER NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION NATIONAL SCHOOL PRODUCTS NC CHILD SUPPORT CENTRALIZED NC CHILD SUPPORT CENTRALIZED NC CHILD SUPPORT CENTRALIZED NCS PEARSON NCTM REGISTRATION NCTM REGISTRATION NCTM-DRAWEAR NEXTEL PARTNERS T-15 AMOUNT 70.00 190.57 103.79 29. 97 50.00 30.00 1,400.00 6,584.40 512.69 4,529.30 28.04 85.84 83.53 105.73 27.26 995.00 80.00 50.00 200.00 307.50 29.95 707.06 1,875.00 1,305.40 32.44 227.15 40.00 100.33 205.73 270.68 888.00 273.52 141.56 28.00 1,407.46 103.74 346.50 7,150.26 33.89 211.18 327.65 137.00 137.00 137.00 2,996.98 1,648.00 1,074.00 15.16 8,573.99 CHK. NO. 63048 62862 63650 63384 62851 63083 63127 63465 62880 62860 63459 63153 62721 62781 62834 62906 63286 62697 63070 62734 62706 62932 62722 63009 63305 63560 62769 63590 62879 62696 62980 63282 63544 62729 62724- 63561 63350 62953 62726 62881 62727 62609 63203 63688 62911 62715 63001 63567 63343 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLRSD TRANSPORTATIOND EPT. NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD-BACKGROUNCDH ECK NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE NO. LITTLE ROCKE DUCATORSC RED NO. LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. NO. LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. NO. LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. NORCOMIN C NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM ACTIVITY NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM ACTIVITY NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM ACTIVITY NORTHL ITTLE ROCKC HAMBERO F NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH POINT FORD OAK GROVE HIGH SCHOOL OCCUPATIONAHL EALTHC ENTERSO F OCCUPATIONAHL EALTHC ENTERSO F OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYG ENERAL T-16 AMOUNT 5.07 5.07 10,885.75 5,320.00 4 65. 60 15,133.75 78,460.80 380.46 195.74 488.36 50.10 32.21 116.85 188.62 12.00 863.45 78.00 273.00 1,080.00 518.00 432.38 496.25 316.32 333.50 195.26 261.86 64.56 140.80 19.72 41.97 223.45 1,516.19 37,807.20 30,818.84 306.23 80.00 315.00 38.00 2,720.66 1,681.03 2,720.66 1,830.69 2,720.66 1,679.49 2,596.83 3,881.73 1,428.58 1,022.30 64.62 CHK. NO. 62728 63307 63331 63438 63500 63490 63497 62730 63309 63562 62773 62886 63395 63651 63308 62647 63310 63406 63677 63692 62731 63011 63311 63563 62646 63208 63229 63493 63720 62732 63013 63564 62976 63538 63007 63374 63122 63396 62599 62627 63192 63211 63679 63704 62855 63086 63372 63626 62638 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYG ENERAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYG ENERAL ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY, INC. ORIENTHAL NEWBURN OSI EDUCATION SERVICES OSI EDUCATION SERVICES OSI EDUCATION SERVICES OTIS RAY BANKS OTIS RAY BANKS PACHECOO UTDOORE QUIPMENT PAGES OF PARENTING PAMELA JACKSON PAMELA JACKSON PAR INC PAR INC PATRICIA MAYS PATSY A RHOADES PAULA K URTON PAULA K URTON PAULA MCCARTHER PEACHTREEB USINESS PRODUCTS PEARSON EDUCATION PEARSON EDUCATION PEARSON EDUCATION PEDIATRIC THERAPY SERVICES PEER TUTOR PRESS PENNY ELLIOTT PERFORMANCLEE ARNINGI NC. PERMA-BOUND PERMA-BOUND PFG LITTLE ROCK PHYLLIS THOMPSON PHYLLIS THOMPSON PIPE \u0026amp; TUBE SUPPLY PLANK ROAD PUBLISHING POE TRAVEL PORTFOLIOR ECOVERYA SSOCIATES PORTFOLIOR ECOVERYA SSOCIATES PORTFOLIOR ECOVERYA SSOCIATES POSITIVE PROMOTIONS POSITIVE PROMOTIONS POSTMASTER, SHERWOOD POSTMASTER, SHERWOOD PPG ARCHITECTURALF INISHES PRISCILLA BENSON PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA PROMOTIONSP LUS T-17 AMOUNT 64.62 64.62 209.68 150.00 89.98 89.98 89.98 20.00 20.00 246.71 399.97 25.00 20.00 1,005.53 127.60 6.10 25.00 50.00 20.00 1,065.00 346.50 12.67 942.08 5,302.98 1, 968. 7 5 274.95 275.64 96.15 2,443.91 223.57 14,894.65 50.00 30.00 113. 01 138.10 121. 00 187.45 285.34 161.82 147.20 132.40 156.00 48.00 801.06 23.00 3,413.91 3,413.91 3,915.48 222.36 CHK. NO. 63221 63713 63588 62836 62604 63197 63682 63072 63614 62922 63345 62809 63608 63157 63667 63466 62804 62845 63362 63602 63376 62902 62920 63146 63428 62675 62826 62770 62699 63284 62737 62791 63054 62654 63107 63300 62639 63222 63714 62878 63115 63074 63075 63033 63463 62597 63188 63515 63103 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y  PUBLIC SCHOOL VEHICLE PROGRAM PULASKI TECHNICAL COLLEGE PURCHASE POWER PYRAMID INTERIORS PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS QUALITYW HOLESALEB UILDING RADIO SHACK RADIO SHACK RADIOLOGYA SSOCIATES, P.A. RADIOLOGYA SSOCIATES, P.A. RADIOLOGYA SSOCIATES, P.A. RAINBOWB OOKC OMPANY RANDALLH SANDEFUR RANDALLH SANDEFUR RANDALLH SANDEFUR RANDY SANDEFUR RANDY SANDEFUR RAY C HARVEY RAY C HARVEY RAY HANKINS RAYMONGDE DDESA ND COMPANY READING TREE PRODUCTIONS REALLY GOOD STUFF INC REBECCA R CARR REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC REGINALD D MARTIN REGINALD JOHNSON REGIONALA DJUSTMENTB UREAUI NC REGIONALA DJUSTMENTB UREAUI NC REGIONALA DJUSTMENTB UREAUI NC RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS RENAISSANCEL EARNINGI NC RENAISSANCEL EARNINGI NC RESOURCESF OR READINGI NC REXEL DAVIES REXEL DAVIES RHONDAB ANKS RHONDAD ICKEY RHONDAR OOK RICHARD ALEXANDER RITA CASEY ROBERT A MAJOR JR T-18 AMOUNT 1,945.70 2,156.32 387.41 148.00 2,169.91 1,135.00 19,755.00 316.52 1,433.05 1,929.85 58.98 532.65 2,127.60 39.13 48.68 20.00 20.00 20.00 1,543.29 20.00 20.00 20.00 101.06 974.00 20.00 20.00 203.70 154.57 16.50 18.95 2,807.22 3,528.68 90.00 70.00 62.61 62.61 62.61 860. 40 85.25 456.69 53.95 202.04 130.80 18.56 38.51 15.00 67.39 150.00 25.00 CHK. NO. 62620 63235 63249 63456 63725 62677 62856 63299 63003 62929 63171 63442 63647 63022 63315 62635 63218 63710 63059 62849 63081 63620 63109 63389 62839 63615 62918 63098 62792 62904 62892 62739 62833 62831 62606 63200 63685 63656 62757 63582 63135 62687 63535 62889 63338 63414 6308\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"ncpl_ncpedia_sitins","title":"Civil rights sit-ins","collection_id":"ncpl_ncpedia","collection_title":"NCpedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, 35.50069, -80.00032"],"dcterms_creator":["McDermott, Nancie"],"dc_date":["2007"],"dcterms_description":["Entry about African American civil rights in North Carolina."],"dc_format":null,"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":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American civil rights workers--North Carolina","Civil rights movements--North Carolina","African Americans--Civil rights--North Carolina"],"dcterms_title":["Civil rights sit-ins","Sitting down for a cup of coffee and civil rights"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["North Carolina. Division of State Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.ncpedia.org/civil-rights-sit-ins"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1791","title":"Court filings regarding District Court proposed findings of fact, Little Rock School District (LRSD) board's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2007-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","School boards","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","School integration","Joshua intervenors"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding District Court proposed findings of fact, Little Rock School District (LRSD) board's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1791"],"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":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, proposed findings of fact; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) board's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, notice of electronic filing, amended notice to file; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4: 82CV0866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS INIBRVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT HISTORY 1. The LRSD began making verbal commitments to narrow the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students as early as 1989. To that end, the State of Arkansas, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors approved a plan of desegregation designed to address the accomplishment of that objective. The State of Arkansas devoted substantial amounts of money to that task. 2. It was contemplated that the objectives of the desegregation plan would 1 E0d t\u0026gt;S9ON ~ d ~3~ll;K1 M NHOf Wd2t\u0026gt;:21 L00291'N~f be completed by 1996. That date was extended for various reasons of noncompliance none of which may be attributable to Joshua. 3. In 2002, the court entered an Order releasing LRSD from court supervision in all areas with exception of program assessments. 4. When the district did not comply with the Court's order by 2004, the Court entered a new order making more specific its requirements upon the district and the parties. The Court contemplated that by October 15, 2006 the district would submit its final report reflecting its performance pursuant to its June, 2004 order. This date has now been extended and a hearing regarding compliance is - scheduled to begin January- 20, 2007. 5. The LRSD urges the Court to find that its has complied with the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy in all respects and that the Court's supervision of any aspect ofLRSD's school operations should end. The Joshua lntervenors contend that the LR.SD has not approached the Court's 2002 and 2004 orders in good faith; that the ~chool administration during the intervening years has tried to frustrate and abort implementation of the Court's Orders; that the LRSD has been aided in that respect by the advice of district counsel, Chris Heller, and his law finn; and that the Court's Order of June, 2004 has been disrespected and disobeyed. 6. Part of the reason for the district's noncompliance with the 2002 order 2 was its preoccupation with promoting the return of white students to west Little Rock schools and with establishing programs that would assure parents of that section of the district that they could have majority white high quality schools in that area. For this reason, the school district has never publicly acknowledged in any publication or board resolution that it had a priority to address the dismal state of education for African American students in the LRSD. 7. In July, 2004, the majority of the board chose to select Dr. Roy G. Brooks over far more qualified applicants including Dr. Morris Holmes for the Superintendent's position. Dr. Brooks has never been a superintendent and is - unknowledgeable about any pertinent subject matter area before the Court. He was chosen to rubber stamp the majority agenda and to dismantle the strengths of the existing desegregation plan. His selection was opposed by large segments of the African American community. 8. When Dr. Brooks was hired, he was given a blank check to do as he pleased by the majority Caucasian board. Their emphasis was to provide technical compliance with the Court's Order, but to do as little as possible to otheIWise implement it. 9. A number of the Caucasian board members have been hostile to the Joshua Intervenors' participation in the implementation process and Joshua's 3 S\"d vS9\"ON ~ d ~3\u0026gt;il~M M NHOr Wd2v:21 L002 91Ntir making appearances before the Board to address the subject. 10. The present attitude of the school board majority differs materially from that of the precious majority with respect to program assessment and evaluation, addressing the achievement gap and support of the PRE Department. The PRE has not been fully supported in the past by the Dr. Roy Brooks and the majority of the school board. 11. The school administration and district counsel have sought to punish PRE Director Dr. DeJarnette because she made reports that honestly reflected the status of compliance and because she would not change them to reflect the school - administration's view point. For these reasons, she was tenninated by the Superintendent and replaced by Dr. Ed Williams but the school board overruled the Superintendent's actions and reinstated her. 12. This history is important because it sets forth the context in which the compliance remedy is to be considered by the Court. 13. The Court directed on June 30, 2004 the prompt establishment of a first rate professional research and evaluation department with a highly qualified director. The district did not post the position promptly. On or about October 1, 2004, it selected Dr. Karen DeJarnette for that position. 14. Dr. DeJamette's qualifications are set forth in PRE's 1st quarterly report 4 9'd vS9'0N ~ d ~3~l~M M NHOf Wd2v:2l l002\"9l'N~f to the Court as well as the other members of the PRE department. Dr. DeJamette's qualifications for the task are universally acknowledged. She was selected ahead of Dr. Ed Willia.ms, a long term statistician within the district. He was the person responsible for the data presented to the Court by Dr. Bonnie Lesley. He was one of the persons to whom the Court referred at page 52 ofits June 30, 2004 order when the Court observed that lack of evidence of any current administrator in LRSD who had the experience or training necessary to perfonn prescribed informal assessments and/or evaluations. 15. When Dr. DeJarnette was selected she reported directly to - Superintendent Brooks. 16. Upon Dr. Brooks hiring, he selected two people who had worked with him in Orange County, Florida. Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Brooks' Deputy Superintendent, had been a high school principal. Dr. Olivine Roberts had been a math teacher who served for a short time as coordinator of math and science curriculum for the same school district. Neither of these three had ever held a position at the highest level of a large school district. This is reflected Dr. Robert's salary of $60,000 and by her testimony. 17. The majority board was content with these selections because that enabled board members Berkley, Rose and Dr. Beverly Williams, Human 5 l\"d vs90N Resources Director, the opportunity to make the relevant major decisions regarding undoing the positive effects of the desegregation plan from which the district had been released by the Court. 18. Dr. Brooks' first major act was to adversely affect a number of African American school principals, replace them with white persons and then to adversely impact through a reorganization scheme a large number of African American staff members. Dr. Katherine Mitchell has described the reorganization as being \"racial\" and \"mean spirited.\" 19. Dr. DeJamette was made a part of the reorganization team, even though - she was new to the district. She was informed that the reorganization cuts would affect each department including her own. Dr. Beverly Williams required her to cut two positions and to reduce one other. This was in direct defiance of the Court's directive that the district create and maintain a highly trained and adequate PRE staff .. 20. Between January, 2005 and June 2005, Dr. DeJarnette began ,performing many tasks necessitated by the Court's order including holding regular meetings with stakeholders including the Joshua Intervenors and the ODM, if it may be called a stakeholder. 21. The LRSD reorganization in 2005 created a conflict situation for PRE 6 8d t7S9\"0N ~ d ~3~l~M M NHO WdEt?:21 L002\"9l\"N~  staff and the school system regarding the content and priority of assessments/evaluations. PRE previously reported directly to the Superintendent. As a result of the reorganization, PRE now reports to the Associate Superintendent in charge of instructional programs. This violates the district's policy regarding evaluations. 22. In the Spring of 2006, Dr. DeJarnette informed senior administrators that there were problems with respect to implementing the Court's Order. It was at that point that Dr. Brooks became openly hostile to her. PROBLEMS WITH COMPLIANCE 23. The LRSD has not at all relevant times provided the staff in its PRE department required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. (Compliance Remedy, para. A) 24. LRSD administrators have during the period of the Compliance Remedy assigned additional duties to PRE staff. This factor has played a role in LRSD's failure to complete tasks required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and necessary to embed a comprehensive assessment process as a permanent part of the LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. [Compliance Remedy, para. A.; see para. 3 below regarding \"school portfolios\", \"district portfolio'', and \"data warehouse.\"] Joshua Ex._ 7 6'd t\u0026gt;S9'0N ~ d ~3~7tJM M NHOf WdE:t\u0026gt;:2t L002'9t'Nl:::lf 25. In the preparation of the eight .. formal step 2 evaluations,\" PRE staff have not been involved in observing programs, formulating the content of questionnaires, or writing the evah~ation reports. See Joshua Ex __ ( cover pages of three draft evaluations for 2005-06 do not include PRE staff among authors of any evaluation). These failures violate multiple aspects of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, considered alone or in combination. [Compliance Remedy, para. A ( court concerns about abilities of PRE staff with respect to designing and preparing program evaluations); para. B (\"comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a part permanent part of LRSD' s curriculum and instruction program\"); other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations; ... \") It was at all times apparent that building the abilities of PRE staff to conduct program evaluations without the assistance of outside evaluators ( or to supplement the efforts of outside evaluators) was necessary to embed the program assessment process in the operations of LRSD. 26. LRSD has failed to make feasible and adequate progress in the creation of computer data bases needed to embed the comprehensive program assessment process in the district's instructional programs. [Compliance Remedy, para. B] a. It is and has been feasible for LRSD to create one or more computer bases allowing compilation and manipulation of at least the following data and 8 ~ d ~3)1l~M M NHOf Wdvv:2l l0029l\"N~f variables: [i] student's name; [ii] student's date of birth; [iii] sex; (iv] race; [v] date(s) entering the system; [vi] school(s) attended, by date and grade, including participation in pre-K program; [vii] student absences by date and school year; [viii] free and reduced price lunch status by school year; [ix] special education status, if any, by date and school year; [x] whether limited English proficient by date and school year; [xi] for elementary students, teachers(s) by date and school year; [xii] for elementary students, special programs, such as Reading Recovery, by date and school year; [xiii] for other students, courses and teachers by year; [xiv] for other students, special programs, such as Read 180, by date and school - year; [xv] teacher absences by date and school year; (xvi] results of all standardized assessments by date and school year. b. The data identified in (a) could be manipulated to prepare assessments/evaluations. For example, one could compare test outcomes for similar elementary students from two schools exposed to two different reading programs, taking into account as well the student and teacher absences in the relevant period. [Additional work might be necessary, such as preparation of program descriptions and observations to detennine levels of implementation.] c. The use of questionnaires, which the Court expected ( Page 62, Footnote 39, Compliance Remedy) to be a part of the comprehensive assessment process 9 nd 17S9'0N ~ d ~3~l~M M NHOf Wdl717:21 L00291Nt::1r has been delayed indefinitely. [Compare Compliance Report of March 1, 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. ( use of questionnaire postponed) d. PRE's \"quarterly written updates\" show work on \"school\" and \"district portfolios\" -- compilations of some of the data listed above in paragraph 4 (a). [E.g., 9-1-05 at 3; 12-1-05 at 3; 6-1-03 at 3] [i] Although LRSD first mentioned \"school portfolios\" in its quarterly report of9-l-05 at 3, corrections in the \"Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report\" of October 25, 2006,\" early in the 2006-07 school year, \" show that ~'LRSD expects to begin the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-2008 school year.\" [At 7, para. 15; emphasis added] [ii] The quarterly report dated 12-1-05 states: \"Data to be included in the district portfolio was identified during the last quarter and a draft district portfolio was designed. As new data becomes available, PRE staff members add them to the portfolio.\" [At 3] At present, one can not detennine the state of completeness of the \"district portfolio,,, compared to what needs to be accomplished. [See Revised Compliance Report, 10-25-06 at 6-7] e. The quarterly report of 12-1-05 states (at 3): \"PRE is also investigating Zl\"d l\u0026gt;S9\"0N ~ d ~3~7t:/M M NHOf Wdl\u0026gt;l\u0026gt; :21 l 002 '9 l\"NtJf the costs and benefits of an internet-based data warehouse system that would store all data collected by the district within one database, support its tabulation and analysis, and enable its electronic access at any time. The data warehouse would advance the district portfolio that PRE staff members are currently developing.\" The quarterly report of3-1-06 states (at 3): \"To support the portfolio's expansion, frequent updates, and future utility, PRE is designing a 'data warehouse' which LRSD staff and others can consult on a 'real-time' basis.\" PRE identified a data warehouse system, designed for use by school systems, which could have been functioning as of the LRSD's recent submission of its compliance reports. See - Attachment at A-15 (\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2, para. 3 (a)]. Upper level LRSD administrators rejected this proposal. One consequence of this action is that facts about students and teachers participating in particular programs continue to be difficult to retrieve. [Id., A-15 at para. 3 ( c )] f. Additional work is necessary to insure the accuracy of LRSD data needed for asses~ments and evaluations. (Id., A-14, para. 2; A-15 at para. 4 (PRE Compliance History\")] g. Professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations has not been and is not now a high priority for the district. See Joshua Ex. 27. The step 2 evaluations contain insufficient descriptions of the programs 11 ct .d 17S9'ON ~ d ~3~7~M M NHOf WdSl7:2t L002'9t'N~f being evaluated and their implementation to meet LRSD's own standards and the court's order. [See 2004 Compliance Remedy, paras. C and D (\"Has the Section 2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African American students, as it bas been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" [emphasis added)]. Joshua Ex. __ (Joshau Intervenors' Comments on evaluations) 28. While the LRSD submitted eight quarterly reports, some LRSD representatives censored the eighth report prepared by PRE to minimize notice of compliance problems. See 2004 Compliance Remedy, para. G; and Joshua Ex. ___ (\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2, para, 4) 29. The LRSD superintendent interfered with the flow of information to ODM, in violation of paragraph Hof the 2004 Compliance Remedy. See Attachments atA-16 [\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at 3, para. 7 (a) \"The Superintendent threatened ... (the] dismissal [ of PRE Director] if she shared information with ODM and Joshua.\"] 30. LRSD impeded Joshua Intervenors' ability to monitor the remedy. 31. The LRSD administration also has de-emphasized the importance of its policy with respect to evaluations. Members of evaluation teams have been coached, if not instructed, not to actively participate in the evaluation team 12 M \"d 1\u0026gt;S9.0N ~ d ~3~7t!M M NHOf WdSl\u0026gt;:2l L00291 N~f meetings. Members have been instructed not to communicate concerns regarding the evaluation process in the presence of Joshua representatives. Moreover, team member participation has been sporadic to nonexistent over the past year. See Joshua Ex 32. The work of PRE staff has been frustrated by the failure of senior administrators and counsel to communicate and provide direction regarding how to proceed in meeting commitments within the Compliance Remedy. See Joshua Ex._ para. 7 (PRE \"Compliance History\"). For example, it is the view of Dr. Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Instructional Programs, that some of the key e Section 2. 7 programs were not included in those evaluated. If correct, this evidences a significant area of non compliance as the court stated that: \"LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) fonnal step evaluations. Each of these ste,J2 2 evaluations must cover one of the key Section 2. 7 programs as it has been..,implemented in schopls throu~hout the district. ( Compliance Remedy, Part C, page 63) 33. The Compliance Remedy required the filing of four (4) step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-2005 school year with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four program evaluations for the 2005-2006 school were to be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. The Court reluctantly granted the 13 sr d t7S9. ON ~ d ~3~7\\:#M M NHOf WdSt7:2t l002\"9t\"Ntif LRSD extensions of time for filing of the latter group of evaluations. Joshua submits that the draft evaluation documents for the 2005-2006 school year filed by LRSD did not comply with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy. 34. The LRSD, under the current school administration, has refused to implement fully the Compliance Retnedy, thereby minimizing the extent to which key LRSD educational programs can be expected to improve the achievement of African American students compared to white students. The administration of the LR.SD undertook a major administrative reorganization without consideration of its impact on the Compliance Remedy. The reorganization has had a negative effect on the implementation of the Compliance Remedy. Release from court supervision is inappropriate for this reason and those previously stated. There is the prospect of a premature release from court supervision adversely affecting the LRSD financial resources at a time when the achievement of African American students continues to be less than desired. 35. As shown by the foregoing discussion, the implementation of the 2004 Compliance Remedy by LRSD representatives has been marked by bad faith. FURTHER BAD FAITH 36. District counsel Chris Heller did not fully cooperate with the process in implementing the Compliance Remedy. He was largely unavailable throughout 14 91 \"d t7S9\"0N much of 2006 to the PRE staff, participated in but few of the evaluation team meetings and sought to prevent Joshua from having direct access to PRE staff and others who were charged by the Court with the duty of implementing the Court's directives. Rather than support the PRE director and at least be available to address her concerns related to implementing the process, meeting court deadlines, and actions to embed the assessment process into the curriculum of the district, Mr. Heller sought to subvert the PRE Director's activities. He was aided in this respect by district superintendent, Dr. Roy Brooks. 3 7. The Court directed counsel for the parties to meet with ODM in an - attempt to resolve concerns which Joshua had regarding the district's compliance. Well in advance of the October 15, 2006 due report, Joshua then met with LRSD counsel, Chris Heller, in a meeting attended and arranged by ODM to further discuss Joshua's concerns. LRSD counsel refused to allow Dr. DeJamette or other officials to meet with Joshua to address the stated concerns. This meeting occurred on August 8, 2006. Mr. Heller did not offer to meet again with Joshua and ODM until November 1, 2006, shortly before the date for Joshua's submission of its objections to the Compliance Report. In the meantime, on August 17, 2006, being aware that Joshua knew a lot about the district's failings, he wrote Dr. DeJamette an email directing her not to discuss issues likely to be litigated in 15 L't'd t\u0026gt;S9 \"ON ~ d ~3~l~M M NHOr Wd9t\u0026gt; :2 't L0029i;N~r December with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in this case outside his presence. Accordingly the flow information of information between Springer and DeJamette ceased. Dr. DeJarnette wrote that she could not provide a response to Ms. Springer's concerns about data being fraught with errors because she had been instructed by Mr. Heller not to do so. Joshua Ex __ 38. Moreover, Or. DeJamette repeatedly requested that Mr. Heller inform the Court of a need for more time in which to make competent reports to the parties and to the Court. Mr. Heller refused to do so. 39. Mr. Heller refused to meet with the newly elected board members to - inform them of anything with respect to the Compliance Remedy. Instead, he met with the Caucasian board members and Dr. Brooks and his administration, and engineered the displacement of Dr. DeJamette. He then caused Dr. Brooks to hire the Quattlebaum law firm to make a purported independent investigation of Dr. DeJamette suggesting at the same time that Dr. Ed Williams, a rejected applicant for PRE director, could perfonn the tasks sufficiently and provide the Court the necessary evidence to allow a court detennination that LRSD had substantially complied with its obligations herein. 40. Mr. Heller revised the 8th quarterly report by deleting pertinent information which reflected that district's noncompliance with Item B. of the 16 a1d i,s9ON ~ d ~3~7t::lM M NHOf Wd9t\u0026gt;:2\"C L002 91Ntlf Compliance Remedy dealing with the development of a comprehensive program assessment process. 41. The LRSD has refused to acknowledge in a nwnber of its publications (Guiding Principles, Annual Reports) that it has an obligation to assess programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African American students. 42. Former school board member Tony Rose and current board member Larry Berkley have been openly hostile to Joshua's monitoring of the Compliance Remedy. 43. Superintendent Dr. Roy Brooks suspended Dr. DeJarnette with a - recommendation for termination after she reported to the Board problems of compliance regarding the Compliance Remedy. HIRE A IDGHLY TRAINED TEAM OF PROFESSIONALS 44. The PRE staff was materially reduced so that four staff members including Dr. DeJarnette, Mr. Ed Wohleb, Dr. Ed Williams and Ms. Maurceria Robinson had to fulfill seven (7) full time position responsibilities for 14 months. In addition, in July 2005, the reorganization by Dr. Brooks of PRE added far more work to PRE responsibilities. This included developing a comprehensive plan (ACSIP) for each school in the district and a district Title I plan for the Arkansas Department of Education. In addition, PRE was called upon to develop 17 6't d vs90N questionnaires for thousands of parents, students and community members for public relations reports for the school district. This added work by Dr. Brooks for PRE materially affected the schedule developed by Dr. DeJamette for embedding the assessment process into the district's curriculum. 45. The LRSD school administration took action to divide the staff of the PRE. Early in 2006, Dr. Brooks began relying on statistician Dr. Ed Williams as his PRE contact person who would address certain PRE activities of specific concern to Dr. Brooks. He did this without consultant with or approval of the PRE Director, Dr. DeJamette. Dr. Brooks now contends that there is disruption in PRE - that undermines the effectiveness of PRE. Dr, Williams on the other hand denies that there is any disruption within PRE staff. When asked ifhe had anything negative regarding PRE Director DeJamette or her leadership, he said no. It does appear that upon Dr. Brooks removal of Dr. DeJamette. He elevated Dr. Williams to the Director's position and advertised for a new statistician at a time when Dr. Brooks was arguing that the PRE staff was sufficient in size. I find therefore as fact that there has been disruption within the PRE department and that it has been attributable to Dr. Brooks and perhaps others working in concert with him. It is appropriate therefore for the PRE department, under these circumstances, to report directly to the Board, rather than Dr. Brooks. I make this finding in part 18 02\"d t7S9ON ~ d ~3~lt/M M NHOf Wdlt7:2l L002'91'N\\:1f because Dr. Brooks is not thoroughly acquainted with the remedy, does not intend to respect Dr. DeJ arnette, and is not inclined to respect the majority of the board members of the LRSD with respect to school district administration. DEVISE A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS 46. Each of the key programs listed in 2.7 of the Revised Desegregation Plan compliance reports have not been assessed during the 2004-2005 and 2005- 2006 school years. Accordingly, the district does not represent any of those 2.7 programs as having been effective in improving the academic achievement of African American students. 4 7. The LRSD staff have not used the completed program evaluations as a part. of a comprehensive program assessment process to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African American achievement. Moreover, LRSD has not used the step 2 program evaluations to assess the effectiveness of other related programs in addressing whether improvement has been made with respect to African American achievement. 48. Dr. Roy Brooks has primary responsibility beyond that directly assigned by the Court to the PRE Director, for ensuring compliance with this court's decree. It can not be said that Brooks has an understanding of the remedy set forth by the Court or the intended obligations imposed by that remedy upon his 19 administrative leadership. He is content to say that he delegated the authority for implementation to his subordinates, Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent and Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Instruction. 49. The Court is not persuaded that either Dr. Olivine Roberts or Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh had the requisite experience for meeting the court's compliance expectations. Neither of them had ever had district wide responsibility for program evaluation. Dr. Robert's highest level of supervision was as a coordinator in the area of math and science in Orange County, Florida, a majority white school system. Dr. Hattabaugh's primary experience was as an elementary school principal several levels removed from the top school administration, and had no district wide responsibility for anything. Moreover, Dr. Brooks can not be said to be knowledgeable with respect to program evaluation. Indeed, he could not recall ,;, the subject of his doctoral dissertation. 50. The two new African American board members, Charles Armstrong and Dianne Curry, have not been made fully aware by the school administration or by counsel of their obligations with respect to the Compliance Remedy. They complain that they have been kept out of the information loop by Dr. Brooks and Mr. Heller; and that when they sought to become informed about the status of compliance, the school administration reacted by summarily suspending PRE 20 Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette with a recommendation that she .be terminated. They, therefore, can not address the Compliance Remedy other than to say that if they are uninformed, then employees of the district in many cases are also uninformed. 51. Board member Larry Berkley, like board member Rose, was unable to say that the assessment process set forth in IL-R was embedded into the curriculum ofLRSD. Indeed, it was Mr. Berkley's viewpoint that the process was to be deeply embedded in PRE rather than the district as a whole. (Berkley Dep. pp. 7-8) Mr. Berkley did not recall that the deeply embedded process.required involvement of all of the stakeholders. (Depp. 9, See also p. 12 .... \" it's up to the admipistration to be make sure that ... this process within PRE is deeply embedded\") 52. For Mr. Berkley there was no way that PRE could make a presentation of its concerns to the Board in a public session. (Berkley Dep. p. 13) Moreover, with respect to the Board resolution of November 16, 2006, Mr: Berkley testified that when it was presented to the Board by Mr. Heller, he did not recall an explanation by Heller. Before then, the Board was aware of concerns from Joshua, PRE and ODM but the Board made no inquiry of Joshua, PRE or ODM about the status of compliance. (Berkley Dep. p. 22) 21 53. Mr. Berkley opposed the election of Armstrong and Curry because he felt that Dr. Katherine Mitchell had opposed Dr. Roy Brooks and with their election would fonn a voting bloc against Dr. Brooks on matters including the Compliance Remedy (Dep. p. 25) 54. At least four members of the current LRSD School Board do not believe that it is appropriate for the Court to discontinue supervision of the evaluation and assess requirements of the consent decree and the Court Order of June 30, 2004. 55. The LRSD presented Baker Kurrus, a prominent attorney and local business man, to establish that the district has indeed complied with this Court's order.. He testified that the Board annually adopts a program evaluation agenda but that he is unable to identify programs specifically identified by the school ,:, administration for the purpose of remediating and improving the achievement of African American students. He is unable to describe any actions taken by LRSD other than on paper and could not testify as to how the assessment and evaluation process had been deeply embedded into the district's curriculum. 56. In the past, LRSD has informed the Court that it had at least 46 programs designed to improve African American achievement. Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Instruction, could not identify any programs 22 with that specific purpose. Her explanation was that all programs are implemented for all children and that all children include African American children. She could not identify any programs that were specific and exclusive within the LRSD for the purpose of addressing the academic needs of African American children. 57. In 2004, the Court observed that many of the program evaluations of the district were so flawed that they revealed little of substance to be helpful in determine whether the programs were useful. That is still a concern of the Court in view of Dr. DeJamette's comments about the error rate of the data submitted by LRSD to the outside evaluators and to the testing agency for production of the high stakes testing results. \" 58. LRSD continually adds programs and program assessors and evaluators without regard for whether they address African American achievement. Dr. ~,\u0026gt;. Roberts has added for example at least 9 additional programs for district wide implementation. They include: curriculum mapping, SOAR, Voyager, CRISS, K- 12 Literacry Adoption, Transition to Advanced Mathematics (TAM), Teacher Incentive Project at Meadowcliff and Wakefield Elementary schools, Inclusion Special Education and ESL. (See Draft September 1, 2006 Quarterly Report) 59. When PRE began to assess some of these programs she was admonished by district counsel for including them in the draft report being 23 submitted to the Court. Joshua has noted that none of these programs were on the initial list of programs submitted to the court as being intended to address African American achievement. Joshua notes further that the merit pay initiative (Teacher Incentive Project) is sponsored by a private provocateur determined to impose upon the LRSD a requirement that teachers be paid bonuses for certain achievements. These achievements do not address specifically the issue raised by 2.7.1 60. In addition, before Dr. James left, Dr. James created other programs and set forth an evaluation process for them within a private group, which he funded with district finds, known as the Public Education Foundation of the Little. Rock School District. Those programs also have an. assessment and evaluation process. These assessments are not being coordinated by PRE staff. Indeed, Dr. DeJarnette 1.::-_ has had no material involvement with the people at the Public Education Foundation or with Dr. Roberts and the programs that Dr. Roberts has unilaterally added to the list of district programs. 61. This Court previously found that the LRSD Board of Directors had not approved its policy regarding the evaluation process for instructional programs. The Court now finds that the requirements of Board regulation IL-R, revised by Dr. DeJ arnette and Dr. Steven Ross, and approved in December, 2004, have not 24 I - I I been embedded into the district's curriculum and instruction programs. 62. Dr. Roberts determined to impede the PRE's efforts to embed the comprehensive assessment process by expanding it to include the development of each school's ASCIP plans and then later disbanding that process as well. Thus, approximately one year of work by PRE was wasted. This is so because the district chose not to follow the recommendations of consultant, Dr. Victoria Benhardt to create an appropriate framework for the data collection that could be easily accessed and used by PRE or any of the stakeholders in the process. 63. PRE' s efforts appear to have been further impeded by senior administrators with respect to PRE' s efforts to develop procedures for embedding the a,~sessment process. Because of Dr. Benhardt's consulting fees, the LRSD chose not to implement her recommendations with respect to school portfolios, '\u0026lt; creation of a database and development of questionnaire/surveys. Her recommendations were made in January, 2005 and were rejected by senior administrators in October, 2006. 64. With respect to the integrity of the data provided to the outside evaluators, Dr. Catterall acknowledged a high error rate which began at 65% in 2005, increased to 70% in 2006 and is likely to increase over time. Mr. Heller and Dr. Ed Williams disregard this high error rate as being important in making the 25 I I I I I I I necessary assessments and evaluations. It does not contribute according to Dr. DeJamette to valid reports that maybe used to address the issue. 65. Embedding the assessment process requires actually working at each school to improve the academic achievement of African American students. Input from a broad cross section of the teacher responsible for implementing each of the key 2. 7 programs, a determination that the key programs are being implemented with relatively equal effect and success at each school, an assessment of whether additional teaching specialists are needed at some schools in order to enhance the effectiveness of key programs and administering tests at various grade levels so that the achievement of African American students can be accurately followed and valid statistics complied regarding their year to year progress. Dr. DeJ amette agrees with this formulation while Dr. Williams and Mr. Heller do not. 66. Dr. Brooks never met with Dr. Ross regarding the comprehensive assessment process. Dr. Roberts met with Dr. Ross only one or two times. This is a reflection of the lack of importance those two parties attached to the comprehensive assessment and evaluation remedy. 67. The LRSD has hired outside consultants as directed by the Court. 68. The PRE staff worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall regarding the Step 2 evaluations with the exception that PRE had no role in classroom 26 observations, conducting focus groups or actual writing of the evaluations. 69. Joshua notes and the Court finds that many of the step 2 program evaluations completed by the outside evaluators remain deficient with respect to program descriptions. (See in particular Year Round Education, 21 st Century Leaming Centers, Read 180, A+ and PreK literacy) 70. The LRSD has not provided either ODM and Joshua any progress reports on any of the program evaluations which it previously completed that were designed and implemented to improve the academic achievement of African American. students. 71. Very little progress has been made in improving African American achievement insofar as norm referenced nationally recognized achievement tests are concerned. 72. The eight step 2 evaluations did not comply in important respects with the LRSD own regulation for preparing evaluations. 73. The Court finds that Little Rock has not followed the Court's directive to embed the assessment process into the district's curriculum as ordered by the Court, pursuant to the initial agreement by the parties. 7 4. The ODM and Joshua have attempted to assist LRSD in fulfilling its 27 obligations under the Court's Order. They have done this in myriad ways with differing responses at differing times from the senior district administrators. I find that it is necessary for the PRE staff to actively communicate with Joshua and ODM regarding its activities if they are to be of any use in helping to embed the assessment process into the district's curriculum. I also find that district counsel's efforts to set parameters for interaction between PRE staff, ODM and Joshua to be inappropriate and contrary to the spirit and letter of the court's orders herein. The Court does not approve of the treatment of the PRE Director by LRSD counsel and senior staff. It warns those parties and the school board that any further obstruction with the Court's Order will be met by a reference for ____ _ contempt of court. While Joshua has sought to have district counsel Heller held in contempt of court for obstruction, the Court will caution Mr. Heller again to \\ \\ cooperate with Joshua and if there are specific problems where strong proof exists that Joshua counsel has violated the Court's Order, notice should be promptly given to Joshua counsel and the Court whereupon a hearing will be scheduled to address the matter. In the meantime, I expect Joshua to continue for the next four years its monitoring role as previously set forth in the June 30, 2004 Order 75. I now address the District's continuing argument that Joshua has been less than diligent in bringing to the Court's attention problems it observed 28 regarding LRSD's compliance with the directives of the Court. The following is a listing of the Joshua's activities from which I conclude that Joshua has been timely, cooperative and non adversarial with respect to its monitoring of the June 30, 2004 Order of the Court. a. Upon the Court Order of June 30, 2006, Chris Heller announced th.at the District would appeal and most likely prevail thereon. The Court then entered an Order requiring that his June 30th Order be followed pendente lite. b. In late July, 2004, Joshua approached ODM with respect to having the LRSD post the PRE Director position. C. In August, 2004, the District posted the position and in October, Dr. DeJarnette was hired. d. Twice in November, 2005, Joshua wrote the District inviting discussion, requesting information and Joshua involvement in developing the process. e. In December, 2005, Mr. Heller, Dr. DeJarnette and ODM met at Joshua counsel's office regarding the Court's Orders and Joshua's concerns. f. In January, 2005, Dr. Victoria Bernhardt was hired as a 29 consultant for the purpose of assisting the LRSD in embedding the assessment process into the curriculum. In February, Joshua wrote Dr. DeJamette seeking to be included in the process. This was repeated in March with a request for all information shared with ODM. g. In April, Dr. Bernhardt submitted a training proposal and in May, 2005, Joshua made suggestions to PRE about programs to evaluate. h. In June, 2005, PRE statisticians spent a (training) week in Chico, California. 1. In September, the district submitted its 4th Quarterly Report to the Court and parties. J. In September and October, 2005, Ms. Springer obtained further information about the report from Dr. DeJarnette. This was followed up with a letter request for information dated November, 2005. In October, 2005, the District did not meet its 2005 filing deadlines. k. In November, 2005, the Court held a hearing regarding compliance regarding the step 2 evaluations. In December, 30 2005, Joshua wrote PRE expressing concerns about PRE staffing. Joshua did not receive a reply to its concerns. 1. In January, 2006, Joshua brought to the Court's attention their concerns about the first four step 2 evaluations. m. Ms. Springer met with PRE during evaluation team meetings between January and April, 2006. During this time PRE experienced problems with data gathering and participation in meetings by other evaluation team members. ODM was present during these meetings. n. In April, 2006, Joshua first observed the evaluation team participation to include Mr. Hattabaugh and Dr. Olivine Roberts. o. In May, 2006, upon an evaluation team meeting, Joshua and ODM voiced concerns about embedding the assessment and evaluation process into the curriculum. p. In June, 2006, at evaluation team meetings, ODM and Joshua repeated their concerns raised in May, 2006. q. Because of the unavailability of District Counsel Heller, on June 21 , 2006, Joshua requested a hearing before the Court 31 regarding implementation problems that were being experienced. On the same day the Court directed a statement in support of the request for hearing. r. On June 28, 2006, Ms. Springer submitted an affidavit of concerns to the Court. s. In July, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette confirmed the substantial accuracy of the Springer affidavit contents. t. On August 1, 2006, the Court directed LRSD to meet with Joshua and ODM to address Joshua's concerns. Before the meeting, Joshua requested the participation of Dr. DeJamette. Mr. Heller refused. The foregoing chronology demonstrates that Joshua was timely in ,: submitting its concerns to LRSD, ODM and the Court. It also demonstrates that Joshua sought to _be fully involved and cooperative with the LRSD' s PRE staff. It further shows how District Counsel obstructed Joshua's involvement in the process.  I further find that the district's responses to the Joshua objections with respect to program evaluations have at no time been valid, that they have been obstructive and constitute evasive and obdurate conduct. It is for these reasons I 32 will award fees and costs for Joshua for having prevailed on the issue of program assessment and evaluation on all issues. ,,,, .).) - - - --- ---- - - --- - ------ - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL I. Background. BOARD'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS On April 10, 1998, the Court approved an agreement between the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District (\"the Board\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") known as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket No. 3144. In 2002, the Court found that the Board satisfied its obligations under the Revised Plan with one exception, Revised Plan 2.7.1 concerning program assessment. See Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2002, pp. 170-72. The Court outlined a remedy and ordered the Board to implement that remedy (''2002 Compliance Remedy\"). In 2004, the Court found that the Board had not substantially complied with the Court's 2002 Compliance Remedy. See Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 57-58. Again, the Court outlined a remedy and ordered LRSD to implement that remedy (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\"). The issue now before the Court is whether LRSD has substantially complied with the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy. Page 1 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 16 2007 OFRCEOF DIIIGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JAN 16 200!7 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING  BOARD'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Background. DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS On April 10, 1998, the Court approved an agreement between the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District (\"the Board\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") known as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket No. 3144. In 2002, the Court found that the Board satisfied its obligations under the Revised Plan with one exception, Revised Plan 2.7.1 concerning program assessment. See Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2002, pp. 170-72. The Court outlined a remedy and ordered the Board to implement that remedy (\"2002 Compliance Remedy\"). In 2004, the Court found that the Board had not substantially complied with the Court's 2002 Compliance Remedy. See Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 57-58. Again, the Court outlined a remedy and ordered LRSD to implement that remedy (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\"). The issue now before the Court is whether LRSD has substantially complied with the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy. Pagel of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 2 of 15 II. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. A. Substantial Compliance. 1. The Board appealed the Court's 2004 decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. In so doing, the Eighth Circuit noted that the Board's obligations under Revised Plan 2.7.1 were \"clearly contractual\" and not \"constitutionally compelled.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528,530 (8th Cir. 2006). Thus, the Eighth Circuit stated that the question of whether the Board has substantially complied with its  2.7.1 obligations must be examined \"under ordinary rules of contract interpretation.\" Id. 2. Ordinary rules of contract interpretation require the Court to interpret the Revised Plan as a whole, with different sections being read together and interpreted, if possible, so that all sections are consistent with each other. See RAD-Razorback Ltd. Partnership v. B. G. Coney Co., - 289 Ark. 550, 713 S.W.2d 462 (1986); Fryer v. Boyett, 64 Ark. App. 7, 978 S.W.2d 304 (1998). Consequently, the Board's substantial compliance must be judged considering the term of the Revised Plan. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year.\" Revised Plan 9. However, Revised Plan 10 stated that \"the first semester of the 1998-99 school year shall be a transition period in preparation for implementation of this Revised Plan.\" Revised Plan 10. Thus, the Revised Plan called for two-and one-half years of implementation by the Board. 3. The Board's substantial compliance must also be judged considering the purpose of a breach of contract remedy. The purpose of a breach of contract remedy \"is to place the injured party in the same position it would have been in if the contract had been fully perlormed.\" Howard W. Brill, Law of Damages,  17 .1, p. 285 (5th Ed. 2004 ). Thus, the Board has substantially complied with Revised Plan 2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy if Page 2 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 2 of 15 II. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. A. Substantial Compliance. 1. The Board appealed the Court's 2004 decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. In so doing, the Eighth Circuit noted that the Board's obligations under Revised Plan 2.7.1 were \"clearly contractual\" and not \"constitutionally compelled.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528,530 (8th Cir. 2006). Thus, the Eighth Circuit stated that the question of whether the Board has substantially complied with its  2.7.1 obligations must be examined \"under ordinary rules of contract interpretation.\" Id. 2. Ordinary rules of contract interpretation require the Court to interpret the Revised Plan as a whole, with different sections being read together and interpreted, if possible, so that all sections are consistent with each other. See RAD-Razorback Ltd. Partnership v. B.G. Coney Co., - 289 Ark. 550, 713 S.W.2d 462 (1986); Fryer v. Boyett, 64 Ark. App. 7, 978 S.W.2d 304 (1998). Consequently, the Board's substantial compliance must be judged considering the term of the Revised Plan. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year.\" Revised Plan 9. However, Revised Plan 10 stated that \"the first semester of the 1998-99 school year shall be a transition period in preparation for implementation of this Revised Plan.\" Revised Plan 10. Thus, the Revised Plan called for two-and one-half years of implementation by the Board. 3. The Board's substantial compliance must also be judged considering the purpose of a breach of contract remedy. The purpose of a breach of contract remedy \"is to place the injured party in the same position it would have been in if the contract had been fully performed.\" Howard W. Brill, Law of Damages,  17.1, p. 285 (5th Ed. 2004). Thus, the Board has substantially complied with Revised Plan 2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy if Page 2 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 3 of 15 Joshua now stands in the same position or a better position than it would have occupied on the last day of classes for 2000-01 had the Board initially satisfied its  2.7.1 obligations. 4. On the last day of classes for 2000-01, Joshua could not have expected the Board to have completed more than two sets of formal program evaluations since the Board could not have completed evaluations for the 2000-01 school year by the last day of classes of that school year. The Board does not receive the student test data necessary for a formal evaluation until after (sometimes long after) the conclusion of the school year. On the last day of classes for 2000-01, the Board, at best, 1 could have prepared formal program evaluations for two school years- the 1998-1999 and the 1999-2000 school years. Nothing in the Revised Plan required the Board to conduct additional program evaluations after the Revised Plan expired. Clearly, the Revised Plan's three year term was not long enough for the Board to eliminate the racial - achievement disparity, and thereby, eliminate the need for programs designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement. Even so, \"[j]udges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\" Armstrong v. Board of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, the Court does not interpret 2.7.1 or the 2004 Compliance Remedy as imposing any permanent or ongoing obligation on the part of the.Board. Indeed, such an obligation would be inconsistent with a finding of unitary status and a return to local control. See Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305,347 (4th Cir. 2001). See also Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2002, p. 169 (noting that upon being declared unitary \"[the Board] must begin making its 1The first semester of the 1998-1999 school year was a \"transition period.\" Revised Plan  10. Thus, it is not clear that The Board could have prepared a complete set of a formal program evaluations for that year. Page 3 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 3 of 15 Joshua now stands in the same position or a better position than it would have occupied on the last day of classes for 2000-01 had the Board initially satisfied its 2.7.1 obligations. 4. On the last day of classes for 2000-01, Joshua could not have expected the Board to have completed more than two sets of formal program evaluations since the Board could not have completed evaluations for the 2000-01 school year by the last day of classes of that school year. The Board does not receive the student test data necessary for a formal evaluation until after (sometimes long after) the conclusion of the school year. On the last day of classes for 2000-01, the Board, at best, 1 could have prepared formal program evaluations for two school years - the 1998-1999 and the 1999-2000 school years. Nothing in the Revised Plan required the Board to conduct additional program evaluations after the Revised Plan expired. Clearly, the Revised Plan's three year term was not long enough for the Board to eliminate the racial - achievement disparity, and thereby, eliminate the need for programs designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement. Even so, \"[j]udges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\" Armstrong v. Board of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, the Court does not interpret 2.7.1 or the 2004 Compliance Remedy as imposing any permanent or ongoing obligation on the part of the Board. Indeed, such an obligation would be inconsistent with a finding of unitary status and a return to local control. See Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 347 (4th Cir. 2001). See also Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2002, p. 169 (noting that upon being declared unitary \"[the Board] must begin making its . 1The first semester of the 1998-1999 school year was a \"transition period.\" Revised Plan  10. Thus, it is not clear that The Board could have prepared a complete set of a formal program evaluations for that year. Page 3 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 4 of 15 own decisions, guided by the Constitution, applicable case law, and its best professional judgment . ... \")(emphasis in original). B. . Waiver and Estoppel. 5. For the third time now, Joshua waited until it was too late for the Board to change course to bring to the Board's and the Court's attention alleged noncompliance. See Memorandum Opinion dated September 13, 2002, pp. 58-59 (\"The record is undisputed that Joshua's counsel never raised any compliance issues under 8.2 of the Revised Plan. The record is also undisputed that the first time Joshua raised any of the specific compliance issues now before the court was when they filed their Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447) on June 25, 2001.\"); Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 20 (\"LRSD's March 12, 2004 Compliance Report constituted my first notice that Ms. Marshall's facilitation efforts in - late 2002 failed -- neither the parties2 nor the ODM brought this to my attention, although they were required to do so by subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and by my November 6, 2002, letter to Ms. Marshall.\"); LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 539 (\"[l]n light of its failure to call the district court's attention to its disagreement with LRSD' s interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order.\"). If Joshua became aware of compliance problems, the 2004 Compliance Remedy required Joshua to \"immediately bring them to my attention so that I can 21n fact, subpart D of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required Joshua, not the Board, to bring compliance issues to the Court's attention. The Board understood Joshua's silence to mean that Joshua accepted the Board's interpretation. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 536 (\"Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD' s interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law.\"). Page 4 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 4 of 15 own decisions, guided by the Constitution, applicable case law, and its best professional judgment . .. . \")(emphasis in original). B. 5. Waiver and Estoppel. For the third time now, Joshua waited until it was too late for the Board to change course to bring to the Board's and the Court's attention alleged noncompliance. See Memorandum Opinion dated September 13, 2002, pp. 58-59 (\"The record is undisputed that Joshua's counsel never raised any compliance issues under 8.2 of the Revised Plan. The record is also undisputed that the first time Joshua raised any of the specific compliance issues now before the court was when they filed their Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447) on June 25, 2001.\"); Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 20 (\"LRSD's March 12, 2004 Compliance Report constituted my first notice that Ms. Marshall's facilitation efforts in - late 2002 failed -- neither the parties2 nor the ODM brought this to my attention, although they were required to do so by subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and by my November 6, 2002, letter to Ms. Marshall.\"); LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 539 (\"[I]n light of its failure to call the district court's attention to its disagreement with LRSD' s interpretation of the 2002 order, _it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order.\"). If Joshua became aware of compliance problems, the 2004 Compliance Remedy required Joshua to \"immediately bring them to my attention so that I can 2In fact, subpart D of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required Joshua, not the Board, to bring compliance issues to the Court's attention. The Board understood Joshua's silence to mean that Joshua accepted the Board's interpretation. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 536 (\"Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law.\"). Page 4 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 5 of 15 resolve them while there is still time for LRSD to make 'mid-course corrections.\"' Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 66. 6. The first notice the Court received of alleged noncompliance was on June 21, 2004 - almost two years to the date after entry of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On June 28, 2006, Joshua filed an affidavit from Joy Springer describing the District's alleged noncompliance. See Docket Nos. 4018 and 4024. Springer worked for Joshua counsel as a paralegal and her responsibilities included monitoring the Board on behalf of Joshua. Springer reported that the District was not in compliance with the \"embedding program assessments\" requirement of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Springer Affidavit, 'I[ 12 (Docket No. 4024). Springer was referring to the requirement of paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy that a comprehensive program assessment process be \"deeply embedded as a permanent part of the - Board's curriculum and instruction program.\" Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 62. 7. Joshua attempted to place other paragraphs of the 2004 Compliance Remedy at issue in objections filed November 15, 2006. See Docket No. 4058. The Court finds that these issues could have, and therefore should have, been brought to the Board's and the Court's attention much earlier, and by failing to do so, Joshua \"waive[d] its right to insist on the breach.\" Stephens v. West Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 7 Ark. App. 275, 278, 647 S.W.2d 492, 493 (1983). Applying ordinary rules of contract interpretation, the Court finds that Joshua waived and should be estopped from claiming that the Board failed to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy, with the exception of the \"deeply embedded\" requirement of paragraph B. See Bharodia v. Pledger, 66 Ark. App. 349, 355, 990 S.W.2d 581, 585 (1999)(\"It has also been held that a party with knowledge of a breach of contract by the other party waives the right to insist on a forfeiture when he allows the other party to continue in performance of the contract.\"); Stephens, 7 Ark. Page 5 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 5 of 15 resolve them while there is still time for LRSD to make 'mid-course corrections.\"' Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 66. 6. The first notice the Court received of alleged noncompliance was on June 21, 2004 - almost two years to the date after entry of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On June 28, 2006, Joshua filed an affidavit from Joy Springer describing the District's alleged noncompliance. See Docket Nos. 4018 and 4024. Springer worked for Joshua counsel as a paralegal and her responsibilities included monitoring the Board on behalf of Joshua. Springer reported that the District was not in compliance with the \"embedding program assessments\" requirement of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Springer Affidavit, \u0026lt;J[ 12 (Docket No. 4024). Springer was referring to the requirement of paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy that a comprehensive program assessment process be \"deeply embedded as a permanent part of the - Board's curriculum and instruction program.\" Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 62. ' 7. Joshua attempted to place other paragraphs of the 2004 Compliance Remedy at issue in objections filed November 15, 2006. See Docket No. 4058. The Court finds that these issues could have, and therefore should have, been brought to the Board's and the Court's attention much earlier, and by failing to do so, Joshua \"waive[d] its right to insist on the breach.\" Stephens v. West Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 7 Ark. App. 275, 278, 647 S.W.2d 492, 493 (1983). Applying ordinary rules of contract interpretation, the Court finds that Joshua waived and should be estopped from claiming that the Board failed to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy, with the exception of the \"deeply embedded\" requirement of paragraph B. See Bharodia v. Pledger, 66 Ark. App. 349, 355, 990 S.W.2d 581, 585 (1999)(\"1t has also been held that a party with knowledge of a breach of contract by the other party waives the right to insist on a forfeiture when he allows the other party to continue in performance of the contract.\"); Stephens, 7 Ark . . Page 5 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 6 of 15 App. at 278, 647 S. W.2d at 493 (\"The rule is that a party to a contract who, with knowledge of a breach by the other party, continues to accept benefits under the contract and suffers the other party to continue in performance thereof, waives the right to insist on the breach.\"). 8. Joshua argued that its silence should be excused because District administrators failed to cooperate with Joshua. This argument has no merit. The Board and District administrators cooperated with Joshua to the extent required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and beyond. PRE provided Joshua the comprehensive evaluation process, the names of the programs to be evaluated, quarterly updates and the program evaluations as required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. In addition, PRE provided Joshua notice of and an opportunity to participate in evaluation team meetings. Finally, PRE and other District administrators responded to dozens requests for documents by Joshua. - 9. Joshua argued that the District failed to cooperate by refusing to treat Joshua just like ODM. No order of this Court required the District to treat Joshua just like ODM, especially considering that Joshua's counsel and his paralegal performed all of Joshua's monitoring. This Court has on three occasions ordered Joshua's counsel to comply with Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct before communicating with District officers and personnel. See Orders of June 29, 2001 (Docket No. 3448), August 20, 2001 (Docket No. 3483) and October 3, 2001 (Docket No. 3575). The Court, interpreting Rule 4.2, ordered Joshua (1) \"to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information\" pertaining to matters pending before the court; and (2) \"to inform counsel for the Little Rock School District prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court.\" Order filed October 3, 2001, p. 3. See ABA Formal Opinion 97-408. Moreover, after the October 3, 2001 Order, Joshua promised to comply that Order, and in reliance on that promise, the Board Page 6 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 6 of 15 App. at 278, 647 S.W.2d at 493 (\"The rule is that a party to a contract who, with knowledge of a breach by the other party, continues to accept benefits under the contract and suffers the other party to continue in performance thereof, waives the right to insist on the breach.\"). 8. Joshua argued that its silence should be excused because District administrators failed to cooperate with Joshua. This argument has no merit. The Board and District administrators cooperated with Joshua to the extent required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and beyond. PRE provided Joshua the comprehensive evaluation process, the names of the programs to be evaluated, quarterly updates and the program evaluations as required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. In addition, PRE provided Joshua notice of and an opportunity to participate in evaluation team meetings. Finally, PRE and other District administrators responded to dozens requests for documents by Joshua. - 9. Joshua argued that the District failed to cooperate by refusing to treat Joshua just like ODM. No order of this Court required the District to treat Joshua just like ODM, especially considering that Joshua's counsel and his paralegal performed all of Joshua's monitoring. This Court has on three occasions ordered Joshua's counsel to comply with Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct before communicating with District officers and personnel. See Orders of June 29, 2001 (Docket No. 3448), August 20, 2001 (Docket No. 3483) and October 3, 2001 (Docket No. 3575). The Court, interpreting Rule 4.2, ordered Joshua (1) \"to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information\" pertaining to matters pending before the court; and (2) \"to inform counsel for the Little Rock School District prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court.\" Order filed October 3, 2001, p. 3. See ABA Formal Opinion 97\"408. Moreover, after the October 3, 2001 Order, Joshua promised to comply that Order, and in reliance on that promise, the Board Page 6 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 7 of 15 withdrew a pending Motion for Contempt. See Docket No. 3516. Therefore, Joshua's contacts with District personnel were subject to Rule 4.2, as clarified by the Court's October 3, 2001 Order. 10. Joshua violated Rule 4.2 and engaged in numerous ex parte communications with LRSD's Director of PRE, Dr. Karen DeJarnette, without notice to or the consent of LRSD counsel. Consistent with Rule 4.2 and the Court's orders, LRSD's senior administrators directed Dr. DeJarnette not to communicate with Joshua without LRSD counsel present. Nevertheless, Joshua succeeded in convincing Dr. DeJarnette that she had a duty to communicate with Joshua regarding the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Many of these communications occurred after Joshua filed its June 21, 2006 request for a hearing, and thus, LRSD counsel's consent was required before communications with the District officials and personnel pertaining to the 2004 - Compliance Remedy. See Order filed October 3, 2001, p. 3. 11. Joshua's unethical communications with Dr. DeJarnette clearly prejudiced the Board in this case. During a September 18, 2006 ex parte meeting with Dr. DeJamette, Springer testified that Dr. DeJarnette agreed \"that the Court wanted the District -- specifically PRE -- to be cooperative, not only with ODM, but Joshua as well.\" See Springer 12/7/2006, p. 35-38. Dr. DeJ amette' s belief that she was being ordered to violate the Court's orders caused Dr. DeJ amette to \"fe[el] estranged (if not driven) from LRSD's and its counsel's rapport and progressively cooperative with both ODM and Joshua.\" See Joshua's Objections, Compliance History, p. 3 of 5 (Docket No. 4058). This estrangement resulted in Dr. DeJamette filing an employee grievance alleging \"interference on the part of LRSD with her duties understood from the Compliance Remedy ... \" and recommending that the District's senior administrators be \"replac[ed]\" because they were \"not trustworthy.\" See Joshua's Objections, Compliance History, pp. 3-4 of 5. Dr. Page 7 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 7 of 15 withdrew a pending Motion for Contempt. See Docket No. 3516. Therefore, Joshua's contacts with District personnel were subject to Rule 4.2, as clarified by the Court's October 3, 2001 Order. 10. Joshua violated Rule 4.2 and engaged in numerous ex parte communications with LRSD's Director of PRE, Dr. Karen DeJame~te, without notice to or the consent of LRSD counsel. Consistent with Rule 4.2 and the Court's orders, LRSD's senior administrators directed Dr. DeJamette not to communicate with Joshua without LRSD counsel present. Nevertheless, Joshua succeeded in convincing Dr. DeJamette that she had a duty to communicate with Joshua regarding the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Many of these communications occurred after Joshua filed its June 21, 2006 request for a hearing, and thus, LRSD counsel's consent was required before communications with the District officials and personnel pertaining to the 2004 Compliance Remedy. See Order filed October 3, 2001, p. 3. I 1. Joshua's unethical communications with Dr. DeJamette clearly prejudiced the Board in this case. During a September 18, 2006 ex parte meeting with Dr. DeJarnette, Springer testified that Dr. DeJamette agreed \"that the Court wanted the District -- specifically PRE -- to be cooperative, not only with ODM, but Joshua as well.\" See Springer 12/7/2006, p. 35-38. Dr. DeJamette's belief that she was being ordered to violate the Court's orders caused Dr. DeJamette to \"fe[el] estranged (if not driven) from LRSD's and its counsel's rapport and progressively cooperative with both ODM and Joshua .. \" See Joshua's Objections, Compliance History, p. 3 of 5 (Docket No. 4058). This estrangement resulted in Dr. DeJarnette filing an employee grievance alleging \"interference on the part of LRSD with her duties understood from the Compliance Remedy . . . \" and recommending that the District's senior administrators be \"replac[ed]\" because they were \"not trustworthy.\" See Joshua's Objections, Compliance History, pp. 3-4 of 5. Dr. Page 7 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 8 of 15 DeJarnette's grievance against LRSD's senior administrators now provides the basis for Joshua's allegations in this case. In other words, Joshua's allegations represent one side of an internal, personnel dispute that arose, at least in part, due to Joshua's conduct.3 C. Burden of Proof. 12. The Revised Plan 11 placed the burden on Joshua to establish noncompliance. In evaluating the Board's compliance with the 2002 Compliance Remedy, the Court stated: While  11 of the Revised Plan contained the parties' binding contractual agreement on the allocation of the burden of proof, for purposes of the unitary status hearings, that section of the Revised Plan no longer controls my decision on whether LRSD has met its obligations under the (2002] Compliance Remedy. It is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy. [citations omitted]. Thus, I conclude that LRSD has the burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence that it has substantially complied with each of the obligations contained in subparts A, B, and C of the (2002] Compliance Remedy. - Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 37. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit did not address the burden of proof. However, the Eighth Circuit made it clear that there were no constitutional issues remaining in this case: \"LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 are clearly contractual '. matters.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 531. Consequently, the Court finds that traditional contract principles should govern allocation of the burden of proof. Thus, Joshua, the party alleging noncompliance, bears the burden of proof. Hydrotex Industries v. Sharp, 212 Ark. 886, 208 S.W.2d 183 (1948). 3This Court has authority to sanction counsel for Joshua for violating Rule 4.2 and orders of this Court pertaining thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2); Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1125-26 (E.D. Ark. 1999); Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 790 (8th Cir. 1998); Meat Price Investigators Ass'n v. Spencer Foods, Inc., 572 F.2d 163, 165 (8th Cir. 1978). Joshua's ex parte communications with Dr. DeJarnette violated Rule 4.2 and the Court's Orders of June 29, 2001 (Docket No. 3448), August 20, 2001 (Docket No. 3483), and October 3, 2001 (Docket No. 3575). The Court will determine an appropriate sanction at a future hearing. Page 8 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 8 of 15 DeJarnette's grievance against LRSD's senior administrators now provides the basis for Joshua's allegations in this case. In other words, Joshua's allegations represent one side of an internal, personnel dispute that arose, at least in part, due to Joshua's conduct.3 C. Burden of Proof. 12. The Revised Plan 11 placed the burden on Joshua to establish noncompliance. In evaluating the Board's compliance with the 2002 Compliance Remedy, the Court stated: While  11 of the Revised Plan contained the parties' binding contractual agreement on the allocation of the burden of proof, for purposes of the unitary status hearings, that section of the Revised Plan no longer controls my decision on whether LRSD has met its obligations under the [2002) Compliance Remedy. It is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy. [citations omitted]. Thus, I conclude that LRSD has the burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence that it has substantially complied with each of the obligations contained in subparts A, B, and C of the (2002) Compliance Remedy. - Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 37. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit did not address the burden of proof. However, the Eighth Circuit made it clear that there were no constitutional issues remaining in this case: \"LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 are clearly contractual \\ matters.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 531. Consequently, the Court finds that traditional contract principles should govern allocation of the burden of proof. Thus, Joshua, the party alleging noncompliance, bears the burden of proof. Hydrotex Industries v. Sharp, 212 Ark. 886, 208 S.W.2d 183 (1948). 3This Court has authority to sanction counsel for Joshua for violating Rule 4.2 and orders of this Court pertaining thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2); Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1125-26 (E.D. Ark. 1999); Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 790 (8th Cir. 1998); Meat Price Investigators Ass'n v. Spencer Foods, Inc., 572 F.2d 163, 165 (8th Cir. 1978). Joshua's ex parte communications with Dr. DeJamette violated Rule 4.2 and the Court's Orders of June 29, 2001 (Docket No. 3448), August 20, 2001 (Docket No. 3483), and October 3, 2001 (Docket No. 3575). The Court will determine an appropriate sanction at a future hearing. Page 8 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 9 of 15 With these considerations in mind, the Court turns to the issue of whether LRSD substantially complied with Paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. D. 13. The Board's Efforts to Comply with Paragraph B. The Board made a sincere, good faith effort to satisfy the requirements of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Board employed Dr. Karen DeJarnette to lead PRE and a team of highly trained professionals. The Board approved regulation IL-R, the comprehensive program evaluation process. The Board approved and filed eight Quarterly Updates. Finally, the Board approved and filed the eight step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 14. Sometime in the summer of 2006, Springer learned of a disagreement between Dr. DeJarnette and her immediate supervisor, Dr. Olivine Roberts, and filed an affidavit based on information provided by Dr. DeJamette. See Docket No. 4024. On November 13, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette recommended to the Board that the Superintendent, Dr. Roy Brooks, and other senior administrators (presumably including Dr. Roberts) be terminated for impeding her ability to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On December 1, 2006, Dr. Brooks suspended Dr. DeJarnette and recommended her termination for insubordination, among other things. On January 8, 2006, the Board rejected Dr. Brooks recommendation and reinstated Dr. DeJarnette as Director of PRE. 15. Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette disagreed about what the \"deeply embedded\" requirement of Paragraph B required the District to do.4 Dr. DeJarnette viewed school portfolios as necessary for the District to meet the deeply embedded requirement of Paragraph B, and thus, 4Paragraph B stated, \"The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process .. . . [T]he comprehensive program assessment process must be Page 9 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 9 of 15 With these considerations in mind, the Court turns to the issue of whether LRSD substantially complied with Paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. D. The Board's Efforts to Comply with Paragraph B. 13. The Board made a sincere, good faith effort to satisfy the requirements of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Board employed Dr. Karen DeJarnette to lead PRE and a team of highly trained professionals. The Board approved regulation IL-R, the comprehensive program evaluation process. The Board approved and filed eight Quarterly Updates. Finally, the Board approved and filed the eight step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 14. Sometime in the summer of 2006, Springer learned of a disagreement between Dr. DeJarnette and her immediate supervisor, Dr. Olivine Roberts, and filed an affidavit based on information provided by Dr. DeJarnette. See Docket No. 4024. On November 13, 2006, Dr. - DeJarnette recommended to the Board that the Superintendent, Dr. Roy Brooks, and other senior adIIllnistrators (presumably including Dr. Roberts) be terminated for impeding her ability to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On December 1, 2006, Dr. Brooks suspended Dr. , DeJamette and recommended her termination for insubordination, among other things. On January 8, 2006, the Board rejected Dr. Brooks recommendation and reinstated Dr. DeJarnette as Director of PRE. 15. Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette disagreed about what the \"deeply embedded\" requirement of Paragraph B required the District to do.4 Dr. DeJarnette viewed school portfolios as necessary for the District to meet the deeply embedded requirement of Paragraph B, and thus, 4Paragraph B stated, \"The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process .... [T]he comprehensive program assessment process must be Page 9 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 10 of 15 foresaw implementing school portfolios during the term of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. DeJarnette planned to use Dr. Victoria Bernhardt (at a cost to LRSD of $5,000 per day), a nationally recognized expert on school improvement, to train school and District portfolio teams. Dr. Bernhardt invented the term \"school portfolio\" to describe her comprehensive school improvement plan. She defined a school portfolio as follows: A school portfolio is a purposeful collection of work telling the story of the school. A school portfolio describes efforts to engender and maintain systemic and continuous school improvement; it exhibits the schools goals, vision, plan and progress. A school portfolio allows for the continuous collection and assessment of evidence and is always evolving, growing, improving, and enabling school personnel to make better decisions. Victoria L. Bernhardt, The School Portfolio: A Comprehensive Framework for School Improvement (2d Ed. 1999), p. 9. Dr. Bernhardt stated that school _{)ortfolios served the following purposes: establish one document that describes an overall school plan, and the scho,ol' s mission, vision, beliefs, and ratioriale for improvement; document efforts on a number of elements important to school wide improvement; understand the complexities of the schoor org_anization; provide readily accessible and necessary information for data-based decision making; reflect on progress and purpose; trouble-shoot the continuous improvement efforts of the school; assess and guide the school's unique approach to continuous improvement; be accountable; and communicate. Id., p. 10-11. Notably absent from this list is evaluation of academic programs. 16. Dr. Roberts agreed that the District should implement school portfolios but did not believe the District was ready to implement them during the term of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. Roberts wanted to put the infrastructure in place to prepare schools for deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program.\" Page 10 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 10 of 15 foresaw implementing school portfolios during the term of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. DeJarnette planned to use Dr. Victoria Bernhardt (at a cost to LRSD of $5,000 per day), a nationally recognized expert on school improvement, to train school and District portfolio teams. Dr. Bernhardt invented the term \"school portfolio\" to describe her comprehensive school improvement plan. She defined a school portfolio as follows: A school portfolio is a purposeful collection of work telling the story of the school. A school portfolio describes efforts to engender and maintain systemic and continuous school improvement; it exhibits the schools goals, vision, plan and progress. A school portfolio allows for the continuous collection and assessment of evidence and is always evolving, growing, improving, and enabling school personnel to make better decisions. Victoria L. Bernhardt, The School Portfolio: A Comprehensive Framework for School Improvement (2d Ed. 1999), p. 9. Dr. Bernhardt stated that school portfolios served the following purposes: establish one document that describes an overall school plan, and the scho?l' s mission, vision, beliefs, and rationale for improvement; document efforts on a number of elements important to school wide improvement; understand the complexities of the school org~ization; provide readily accessible and necessary information for data-based decision making; reflect on progress and purpose; trouble-shoot the continuous improvement efforts of the school; assess and guide the school's unique approach to continuous improvement; be accountable; and communicate. Id., p. 10-11 . Notably absent from this list is evaluation of academic programs. 16. Dr. Roberts agreed that the District should implement school portfolios but did not believe the District was ready to implement them during the term of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. Roberts wanted to put the infrastructure in place to prepare schools for deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD' s curriculum and instruction program.\" Page 10 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 11 of 15 implementation of school portfolios. Dr. Bernhardt's testimony supported the need for this. Discussing implementation of school portfolios, she stated that \"in order to get people ... using data on an ongoing basis in a way that they maybe haven't done it before, there has to be new structures put in place ... \" Dr. Bernhardt, 1/10/2007, p. 11. Moreover, Dr. Roberts did not believe school portfolios were related to deeply embedding IL-R because school portfolios are not necessary for program assessment. Again, Dr. Bernhardt's testimony supports Dr. Roberts. She testified that school portfolios are not necessary for program evaluation. See Dr. Bernhardt, 1/10/2007, p. 54. Dr. Bernhardt further testified: Q. Can you embed the comprehensive program assessment process into the curriculum of the district without development of school portfolios? A. Yes. See Dr. Bernhardt 1/10/2007, p. 25. Dr. Bernhardt went on to explain that the school portfolio is only a framework for using data to improve achievement. See Dr. Bernhardt 1/10/2007, p. 25. Dr. Roberts testified that the District already has in place a framework for using data to improve achjevement mandated by the State known as the Arkansas Consolidated School Improvement Planning (ACSIP) model. In short, school portfolios, like ACSIP plans and Student Online Achievement Reports (SOAR)5, are good ways to use data for school improvement but are not necessary to assess \"academic programs\" as required by Revised Plan 2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy. (emphasis in original). 5SOAR is a Public Education Foundation and District project that provides a formative assessment of student learning which is aligned to the State Benchmark exam. SOAR can be used to assist schools and teachers in immediately assessing students' strengths and weaknesses, improving instruction, and increasing student achievement. Page 11 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 11 of 15 implementation of school portfolios. Dr. Bernhardt's testimony supported the need for this. Discussing implementation of school portfolios, she stated that \"in order to get people . .. using data on an ongoing basis in a way that they maybe haven't done it before, there has to be new structures put in place . . . \" Dr. Bernhardt, 1/10/2007, p. 11. Moreover, Dr. Roberts did not believe school portfolios were related to deeply embedding IL-R because school portfolios are not necessary for program assessment. Again, Dr. Bernhardt's testimony supports Dr. Roberts. She testified that school portfolios are not necessary for program evaluation. See Dr. Bernhardt, 1/10/2007, p. 54. Dr. Bernhardt further testified: Q. Can you embed the comprehensive program assessment process into the curriculum of the district without development of school portfolios? A. Yes. See Dr. Bernhardt 1/10/2007, p. 25. Dr. Bernhardt went on to explain that the school portfolio is only a framework for using data to improve achievement. See Dr. Bernhardt 1/10/2007, p. 25. Dr. Roberts testified that the District already has in place a framework for using data to improve achievement mandated by the State known as the Arkansas Consolidated School Improvement Planning (ACSIP) model. fu short, school portfolios, like ACSIP plans and Student Online Achievement Reports (SOAR)5, are good ways to use data for school improvement but are not necessary to assess \"academic programs\" as required by Revised Plan 2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy. (emphasis in original). 5SOAR is a Public Education Foundation and District project that provides a formative assessment of student learning which is aligned to the State Benchmark exam. SOAR can be used to assist schools and teachers in immediately assessing students' strengths and weaknesses, improving instruction, and increasing student achievement. Pagellof 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 12 of 15 17. Thus, the District has not yet implemented school portfolios. The District currently plans to implement school portfolios during the 2007-2008 school year. See LRSD's Revised Compliance Report, \u0026lt;J[ 15 (Docket No. 4055). 18. The Court finds that school portfolios, like ACSIP Plans and SOAR, are beneficial ways to use data to improve student achievement but were not necessary for the Board to comply with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Court required a comprehensive program assessment process, and it's clear that LRSD's programs can be, and have been, assessed. The Court finds that the Board substantially complied with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy based on the following evidence: (a) the Board reinvigorated PRE by hiring a team of highly qualified professionals; (b) the Board approved IL-R, the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004; (c) the Board implemented - IL-R by annually adopting a program evaluation agenda; (d) the District constructed a \"data warehouse\" to facilitate program assessment; (e) PRE began development of a District portfolio; (f) the District made program decisions based on the recommendations included in the eight evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy; and (f) the Board passed a resolution affirming its commitment to IL-Rand improving African-American achievement. 19. The Board reinvigorated PRE and now has a highly qualified staff in place capable of doing quality program assessments. In addition to Dr. DeJarnette, PRE has three statisticians on staff, Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams. The District plans to hire a fourth statistician to increase its ability to assess programs without using expensive, outside consultants. 20. The District devised a comprehensive program assessment process, IL-R, in accordance with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. As the Court suggested, the Page 12 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 12 of 15 17. Thus, the District has not yet implemented school portfolios. The District currently plans to implement school portfolios during the 2007-2008 school year. See LRSD's Revised Compliance Report,\u0026lt;][ 15 (Docket No. 4055). 18. The Court finds that school portfolios, like ACSIP Plans and SOAR, are beneficial ways to use data to improve student achievement but were not necessary for the Board to comply with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Court required a comprehensive program assessment process, and it's clear that LRSD's programs can be, and have been, assessed. The Court finds that the Board substantially complied with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy based on the following evidence: (a) the Board reinvigorated PRE by hiring a team of highly qualified professionals; (b) the Board approved IL-R, the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004; (c) the Board implemented IL-R by annually adopting a program evaluation agenda; (d) the District constructed a \"data warehouse\" to facilitate program assessment; (e) PRE began development of a District portfolio; (f) the District made program decisions based on the recommendations included in the eight evaiuations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy; and (t) the Board passed a resolution affirming its commitment to IL-Rand improving African-American achievement. 19. The Board reinvigorated PRE and now has a highly qualified staff in place . capable of doing quality program assessments. In addition to Dr. DeJarnette, PRE has three statisticians on staff, Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams. The District plans to hire a fourth statistician to increase its ability to assess programs without using expensive, outside consultants. 20. The District devised a comprehensive program assessment process, IL-R, in accordance with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. As the Court suggested, the Page 12 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 13 of 15 District used Dr. Ross to assist in developing IL-R. The District shared the proposed IL-R with ODM and Joshua more than a month in advance of it being approved by the Board. IL-R was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004 with no objection being raised by either ODM or Joshua. 21. The Board implemented IL-R by annually adopting a program evaluation agenda recommended by PRE. In addition to the eight step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the Board approved the evaluation of District's magnet schools and programs. 22. The District contracted with the Janis Group to construct a \"data warehouse\" to facilitate program assessment and the future implementation of school portfolios. Larry Naeyaert of the Janis Group testified about his work for the District. He explained that a data - warehouse is a comprehensive database that allows for quick and easy access to and analysis of District data. The District's data warehouse consists of four data marts: student, assessment, financial and employee. As a part of constructing and maintaining the data warehouse, the District hired a full time employee to detect and resolve data errors and to train District employees to prevent errors during data entry. PRE has been trained on the use of the data warehouse and has full and complete access to all four data marts. The data warehouse will make it easier for PRE to conduct program evaluations or assessments in the future. 23, In the summer of 2005, PRE traveled to California for training by Dr. Bernhardt and began development of a District portfolio. The District portfolio is an ongoing process, but the District has several important components in place. In the future, PRE may use the District portfolio to identify programs for assessment pursuant to IL-R. Page 13 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 13 of 15 District used Dr. Ross to assist in developing IL-R. The District shared the proposed IL-R with ODM and Joshua more than a month in advance of it being approved by the Board. IL-R was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004 with no objection being raised by either ODM or Joshua. 21. The Board implemented IL-R by annually adopting a program evaluation agenda recommended by PRE. In addition to the eight step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the Board approved the evaluation of District's magnet schools and programs. 22. The District contracted with the Janis Group to construct a \"data warehouse\" to facilitate program assessment and the future implementation of school portfolios. Larry Naeyaert of the Janis Group testified about his work for the District. He explained that a data - warehouse is a comprehensive database that allows for quick and easy access to and analysis of District data. The District's data warehouse consists of four data marts: student, assessment, financial and employee. As a part of constructing and maintaining the data warehouse, the District hired a full time employee to detect and resolve data errors and to train District employees to prevent errors during data entry. PRE has been trained on the use of the data warehouse and has full and complete access to all four data marts. The data warehouse will make it easier for PRE to conduct program evaluations or assessments in the future. 23, In the summer of 2005, PRE traveled to California for training by Dr. Bernhardt and began development of a District portfolio. The District portfolio is an ongoing process, but the District has several important components in place. In the future, PRE may use the District portfolio to identify programs for assessment pursuant to IL-R. Page 13 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 14 of 15 24. The 2004 Compliance Remedy required the outside evaluators to include recommendations for program modifications in the eight step 2 evaluations. After the evaluations were completed, PRE reconvened the evaluation teams to consider the recommended modifications. Based on the recommendations of the evaluation teams, the District has implemented program modifications consistent with the evaluator's recommendations. 25. On November 16, 2006, the Board renewed its commitment to deeply embedding the 2004 Compliance Remedy by passing the following resolution: It is the intention of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to continue to assess Little Rock School District programs, particularly those programs designed to improve and remediate the achievement of African-American students, and to modify or replace programs which are not working, even after LRSD is released from Court supervision. It is further the intention of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to continue to follow the comprehensive program assessment process approved by the Board on December 16, 2004, even after LRSD is released from federal court supervision. See Board Exhibit 5. The Court ordered the Board to attend the hearing. Several Board members provided testimony that assured the Court that the District intends to continue using its comprehensive program assessment process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of its curriculum and instruction programs at improving the academic achievement of African-American students. 26. The need for this Court's monitoring and supervision of the Board has come to an end. Whatever challenges the Board faces in the future, \"these challenges are better met by communities than by courts.\" Keyes v. Congress of Hispanic Educators, 902 F.Supp. 1274, 1307 (D. Colo. 1995). The Board is now unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. All supervision and monitoring of the Board is terminated forthwith. Respectfully submitted, Page 14 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 14 of 15 24. The 2004 Compliance Remedy required the outside evaluators to include recommendations for program modifications in the eight step 2 evaluations. After the evaluations were completed, PRE reconvened the evaluation teams to consider the recommended modifications. Based on the recommendations of the evaluation teams, the District has implemented program modifications consistent with the evaluator's recommendations. 25. On November 16, 2006, the Board renewed its commitment to deeply embedding the 2004 Compliance Remedy by passing the following resolution: It is the intention of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to continue to assess Little Rock School District programs, particularly those programs designed to improve and remediate the achievement of African-American students, and to modify or replace programs which are not working, even after LRSD is released from Court supervision. It is further the intention of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to continue to follow the comprehensive program assessment process approved by the Board on December 16, 2004, even after LRSD is released from federal court supervision. See Board Exhibit 5. The Court ordered the Board to attend the hearing. Several Board members provided testimony that assured the Court that the District intends to continue using its comprehensive program assessment process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of its curriculum and instruction programs at improving the academic achievement of African-American students. 26. The need for this Court's monitoring and supervision of the Board has come to an end. Whatever challenges the Board faces in the future, \"these challenges are better met by communities than by courts.\" Keyes v. Congress of Hispanic Educators, 902 F.Supp. 1274, 1307 (D. Colo. 1995). The Board is now unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. All supervision and monitoring of the Board is terminated forthwith. Respectfully submitted, Page 14 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 15 of 15 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 15, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us scott.richardson@ag.state.ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 15 of 15 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 15 of 15 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 15, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us scott.richardson@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@j lj .com johnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 15 of 15 /s/ Christopher Heller \"Lisa Walters (ADE)\" \u0026lt;Lisa. Walters@arkansas.gov \u0026gt; 01/10/2007 03:26 PM Lisa Walters ADE Attorney's Office -----Original Message----From: Lisa Walters (ADE) To \u0026lt;clerksoffice@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; cc bee Subject FW: amended notice to file in lrsd v pcssd, no. 4:82-cv-866 wrw; cause doc no. 4083 Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 3:01 PM To: ' clerksoffice@are.uscourts.gov ' Subject : amended notice to file in lrsd v pcssd, no. 4 :82-cv-866 wrw; cause doc no. 4083 See attached cover letter and amended notice of filing which you requested. Lisa Walters ADE Attorney\"s Office -----Original Message--- - - From: Toshiba 350 ATT [mailto:ToshibaATT@ADE~CAMPUSl) Sent : Monday, January 08, 2007 1:58 PM To: Lisa Walters (ADE) Subject : Scanned from att350 [LWalters_Mail Scan) 01 / 08 / 2007 14:58 Sc;anned from att350. LWalters_Mail Scan Date: 01/08 / 2007 14: 58 Pages:3 Resolution:200x200 DPI Please see attached PDF for your file. -m D0C070108.pdf MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_ support@ared.uscourts .gov To:ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain  essage-Id: \u0026lt;8l87 57@ared . uscourts.gov\u0026gt; cc : Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Notice of Docket Correction \" Content-Type : text / plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U .S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 1/11/2007 at 8:56 AM CST and filed on 1/11/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http : //ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4090 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4090,26052 ,, MAGIC,,,2005584 Docket Text: NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re: [4083) Notice of Filing. CORRECTION : The o.riginal document was submitted in error (contained an incorrect date identifier); the correct document was added to docket entry (4083] , and the docket text was modified to correct the description of the document filed as \"NOTICE of Filing the Project Management Tool for December , 2006\" based on the attached correspondence. (thd) A The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : ~ ocument description: Main Document Original filename : n/a - Electronic 'document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=l/11/2007) [FileNumber=818756-0] [8d484cl6b5ldf4bec702ccb4b6fld02c4c52d7458fa27a43825a6157f84562c8c5618a66d2702dc ec7b8flb9d77d402f7458f4b3ad7e374f0ea77035baffc295)] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo . com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net , brendak@fec . net; tmiller@fec . net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate . jones@jlj .com; linda . calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw .net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Scott Paris Richardson scott . richardson@arkansasag . gov , patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov; agcivil@arkansasag.gov John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol . com; jspringer@gabrielmail . com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by othe r means to : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund , Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street RECEIVED JAN 12 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013  imothy Gerard Gauger rkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P . Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 \\ Case : 4 : 82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth .lames, Commissioner .Educatii'n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org January 30, 2007 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 RECEIVED 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 ill FEB 2 - 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of January 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feeJ free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson, Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for January 2007. Respectfully Submitted, \u0026amp;~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on January 30, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,m Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 _Jg~ RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB 2 - 2007 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 iri 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 mq~th, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"hbcula_becu_312","title":"Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed Day, circa 2012","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2007/2012"],"dcterms_description":["This video features footage from Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed Day. This event honors Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed, the fifth president of Bethune-Cookman College. In 2007, during her presidency, Bethune-Cookman College became Bethune-Cookman University. At 01:36:15, Dr. Reed joins the Bethune-Cookman University cheerleaders and is presented with an award. This video concludes with Dr. Reed's remarks and a prayer."],"dc_format":["video/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American women","College presidents","Universities and colleges--Employees","Special events"],"dcterms_title":["Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed Day, circa 2012"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/312"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. http://www.cookman.edu/academics/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["born digital","dvds"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aru_unequal_1037","title":"Eureka Springs Domestic Partnership Ordinance","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":["City of Eureka Springs"],"dc_date":["2007"],"dcterms_description":["The city of Eureka Springs became the first city in Arkansas to offer domestic partnerships to same-sex couples, when it enacted Ordinance 2052 in 2007.","Gays and Lesbians -- Homosexuality -- Eureka Springs (Ark.) -- Eureka Springs -- Carroll"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["City of Eureka Springs"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Eureka Springs Domestic Partnership Ordinance"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/1037"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aru_unequal_1035","title":"Eureka Springs Domestic Partnership Ordinance","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":["City of Eureka Springs"],"dc_date":["2007"],"dcterms_description":["The city of Eureka Springs became the first city in Arkansas to offer domestic partnerships to same-sex couples, when it enacted Ordinance 2052 in 2007.","Gays and Lesbians -- Homosexuality -- Eureka Springs (Ark.) -- Eureka Springs -- Carroll"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["City of Eureka Springs"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Eureka Springs Domestic Partnership Ordinance"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/1035"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aru_unequal_1036","title":"Eureka Springs Domestic Partnership Ordinance","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":["City of Eureka Springs"],"dc_date":["2007"],"dcterms_description":["The city of Eureka Springs became the first city in Arkansas to offer domestic partnerships to same-sex couples, when it enacted Ordinance 2052 in 2007.","Gays and Lesbians -- Homosexuality -- Eureka Springs (Ark.) -- Eureka Springs -- Carroll"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["City of Eureka Springs"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Eureka Springs Domestic Partnership Ordinance"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/1036"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aru_unequal_1038","title":"Eureka Springs Domestic Partnership Ordinance","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":["City of Eureka Springs"],"dc_date":["2007"],"dcterms_description":["The city of Eureka Springs became the first city in Arkansas to offer domestic partnerships to same-sex couples, when it enacted Ordinance 2052 in 2007.","Gays and Lesbians -- Homosexuality -- Eureka Springs (Ark.) -- Eureka Springs -- Carroll"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["City of Eureka Springs"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Eureka Springs Domestic Partnership Ordinance"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/1038"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":263,"next_page":264,"prev_page":262,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3144,"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}}]}}